content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
The construction of the ultra-violet(UV) complete theory of gravity
has been an intriguing subject of discussions for theoretical
physics of the past fifty years. The discussion has been recently
concentrated on the UV complete theory in space and time with an
anisotropic scaling in a Lifshitz fixed
point~\cite{Lifshitz,Horava:2008jf,Horava:2008ih,Horava:2009uw,Horava:2009if}.
In particular, this theory is very attractive since pertubative
renormalizability is realized as well as Lorentz symmetry is
recovered in low energy regime in spite of being broken the Lorentz
symmetry in high energy.
Ho${\check {\bf r}}$ava-Lifshitz gravity (HL) has been studied in
various directions, which are categorized into two. One is investigating
and developing the properties of the HL theory itself~
\cite{Visser:2009fg}--\cite{Blas:2009ck}. The other is
applying this theory to cosmological framework including the black hole
solutions~\cite{Lu:2009em}--\cite{Greenwald:2009kp}
and their thermodynamic prosperities~\cite{Myung:2009dc}--\cite{Majhi:2009xh}.
The metric in the (3+1)-dimensional ADM decomposition can be written
as
\begin{align}
ds^{2}=-N^2dt^2+g_{ij}\left(dx^i+N^idt\right)\left(dx^j+N^jdt\right),
\label{met1}
\end{align}
where $N(t,x^{i})$ denotes the lapse function, $g_{ij}(t,x^{i})$ is
the spatial metric, and $N_{i}(t,x^{i})$ is the shift function.
Then, the Einstein-Hilbert action can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{EHa}
S_{\rm EH}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{g}N(K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2+R-2\Lambda),
\end{align}
where $G$ is Newton's constant and the extrinsic curvature for a spacelike
hypersurface with a fixed time is
\begin{align}
K_{ij}\equiv
\frac{1}{2N}\left({\dot{g_{ij}}}-\nabla_iN_j-\nabla_jN_i\right).
\end{align}
Here, a dot denotes a derivative with respect to $t$ and covariant derivatives
defined with respect to the spatial metric $g_{ij}$.
The IR-modified HL action with asymptotically flat limit is given by
~\cite{Horava:2009uw,Nastase:2009nk,Kehagias:2009is}
\begin{align}\label{ac1}
S_{{\rm HL}} =&\int dt\, d^{3}x\,\sqrt{g} N({\cal L}_{{\rm IR}}+{\cal
L}_{{\rm UV}}),\\
{\cal L}_{{\rm IR}}=&{2\over \kappa^2}(K_{ij}K^{ij}-\lambda K^2)
{+\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2 }{8(1-3\lambda)}
\left[\left(\Lambda-\omega \right)R-3\Lambda^2\right]},
\label{LIR}\\
{\cal L}_{{\rm UV}}=&-{\kappa^2\over 2\nu^4}\left(C_{ij}-\frac{\mu
\nu^{2}}{2}R_{ij}\right) \left(C^{ij}-\frac{\mu \nu^{2}}{2}R^{ij}\right)
+\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2(1-4\lambda)}{32(1-3\lambda)}R^2, \label{LUV}
\end{align}
where $R$ and $R_{ij}$ are three-dimensional scalar curvature and Ricci tensor, and
the Cotton tensor is given by
\begin{align}
C^{ij}=
\frac{\epsilon^{ikl}}{\sqrt{g}}\nabla_k\left({R^j}_l-\frac{1}{4}R\delta^{j}_{\;l}\right).
\label{Co1}
\end{align}
The action has parameters, $\kappa,\lambda,\nu,\mu,\Lambda,$ and $\omega$.
In the limit of vanishing cosmological constant $\Lambda\rightarrow 0$, one compares the IR-modified action
(\ref{ac1}) with the (3+1)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action (\ref{EHa}) and
reads the parameter $\lambda$, the speed of light $c$, Newton's constant $G$ as
\begin{align}
\lambda=1,\quad
c^2=\frac{\kappa^4\mu^2\omega}{32},\quad
G= \frac{\kappa^2}{32\pi c}.
\label{con1}
\end{align}
Recently, HL gravity coupled to electrostatic field of a point charge is considered and an exact
solution is found, describing a space with either a surplus or
deficit solid angle is found~\cite{Kim:2009dq}. The surplus angle due to an ordinary matter
with positive energy density in~\cite{Kim:2009dq} is not well matched with known result
of GR in which it can usually be materialized by the source of negative mass or
energy. However, from cosmological point of view, one finds
the detailed balance condition leads to obstacles~\cite{Nastase:2009nk,Calcagni:2009qw}.
Furthermore by introducing
a soft violation of the detailed balance condition, they show that their results
are consistent with them of GR~\cite{Kehagias:2009is}.
Thus one intriguing question is whether IR-modified HL theory coupled to matter field
reproduces them of GR.
In this paper, we address this question. We consider IR-modified HL in presence of
the global monopole, and find a spherically symmetric solution describing a space with
deficit solid angle.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, vacuum solutions are discussed under spherical
symmetry. In section 3, we obtain the deficit solid angle due to the solution of IR modified HL
gravity with the global monopole. Finally, we give a conclusion.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Vacuum Solutions under Spherical Symmetry}\label{sec2}
Let us investigate a spherically symmetric solution with the static metric ansatz
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-{\cal F}(r)e^{2\rho(r)}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{{\cal F}(r)}+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
d\varphi^2). \label{rmet}
\end{equation}
Since all the components of Cotton tensor vanish under this metric,
the action (\ref{ac1}) reduces to
\begin{align}
S_{{\rm HL}} =& 4\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{0}^{\infty} dr
r^2 \,e^{\rho} \Bigg\{
-\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8}\left[\left(\frac{{\cal F}'}{r}\right)^2
+\frac{2}{r^4}\left(1-{\cal F}-\frac{r{\cal F}'}{2}\right)^2\right]\nonumber\\
&\hspace{30mm}+\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)}
\left[\frac{1-4\lambda}{r^4}(1-{\cal F}-r{\cal F}')^2+{\frac{
2(\Lambda-\omega)}{r^2}(1-{\cal F}-r{\cal F}')}
-3\Lambda^2\right]\Bigg\}
\nonumber\\
=& \frac{\pi\kappa^2\mu^2}{2(3\lambda-1)} \int dt\int dr \,
e^{\rho}\times
\nonumber\\
&\Bigg\{ (1-3\lambda) \Bigg[{\tilde {\cal F}}'^2 +2\Big(\frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}
+\frac{{\tilde {\cal F}}'}{2}\Big)^2 \Bigg] -(1-4\lambda)\Big(\frac{{\tilde
{\cal F}}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)^2 {+2(\Lambda-\omega) r\Big(\frac{{\tilde
{\cal F}}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)}+3\Lambda^2r^2 \Bigg\}, \label{rac}
\end{align}
where ${\tilde {\cal F}}={\cal F}-1$.
Then, the equations of motion are obtained as
\begin{align}
&~\Bigg[(\lambda-1){\tilde {\cal F}}'-\frac{2\lambda}{r}{\tilde {\cal F}}
{-2(\Lambda-\omega) r}\Bigg]\rho'+ (\lambda-1)\tilde {\cal F}'' -
\frac{2(\lambda-1)}{r^{2}}\tilde {\cal F}
=0,
\label{Beq}\\
&~ (1-3\lambda) \Bigg[ {\tilde {\cal F}}'^2+2\Big( \frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}
+\frac{\tilde {\cal F}'}{2} \Big)^2 \Bigg] -(1-4\lambda)\Big(\frac{\tilde
{\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)^2 {+2(\Lambda-\omega) r}
\Big(\frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde
{\cal F}}'\Big)+3\Lambda^2 r^{2}=0. \label{deleq}
\end{align}
We start by giving a brief discussion of the asymptotic behaviors of
the solutions to Eqs.~(\ref{Beq}) and (\ref{deleq}).
In the low energy regime, taking the $\lambda=1$ and
neglecting the quadratic terms in the metric functions,
the equations~(\ref{Beq})--(\ref{deleq}) reduce to the Einstein equations,
which reproduce Schwarzchild solution
in the limit $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$ as we expect
\begin{align}
r\frac{d\rho}{dr}=0, \quad\longrightarrow&\quad
\rho(r)=\rho_0=0,
\label{Beq2}\\
\frac{d}{dr}\left(r{\cal F}\right)=1,
\quad~\longrightarrow&\quad
{\cal F}(r)=1-\frac{M}{r}, \label{deleq2}
\end{align}
where $M$ is an integration constant.
For sufficiently large $r$ at asymptotic region, it is assumed that
the divergence of ${\cal F}(r)$ arises as a power behavior.
A straightforward calculation with Eq. (\ref{deleq}) leads to
\begin{align}
{\cal F}(r)\approx \left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
({\rm I}) &(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\,r^2
& \mbox{for~ arbitrary~~}\lambda \\
({\rm II}) & {\displaystyle {\cal F}_{\rm IR}r^{p}} &
\mbox{for~~}\displaystyle{\lambda>1}
\end{array}
\right. , \label{ccso}
\end{align}
where the coefficient ${\cal F}_{\rm IR}$ is an undetermined constant and
\begin{align}
p=\frac{2\lambda +\sqrt{2(3\lambda -1)}}{\lambda -1}\ .
\label{p}
\end{align}
It is shown that the behavior of the long distance in (I) without a
cosmological constant agrees with that of the leading IR behavior
in (\ref{deleq}). The long distance behavior in (II) seems to imply a new possible
solution which comes from higher derivative terms.
For sufficiently small $r$ at the UV regime, assuming the divergence of $B(r)$ follows
as power behavior
\begin{align}
{\cal F}(r)\sim\frac{\beta}{r^{l}},\qquad (\beta={\rm constant},~l>0),
\end{align}
the leading term in Eq.~(\ref{deleq}) is proportional to $1/r^{2l+2}$.
The contribution to the correction term
due to the soft violation of the detailed balance condition in Eq.~(\ref{deleq})
can be neglected since such contribution is proportional to $1/r^{l}$. Thus,
the leading UV behavior in IR modified HL theory is exactly the same as that in HL theory.
The allowed powers for various $\lambda$ are given as
\begin{align}
{\cal F}(r)\approx \left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
({\rm A}) & 1 & \mbox{for~ arbitrary~~}\lambda \\
({\rm B}) & b &
\mbox{for}~~\displaystyle{\lambda=\frac{1}{2}} \\
({\rm C}) & {\cal F}_{\rm UV+} r^{p}~~\mbox{or}~~{\cal F}_{\rm UV-}r^{q} &
\mbox{for}~~\displaystyle{\frac{1}{3}\le
\lambda<\frac{1}{2}} \\
({\rm D}) & {\cal F}_{\rm UV+} r^{p} &
\mbox{for}~~\displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}<\lambda<1}
\end{array}
\right. , \label{ccsi}
\end{align}
where $b$ denotes an integration constant,
$B_{\rm UV\pm}$ are undetermined constants, $p$ is given in \eqref{ccso},
and $q$ is
\begin{align}
q=\frac{2\lambda -\sqrt{2(3\lambda -1)}}{\lambda -1}\ .
\label{q}
\end{align}
We show that we find new exact vacuum solutions and discuss
how they connect two asymptotes with various value of $\lambda$.
For arbitrary $\lambda$, a solution to the equations~(\ref{Beq})--(\ref{deleq})
obtained as
\begin{align}
{\cal F}=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\,r^2, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0,
\label{vso3}
\end{align}
which connects (I) and (A).
For $\lambda=1/3$, another static exact solution is
\begin{align}
{\cal F}=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\,r^2-\frac{M}{r},
\qquad \rho=\rho_0=0,
\label{vso2}
\end{align}
which reproduces AdS Schwarzschild black hole solution with twice cosmological constant
for $\omega=0$. This result in IR modified HL theory agrees with that
in HL~\cite{Lu:2009em,Kim:2009dq}.
For $\lambda=1$, the known exact solution is obtained by~\cite{Park:2009zra}
\begin{align}
{\cal F}=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2-\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^4+c\,r}, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0,
\label{vso1}
\end{align}
where $c$ is an integration constant. This solution also connects (I) and (A).
In contrast to the exact vacuum solutions in HL theory~\cite{Lu:2009em,Kim:2009dq},
it is not clear how they have connection between (\ref{ccso}) and (\ref{ccsi})
since it seems that there are not other exact solutions in IR modified HL theory except
previous exact solutions (\ref{vso3})--(\ref{vso1}), i.e., there do not exist
exact solutions with covering all range of $\lambda$ for $\lambda\geq1/3$.
It presumably implies that all the vacuum solutions
in IR modified HL theory do not always follows as power behavior.
Horizons and singularities in HL gravity
have been discussed in the previous work~\cite{Kim:2009dq}.
However, we do not deal with them since HL theory does not have full diffeomorphism
invariance and both of the previous concepts are not easy to discern~\cite{Kiritsis:2009rx}.
\section{Global Monopole Solution}\label{sec2}
In the presence of matter field, it is described by action
\begin{align}\label{acma}
S_{\rm m}&=\int dtd^3x \sqrt{g}N~{\cal L}_{{\rm m}}(N,N_i,g_{ij})\\
&=4\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{0}^{\infty} dr r^2
e^{\rho} {\cal L}_{\rm m}({\cal F},\rho).
\end{align}
Then, the equations of motion are given by
\begin{align}
&~\Bigg[(\lambda-1){\tilde {\cal F}}'-\frac{2\lambda}{r}{\tilde {\cal F}}
{-2(\Lambda-\omega) r}\Bigg]\rho'+ (\lambda-1)\tilde {\cal F}'' -
\frac{2(\lambda-1)}{r^{2}}\tilde {\cal F}
=\frac{8(1-3\lambda)r^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm
M}}{\partial {\cal F}},
\label{Beq2}\\
&~ (1-3\lambda) \Bigg[ {\tilde {\cal F}}'^2+2\Big( \frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}
+\frac{\tilde {\cal F}'}{2} \Big)^2 \Bigg] -(1-4\lambda)\Big(\frac{\tilde
{\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde {\cal F}}'\Big)^2 {+2(\Lambda-\omega) r}
\Big(\frac{\tilde {\cal F}}{r}+{\tilde
{\cal F}}'\Big)+3\Lambda^2 r^{2}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{85mm}=\frac{8(1-3\lambda)r^{2}}{\kappa^2\mu^2}\left({\cal
L}_{\rm m} +\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial
\rho}\right). \label{deleq2}
\end{align}
When we consider a global monopole of O(3) linear sigma model and magnetic monopole of
U(1) gauge theory in the HL type field theory, the long distance behavior of the
Lagrangian density in IR regime must be proportional to $1/r^{n}$ irrespective of the
value of $z$ (see Ref.~\cite{Kim:2009dq} for more details)
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial {\cal F}}\approx 0,\qquad {\cal
L}_{\rm m}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial \rho} \approx
-\frac{\gamma}{r^{n}}, \qquad (n=0,1,2,...), \label{M4}
\end{align}
where a constant $\gamma$ is determined by the explicit Lagrangian form
and the monopole configurations of interest.
Positive $\gamma$ can be read off from the energy momentum tensor
of matter fields
and $n$ must be a positive integer in order to get a finite energy.
A straightforward calculation with Eqs. (\ref{Beq2}) and (\ref{deleq2}) leads to
\begin{align}
{\cal F}&=1+\left[(\omega-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2
+\frac{8(n-3)\gamma}{n^2\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}}r^{2-n},\\
\rho&=(2n-3)\ln (r/r_0)+\left(\frac{3}{n}-2\right)\ln
\left[\frac{8\gamma(n-3)^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}-\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)n^3r^n\right],
\label{mso2}
\end{align}
for $n\neq3$ and $\lambda={(n^2-4n+6)}/{n^2}$.
In particular, in the case of $n=3$, there exists solution only by taking $\lambda=1/3$.
Then, matter contributions vanish in \eqref{Beq2} and \eqref{deleq2} when $\lambda=1/3$.
Therefore, such solution exactly goes back to the vacuum solution \eqref{vso2}.
One also finds special solution for $\lambda=1$,
\begin{align}
{\cal F}&=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^4+f\,r
+\frac{16\gamma}{(3-n)\kappa^2\mu^2}r^{4-n}}, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0, \qquad (n\neq3)\\
{\cal F}&=1+(\omega-\Lambda)r^2\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^4+f\,r
+\frac{16\gamma}{\kappa^2\mu^2}r\ln r}, \qquad \rho=\rho_0=0, \qquad (n=3)
\label{mso1}
\end{align}
with an integration constant $f$.
Let us study the details of the global monopole solution.
The O(3) sigma model action is presumably taken as
\begin{align}
S_{{\rm O(3)}}=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g_{4}}\left(-\frac{g^{00}}{2}
\partial_{0}\psi^{a}\partial_{0}\psi^{a} -V\right),
\label{Oir}
\end{align}
where, $\psi^{a}$~$(a=1,2,3)$ denote a scalar fields and $g^{00}=1/N^{2}$.
For simplicity, we assume an ordinary quadratic spatial derivatives and
of a quartic order self-interactions,
\begin{align}
V(\psi^{a},\partial_{i}\psi^{a},...)
=-\frac{g^{ij}}{2}\partial_{i}\psi^{a}\partial_{j}\psi^{a}
-\frac{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}{4}(\psi^{2}-v^{2})^{2},\qquad
\psi^{2}\equiv \psi^{a}\psi^{a},
\label{VIR}
\end{align}
For anisotropic scaling $z=1$ $(n=2)$, the IR action (\ref{Oir}) is
\begin{align}
S_{\rm O(3)}=4\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{0}^{\infty}dr r^2
e^{\rho}\left[-\frac{{\cal F}}{2}\psi'^{\,2}-\frac{\psi^2}{r^2}
-\frac{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}{4}(\psi^2-v^2)^2\right] ,
\end{align}
and, under a hedgehog ansatz
\begin{align}
\psi^{a}={\hat r}^{a}\psi(r)=(\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\,
\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\, \cos\theta) \psi(r),
\label{mnan}
\end{align}
it leads to
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial {\cal F}}=&
-\frac{1}{2}\psi'^{\,2},
\label{mat1}\\
{\cal L}_{\rm m}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial \rho}=&
-\frac{{\cal F}}{2}\psi'^{\,2}-\frac{\psi^2}{r^2}-\frac{\lambda_{{\rm
m}}}{4}(\psi^2-v^2)^2. \label{mat2}
\end{align}
Two boundary conditions of the above equations are imposed by requiring single-valuedness of the
field at the monopole position and finite energy at spacial infinity
\begin{align}
\psi(0)=0,\qquad \psi(\infty)=v. \label{scbc}
\end{align}
From the boundary conditions, one can take the following configuration
\begin{align}
\psi(r)=
\begin{cases}
0,&~ \mbox{for}~~ r\le \displaystyle \frac{1}{v\sqrt{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}},\\
v,&~ \mbox{for}~~ r>\displaystyle \frac{1}{v\sqrt{\lambda_{{\rm m}}}},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
which means the scalar field $\psi(r)$ has vacuum expectation value zero in the region
inside the monopole core and $v$ outside, respectively.
Therefore, the field equations (\ref{mat1})--(\ref{mat2}) near the vacuum reduce to
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial {\cal F}}\approx 0, \qquad {\cal
L}_{\rm m}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\rm m}}{\partial \rho}\approx
-\frac{v^{2}}{r^{2}}.
\label{mat4}
\end{align}
In particular, $\gamma$ in (\ref{M4}) is given as $v^2$ for $n=2$.
Then, the metric function ${\cal F}(r)$ is obtained by
\begin{align}
{\cal F}&=1+\left[(\omega-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2
-\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)}},\\
\rho&=\ln (r/r_0)-\frac{1}{2}\ln\left[\frac{v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}-\omega(\omega-2\Lambda)r^2\right],
\label{mso3}
\end{align}
which leads to
\begin{align}
ds^{2}=&-\frac{1+\left[(w-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2}
{\frac{v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}+\left[-w(w-2\Lambda)+\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2}\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2}dt^2
+\frac{dr^2}{1+\left[(w-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}\right]r^2}\nonumber\\
&+r^{2}\left(1- \frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}\right) (d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2),\label{met2}
\end{align}
after rescaling the coordinates,
\begin{align}
dt\rightarrow \left(1-\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}\right)^{-1}r_0 dt, \qquad dr\rightarrow
\sqrt{1-\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}}\, dr.
\end{align}
The metric \eqref{met2} describes a space with a deficit solid angle
~\cite{Barriola:1989hx,Kim:1996pa,Kim:2009dq},
\begin{align}
4\pi\Delta=\frac{8\pi v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}},\qquad \mbox{for}~~ 0<\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}<1.
\end{align}
In \eqref{met2} a black hole horizon is formed at
\begin{align}
r_{\rm H}=\frac{\frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}-1}{\sqrt{(w-\Lambda)\pm\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}}
\qquad \mbox{for}~~ \frac{2v^2}{\kappa^2\mu^2\sqrt{w(w-2\Lambda)}}\geq1.
\end{align}
These results show two genuine features of GR;
there does not exist a surplus but deficit solid angle and a source
which gives rise to deficit angle is not an electric field
but a scalar field.
In this section, we concentrate on investigating a solid angle in low
energy limit. One can also examine other issues such as a potential in the
UV action and energy configurations near the Lifishitz fixed point as in
~\cite{Kim:2009dq}.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec5}
We introduce HL gravity theory with a soft violation of the detailed
balance condition with/without matter fields of power-law behaviors as $1/r^{n}$
and find various solutions.
The IR-modified HL theory coupled to matter field
for $n = 2$ is of particular interest since such theory has only the deficit solid angle
and source giving rise to deficit angle is the scalar field, which agree
with well known results of GR. It seems to imply the detailed
balance condition should be violated if one applies HL theory as cosmological fame works
and wants to obtain the realistic cosmological results in our universe.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank R.B. Mann for useful discussions and Yoonbai
Kim for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was
supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the
Korean Government (KRF-2008-357-C00018).
|
\section{Introduction}
Predictions of inflation seem to be in agreement with the CMB data \cite{Komatsu2008}.
It is usually assumed that {\it inflaton} is an elementary
scalar field. Based on this assumption and
field evolves slowly, inflation predicts: (i) the power
spectrum of the density fluctuations is almost scale invariant and has
no running.
(ii) tensor to scalar ratio $(r) = 16
\varepsilon_{\rm can}$ where $\varepsilon_{\rm can}$ is slow-roll
parameter. It has been argued that such a relation, if observationally
verified, would offer strong support for the idea of inflation.
In this talk, we critically analyze this claim by considering a model
in which the inflation is not an elementary field. More precisely, we
ask the following question: If the inflaton is not an elementary
field, how robust are these predictions? It is long known that the
role played by inflaton can also be played by the curvature scalar $R$
or logarithm of the radius of compactified
space
or vector meson condensate
or a fermionic condensate. Although there has been intense activity in
several of these cases recently \cite{Ford1989}, the possibility of
fermionic condensate has not been discussed much in the literature
\cite{Boehmer2007i}. We show that a spinor condensate is a viable
alternative model for scalar driven inflation. In FRW space-time, the spinor
condensate has identical acceleration equation while the Friedman
equation is modified. We show that
tensor and scalar spectra have running and satisfy different consistency
relations.
Recently, the
field theory for the eigen spinors of charge conjugation
operator (Majorana spinors) were constructed by Ahluwalia-Khalilova
and Grumiller \cite{Ahluwalia2005} and referred them
as Elkos. They showed that these new spinors possess special
properties under discrete symmetries like Charge ${\cal C}$, parity
${\cal P}$ and Time ${\cal T}$ operators. More precisely, they showed
that ${\cal P}^2 = -1, [{\cal C}, {\cal P}] = 0, ({\cal C}{\cal P}
{\cal T})^2 = -1$. The mass dimensions of these spinors is 1 and the
Elkos ($\lambda(x)$) Lagrangian is:
{\small
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ElkoLag}
\mathfrak{L}_{elko}=
\frac{1}{2}
\left[\frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \nu}(\mathfrak{D}_\mu \usebox{\blambox} \mathfrak{D}_\nu \lambda
+ \mathfrak{D}_\nu \usebox{\blambox} \mathfrak{D}_\mu \lambda) \right]
- V(\usebox{\blambox} \lambda) \, .
\end{equation}
}
where $\lambda(x)$ is the dual and
$\mathfrak{D}_\nu$ is the covariant derivative \cite{ours}.
Elkos have mass dimension one, hence, the only
power counting renormalizable interactions of Elkos with standard
matter particle take place through Higgs doublet or gravity
\cite{Ahluwalia2005}. Elkos are dark matter
candidates \cite{Ahluwalia2005} and are also refereed as dark spinors.
\section{FRW background}
In the case of homogeneous-isotropic FRW background, the Einstein
equations demand that $\lambda$ and $\usebox{\blambox}(x)$ should depend on
single scalar function \cite{Boehmer2007i,ours}
$\lambda(x) = \overline{\varphi}(\eta) \lambda_0;\quad
\usebox{\blambox}(x) = \overline{\varphi}(\eta) \lambda_1
$
where $\lambda_0, \lambda_1$ are constant column and row vectors,
respectively. The acceleration and Friedman equations are then given
by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Eacceleration}
& & {\cal H}' = \frac{1}{3 M_{_{\rm Pl}}^2}
\left[a^2(\eta) V(\overline{\varphi}) - {\overline{\varphi}'}^2(\eta)\right] \\
\label{eq:EFriedmann}
& & \mathcal{H}^2 = \frac{1}{3 M_{_{\rm Pl}}^2}
\left[\frac{{\overline{\varphi}'}^2/2
+ a^2(\eta) V(\overline{\varphi})}{1 + {\mathcal{F}}}\right]
\qquad \quad {\mathcal{F}} = \frac{\overline{\varphi}^2}{8 M_{_{\rm Pl}}^2}
\end{eqnarray}
The following points are worth noting regarding the above results:
(i) The background Elko (and its dual) depend on a single scalar
function $(\overline{\varphi})$ satisfying $ \overline{\usebox{\blambox}}
\overline{\lambda} = \overline{\varphi}^2(\eta)$. This can be
interpreted as an Elko-pair forming a scalar
condensate --- spinflaton.
(ii) The acceleration equation for the spinflaton
(\ref{eq:Eacceleration}) is identical to canonical scalar field
inflation. However, the Friedmann (\ref{eq:EFriedmann}) equations have
non-trivial corrections due to Elko. The Elko modification to the
canonical inflaton equations are determined by ${\mathcal{F}}$.
(iii) The form of the potential and the evolution of the field is completely
different compared to the canonical scalar field.
\section{Linear perturbation}
Let us consider linear perturbation of FRW background in the
longitudinal gauge \cite{Kodama-Sasa:1984}. As in standard inflation,
the tensor perturbations do not couple to the energy density and pressure
inhomogeneities and they are free gravitational waves \cite{Kodama-Sasa:1984}.
However, the scalar perturbations are harder to derive; unlike the
scalar field, Elkos are described by four complex functions which
are related by constraints. The most general perturbed Elko can lead to
the scalar and vector perturbations. Besides, it can also lead to a
non-vanishing anisotropic stress. For simplicity, we will assume that
the anisotropic stress is identically zero.
Perturbation of a spinor has long been studied in spherically
symmetric Skyrmion model using the hedgehog ansatz
\cite{Chodos1975}. We use the similar procedure for the perturbed Elko
and its dual in the case of perturbation theory \cite{ours}.
As in the canonical scalar field, the perturbation equations can be combined
in to a single equation in-terms of modified Mukhanov-Sasaki variable, i. e.,
{\small
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:MSequation}
& & Q'' - \left[\nabla^2 + \frac{z''}{z}
- \ln[1-{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}]''
+ \frac{7 \mathcal{H}' {\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}} }{2}
+ \frac{\mathcal{H} \varepsilon'
{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\varepsilon}\right] Q \simeq 0 \\
& & Q = a \, \delta \varphi + z \, \Psi;~~ z = \left[1- {\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon} \right] (a \overline{\varphi}')/\mathcal{H}~;~~
{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon} = \frac{\cal F}{{\cal F} + \varepsilon}
\end{eqnarray}
}
and $\varepsilon$ is the slow-roll parameter.
Invoking the slow-roll conditions ($\varepsilon, |\delta| \ll 1$) in
the scalar (\ref{eq:MSequation}) and tensor perturbation equations
--- and following the standard quantization
procedure --- the scalar and tensor
power spectra are given by:
{\small
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SPS}
{\cal P}_S(k) \simeq \left(\frac{H^2}{8 M_{_{\rm Pl}}^2 \pi^2}\right)
\left(\frac{\varepsilon + {\mathcal{F}}}{\varepsilon^2}\right)~;~
{\cal P}_T(k) \simeq \left(\frac{2 H^2}{M_{_{\rm Pl}}^2 \pi^2}\right)
\end{equation}
}
\hspace*{-7pt}
The above spectra allow us to draw important conclusions. Firstly,
the scalar and tensor power spectra of the spinflaton, in slow-roll,
are nearly scale-invariant \cite{ours}. Secondly, in the leading order
of $\epsilon_{_{\rm can}}$, the spectra has a non-zero running:
{\small
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d n_S}{d \ln{k}} &=&
-\frac{\varepsilon_{_{\rm can}}}{2}- 4 \varepsilon_{_{\rm can}}
{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}^{1/2} + \frac{\varepsilon_{_{\rm can}}}{2}\frac{{\mathcal{F}}}{1+{\mathcal{F}}}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
}
\hspace*{-7pt} It is interesting to note that the running of scalar spectral
index ($-0.09 < d n_S/d (\ln k) < 0.019$) is consistent with the
WMAP-5 year results \cite{Komatsu2008}. For instance, using the WMAP
value of $\varepsilon_{_{\rm can}} = 0.038$ \cite{Komatsu2008} and
assuming that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is tiny, we get $d n_S/d (\ln k) \sim
-0.019$. This is the one of the main predictions of spinflation.
Thirdly, the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ is no longer equal to $16
\varepsilon_{_{\rm can}}$ and is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:r}
r \simeq 16 \, \varepsilon_{_{\rm can}} \, \left[1- 2 {\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}\right] \, .
\end{equation}
Physically, this suggests that the gravitational wave contribution
during slow-roll spinflation is smaller than for canonical
inflation. Lastly, as for the canonical scalar field, the scalar and
tensor perturbations during spinflation originate from the scalar
condensate and they are not independent. Hence, consistency relations
link them together. The one which is observationally useful is the
relation between $n_{_T}$ and $r$:
{\small
\begin{equation}
n_{_T}=\frac{r}{8} (1+{\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}) \left[ 1
+ \varepsilon_{_{\rm can}}\left[\frac{11}{6} c + {\mathcal{F}}_{\varepsilon}-{\mathcal{F}} \right]
- 2\delta_{_{\rm can}} \, c \right] \, .
\end{equation}
}
\indent To conclude, we have shown that the spinor condensate
in the early universe is a viable model of cosmological inflation. It
leads to the identical acceleration equation as that of canonical
scalar field driven inflation. We have used the Hedgehog ansatz to
obtain the scalar perturbation and, in the slow-roll limit, we have
shown that scalar and tensor perturbations are nearly scale
invariant. The model predicts a running of scalar spectral index
consistent with WMAP-5 year data. The consistency relation between the
scalar and tensor spectra are non-trivial and have different feature
compared to the models where the scalar fields are considered
elementary.
The author wishes to thank Damien Gredat, Christian Boehmer and Roy
Maartens for discussions. The work is supported by the Marie Curie
Incoming International Grant IIF-2006-039205.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Overview}
Consider a geodesic metric space $X$ with geodesic subspace $Y$. Given a pair of points in $Y$, there are two ways to measure the distance between them: we can consider the minimum of the lengths of paths between them that lie entirely in $Y$, or we can allow paths to lie anywhere in $X$. Depending on how $Y$ is embedded in $X$, the latter distance may be much shorter. This idea can be generalized to higher dimensions: given a $(k-1)$-cycle $z$, we call the smallest volume of a $k$-chain whose boundary is $z$ the {\em filling volume} of $z$ and denote this $FV^k(z)$. When $z$ lies in $Y$, there are two possiblities: we may fill $z$ with a chain that lies anywhere in $X$, giving us $FV^k_X(z)$, or we might require that the chain be restricted to the subspace $Y$, which gives us $FV^k_Y(z)$. How do these two volumes compare? The {\em volume distortion function} provides a measurement of the difference in a large-scale sense.
We are particularly interested in the case in which $X$ and $Y$ are spaces on which a group and subgroup act cocompactly and properly discontinuously by isometries. We can always find such spaces by constructing a $K(G,1)$ CW complex that contains a $K(H,1)$ complex and then considering their universal covers. Counting $k$-cells gives us a combinatorial definition of $k$-volume in these spaces. If the Eilenberg-MacLane spaces have a finite $k$-skeleton, that is, $H$ and $G$ are $F_{k}$, then we may speak of \textit{subgroup volume distortion}, by which we mean volume distortion in the spaces on which the groups act.
\begin{definition}
Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$, both $F_{k}$ groups, and let $X$ be the universal cover of an Eilenberg-MacLane space of $G$ and $Y \subset X$ the universal cover of an Eilenberg-MacLane spaces for $H$. The \textit{$k$-volume distortion function} function of $H$ in $G$ is a function $VolD^{k}_{(G, H)}: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ given by
$$VolD^{k}_{G, H}{(n)} = \max \{ FV^{k}_Y(z) \mid z \textup{ is a } (k-1)-\textup{cycle in } Y \textup{ and } FV_X(z) \leq n\}$$
\end{definition}
Notice that if the filling volume is the same in the subspace as the ambient space, we get a linear volume distortion function. Thus we say that a subgroup $H$ is {\em$k$-volume undistorted} in $G$ if the volume distortion function is linear.
While length distortion is well-understood and area distortion has been studied to some extent (see \cite{gersten96}), higher-dimensional volume distortion is new.
We prove a number of foundational facts in \S \ref{theorems}: up to linear terms, the distortion functions of two pairs of quasi-isometric CW-complexes are equivalent (Theorem \ref{qi}), and thus that volume distortion is independent of the choice of spaces. In this section we also provide bounds in terms of $k^{th}$-order Dehn functions and discuss the computability of volume distortion functions. We then compute a number of examples in \S \ref{exs}.
In \cite{gersten96}, Gersten proves that the copy of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ is always area-undistorted in $\mathbb{Z}^2 \rtimes_M \mathbb{Z}$ (note that here $M \in \textrm{GL}(2, \mathbb{Z})$). He gives the following conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}[Gersten, \cite{gersten96}, p. 19]\label{conjgersten}
The group $\mathbb{Z}^k$, $k \geq 3$, is area undistorted in $\mathbb{Z}^k \rtimes_M \mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $M$ is of finite order in $GL(k,\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{conjecture}
In \S \ref{gerstenconj} we prove a generalization of this conjecture; we allow $M$ to be any $m$-by-$m$ integer-entry matrix, and consider the group
$$\Gamma_M = \la x_1, \cdots x_m, t \mid [x_i, x_j] = 1, tx_it^{-1} = \phi(x_i) \text{ for } 1 \leq i, j \leq m \ra,$$ where $\phi$ is a homomorphism taking $x_i$ to $x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2} \cdots x_m^{a_m}$, where the $a_j$ form the $i$th column of $M$. When $\det M = 1$, we can write $\Gamma_M$ as the semidirect product $\mathbb{Z}^m \rtimes_M \mathbb{Z}$. We then prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{areadistthm}
$\mathbb{Z}^m$ is area-undistorted in $\Gamma_M$ if and only if $M$ has finite order.
\end{theorem}
Conjecture \ref{conjgersten} is then the special case when $\det M = 1$.
Theorem \ref{areadistthm} is proved by identifying different cases and calculating a lower bound for the area distortion function in each case. This is illustrated in Figure \ref{areaflow}, which charts the possible cases and the resulting area distortion in each case.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{areadist2.eps}
\caption{Area distortion flow chart. Circles indicate sharp bounds while octogons are lower bounds only; $n^2$ is always an upper bound. The function $W$ is the Lambert $W$ function, that is, the inverse of $xe^x$.}\label{areaflow}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
We generalize this to look at higher volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ in $\Gamma_M$. In the case of diagonalizable matrices, we can characterize the $k$-volume distortion completely.
\begin{theorem}\label{gammamdist}
Let $M$ be an integer-entry $k$-by-$k$ diagonalizable matrix with
$det(M) = d \geq 1$,and let $\lambda_i$ denote the absolute value of the $i^{th}$ eigenvalue. Then the $k$-volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ in $\Gamma_M$ depends only on the eigenvalues of $M$. If $M$ has at least two eigenvalues off the unit circle, the volume distortion is
$$\textrm{VolD}^{(k)}(n) \asymp n^{1 + \log{d}/\log{\alpha}}, \textrm{ where } \alpha = \prod_{i = 1}^{k} \min \{\lambda_i, d\})/d.$$
If $M$ has exactly one eigenvalue off the unit circle,
$$ \textrm{VolD}^{(k)}{n} \asymp (\frac{n^{k}}{W(n)})^{1/(k-1)}.$$
Otherwise, $\textrm{VolD}^{(k)}(n) \asymp n$.
\end{theorem}
Note that here we obtain a sharp bound. When $M$ is not diagonalizable, we provide a lower bound for volume distortion in \S \ref{nondiag}.
We can look more generally at groups of the form $G = H \rtimes_\phi \la t\ra$, where $H$ is any group and $\phi$ is an automorphism on $H$. There is a natural surjection to $\mathbb{Z}$, given by the second factor, that allows us a well-defined notion of {\em height} in the group and in a $\widetilde{K(G,1)}$ such that the height zero subspace is a $\widetilde{K(H,1)}$. Then we can think of $\phi$ as sending a $k$-cell at height $h$ to its image under $\phi$ at height $h$-1. This corresponds to conjugating by $t$ in the group presentation.
The dynamical properties of $\phi$ can thus be used to find bounds on the volume distortion of $H$. In \S \ref{cxitysection} we take the idea of complexity from \cite{gersten96} and alter it, so that the {\em complexity} of $\phi$, denoted $c_k(\phi)$, is the maximal $k$-volume of the image of a $k$-cell.
\begin{theorem}
\label{complexity}
Let $\phi$ be an automorphism on $H$, an $F_{k}$ group, and\\
$m = \max \{c_k(\phi), c_{k}(\phi^{-1}\}$. Then $VolD^{k}_{( H \rtimes \mathbb{Z}, H)}(n) \leq n \cdot m^n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{cor}\label{cxitycor}
When $\phi$ has complexity $m = 1$, then $G$ is $k$-undistorted in $G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$.
\end{cor}
In particular, if a $K(G,1)$ has only one $k$-cell, then $\phi$ must send this $k$-cell to itself, because it induces an automorphism on the $k$-skeleton. Thus the $k$-complexity is one, so $G$ is $k$-undistorted in $G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank my advisor, Benson Farb, for all his input and support; Noel Brady and Max Forester, for providing a key step to the proof of Theorem \ref{abc}; and everyone else whose conversations helped make this paper what it is, including Shmuel Weinberger, Robert Young, Nathan Broaddus, Irine Peng, and Tim Riley.
\section{Background}
Let $G$ be a group with presentation $\la S \mid R \ra$. We say a word in $F(S)$, the free group on $S$, is {\em null-homotopic} if represents the identity in $G$, that is, it can be written as a product of conjugates of relators. The {\em area} of a null-homotopic word is the minimal number of such relators necessary. The Dehn function for $G$, denoted by $\delta: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$, is defined by
$$\delta(n) = \{ A(w) \mid l(w) \leq n\}$$
which provides an upper bound on the area of a word in terms of its length. While this function appears to depend on the presentation, we can create a relation of functions $f \preceq g$ when there exists some $C > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{fneq}
f(x) \leq Cg(Cx+C) + Cx + C
\end{equation}
and we say $f \asymp g$ if $f \preceq g$ and $g \preceq f$. Under this equivalence, the Dehn function is a quasi-isometry invariant, and so in particular independent of presentation.
This function can be used to answer the {\em word problem}, first asked by Dehn in \cite{dehn11}: given a word in $F(S)$, is there an algorithm for determining whether this word represents the identity? The answer is yes if and only if the Dehn function is computable. However, the algorithm provided by the Dehn function may not be very efficient. For example, if a group with exponential Dehn function can be embedded in a group with quadratic Dehn function, we can use the ambient group to more easily solve the word problem in the subgroup. In such a case, we may think of the embedding as being (area) distorted.
\subsection{Definitions}
\subsubsection{Area distortion}
In \cite{gersten96}, Gersten defines a function, similar to the Dehn function, which measures this area distortion. Precisely, let G be a group with finite presentation $\mathcal{P} = \la S \mid R \ra$, and let $H$ be a subgroup with presentation $\mathcal{Q} = \la S' \mid R' \ra$, where $\mathcal{Q}$ is a subpresentation of $\mathcal{P}$, that is, $S' \subset S$ and $R' \subset R$. Then the {\em area distortion function of $H$ in $G$}, $Ad:\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$, is given by
\begin{displaymath}
Ad(n) = \max \{Area_H(w) \mid Area_G(w) \leq n, w \in N(R')\}.
\end{displaymath}
It is not \emph{a priori} clear that such a maximum must exist---perhaps we could find a sequence of words representing the identity in $H$ with area in $G$ bounded by $n$, but area in $H$ growing arbitrarily large. This, however, cannot happen, precisely because $G$ and $H$ are finitely presented.
\begin{prop}[Gersten] The area distortion function is well-defined.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $m$ be the length of the longest relator in $R$, and let $w$ be a word with van Kampen diagram of area at most $n$. Separate the diagram into a collection of topological circles, each with area $n_1, n_2, ..., n_k$ (note that $k$ and the $n_i$ are all bounded above by $n$). In such a topological circle of area $n_i$, the length of the boundary cannot be more than $m \cdot n_i$. Thus there is a finite number of possible loops for the topological circle; for each, we can fill in $H$ with some area. Combining these for each $i$ gives an upper bound on the area in $H$ of the word $w$ which depends only on $n$. Thus $AD(n)$ is bounded above for each $n$, so the function is well-defined.
\end{proof}
Note the importance here of dividing $w$ into pieces that contribute to the area. While we cannot bound the length of $w$, bounding the lengths of these pieces will often suffice for our purposes. We will continue to use this approach to bounding volume distortion, and so it will benefit us to give a name to the boundary of the ``area-contributing'' pieces of $w$. Let $D$ be a van Kampen diagram for $w$. Define the {\em frontier} of $D$ by $FR(D) = \partial (D^\circ)$. (Note that generally frontier is used as a synonym for boundary; we are modifying the definition to a subset of the boundary that will play an important role in bounding volumes.)
We will use the same equivalence for distortion functions as used for Dehn functions, given in Equation~\ref{fneq}. If $Ad$ is linear, then we say that the area of $H$ is {\em undistorted} in $G$, as this means that there is essentially no advantage to filling in $G$ over restricting to $H$. While this function is closely related to the Dehn functions of both the group and subgroup, the distortion function cannot in general be written simply as some combination of the Dehn functions of $H$ and $G$.
Another related concept is \textit{length distortion}, often called simply {\em subgroup distortion}, which compares the lengths of elements in the subgroup to the lengths in the ambient group. These two concepts are independent: groups may have distorted length but undistored area (e.g. Sol groups), or undistorted length and distorted area (e.g. examples constructed in \cite{bbms}).
\subsubsection{Volume distortion}
Just as Dehn functions have been generalized to higher dimensions (as
``higher order'' Dehn functions $\delta^{(k)}$), we would like to generalize to volume distortion. To do so, we will need to take a more geometric approach than the algebraic one used for area distortion. We will first define volume distortion on CW-complexes, and then define volume distortion for groups in terms of complexes on which they act.
Because we are using pairs of groups, we must take some care to specify that the action respects this pairing. We say the pair $(G,H)$ acts geometrically on $(X,Y)$ if $G$ acts geometrically on $X$ (that is, $G$ acts cocompactly and properly discontinuously by isometries), and we can restrict this to an action of $H$ on $Y$ (if $h \in H$ and $y \in Y$, then $ h.y \in Y$), and this is also a geometric action by isometries. Note that in particular we may construct a $K(H,1)$ inside of a $K(G,1)$ so that $(G, H)$ will act geometrically on $(\widetilde{K(H,1)}, \widetilde{K(G,1)})$; often this is what we will be considering.
In order for the distortion function to be well-defined, we need to put some conditions on the CW-complex $X$. The conditions needed are exactly those given in \S 3 of \cite{alonsowangpride99} for a $k$-Dehn complex. $X$ is {\em k-Dehn} if $X$ is $k$-connected, the $m$-order Dehn functions are well-defined for $m \leq k$, and there is a uniform bound, say $r$, on the number of faces on an $m$-cell, for $m \leq k+1$.
In such a space $X$, a cellular $k$-chain is denoted by $z = \sum \alpha_i \sigma_i$ where the $\alpha_i$ are integers and $\sigma_i$ are $k$-cells. The \emph{volume} of $z$ is $V^k(z) = \sum |\alpha_i|$. Given a $k$-cycle $z$, we define the \emph{filling volume} of $z$, $FV^{k+1} (z)$, to be minimal volume over all $k$-chains which extend $z$, that is,
$$FV^{k+1}(z) = \min \{V^{k+1} (u) \mid \partial u = z\}.$$ Since $X$ is $k$-connected, every cycle $z$ is the boundary of some chain. Note that this is the definition given in chapter 10 of \cite{echlpt}, but what we call volume they call mass, and what we call filling volume, they call volume.
Given a subcomplex $Y$ of $X$, the \emph{k-volume distortion function} $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(X,Y)} : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\textrm{VolD}^k(n) = \max \{FV^{k}_Y(z) \mid FV^k_X(z) \leq n, \text{ where $z$ is a $(k$--$1)$-cycle in $Y$} \}
\end{equation}
The uniform bound on the size of the boundary of an $m$-cell serves the same purpose as the finite presentation in the definition of $AD$, that is, it ensures that a maximum exists. In particular, note that while we have no bound on the volume of $z$, we do obtain $rn$ as a bound on the volume of the frontier of any filling of $z$.
Let $(G,H)$ act as a pair on $(X, Y)$ by isometries, where the action is cellular and discrete. As mentioned above, $Y = \widetilde{K(H, 1)}$ and $X = \widetilde{K(G,1)}$ with $Y$ in $X$, will satisfy this. Then $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)} (n) := \textrm{VolD}^k_{(X, Y)}(n)$. This definition only makes sense if the spaces are $k$-Dehn; this will happen when $H$ and $G$ are $F_k$, that is, their $K(\pi,1)$'s have finite $k$-skeleton.
Note that $AD$ and $\textrm{VolD}^2$ are actually different functions: in the former case, the function involves homotopy, while in the latter the function involves homology. $\textrm{VolD}^2$ is referred to as \emph{weak distortion} in \cite{gersten96}. Both homology and homotopy definitions exist for higher-dimensional Dehn functions; while they are often the same in examples in which they are easy to compute, they are not equivalent in general.
\subsubsection{Riemannian manifolds}
Sometimes we will be able to determine the volume distortion by considering group actions on Riemannian manifolds. In a general sense, the function will work the same way; what changes is the manner in which we define the volume and filling volume.
Let $M$ be a connected Riemannian manifold with submanifold $N$, such that a pair of groups $(G, H)$ act on $(M, N)$ properly discontinuously by isometries. We will work with Lipschitz $K$-chains, that is, formal finite sums with coefficients in $\{+1, -1\}$ of maps $f_i:\triangle_k \to M$ where $f_i$ is $K$-lipschitz for some universally fixed $K$. We choose lipschitz maps so that the functions are differentiable almost everywhere, leading to a well-defined idea of volume, and so that under quasi-isometry the composition with a lipschitz map is a bounded distance away from a lipschitz map.
We find the volume of a $k$-chain in the following way: for each lipschitz map $f$, we can consider $D_xf$ at almost every point in the domain. This map sends an orthonormal basis in $T_x \triangle_k$ to a set of vectors in $T_{f(x)}M$. These vectors give a parallelopiped; call its volume V(x). This is the $k$-dimensional Jacobian of $f$ at $x$, and can be found by considering the matrix
\begin{displaymath} A = \left(\begin{array}{c} D_xf(e_1) \\ D_xf(e_2) \\ \vdots \\ D_xf(e_k) \end{array}\right)
\end{displaymath}
and taking $V(x) = \sqrt{det[A \cdot g \cdot A^T]}$, where $g = (g_{i,j})$ is the Riemannian metric.
Now we integrate over $\triangle_k$:
$$V(f) = \int_{\triangle_k} V(x) dx$$
More generally, the volume of a $k$-chain is the sum of the volumes of the component maps $f_i$.
With this new definition of volume, we may now define the filling volume and distortion function just as before: given a lipschitz $(k-1)$-cycle $z$,
\begin{equation}
FV^{(k)}(z) = \inf \{V(u) \mid u \text{ is a lipschitz $k$-chain with } \partial u = z\}
\end{equation}
Before we can define a volume distortion function in this case, we need one last requirement. Choose some $c \in \mathbb{R}^+$. Just as the value of $K$ does not matter so long as our maps are $K$-lipschitz for some $K$, this choice of $c$ will not affect the distortion function up to the usual equivalence of functions, which allows us to discuss ``the'' distortion function without specifying $c$ or $K$.
The $k$-volume distortion function (with respect to c) is a function $\textrm{VolD}_{(M,N)}^{(k)}:\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ with
$$\textrm{VolD}(n) = \sup\{FV^{(k)}_N(z)\; \mid \; \exists \; k \textrm{-chain } u \text{ with } V^{k}_M(u) \leq n, FR(u) \leq cn \}.$$
Note that, in the case of CW-complexes with a cocompact group action, there is a natural choice of $c$: the maximal boundary volume of a $k$-cell. Once again, the restriction on the size of the frontier of a filling gives this function an upper bound (in terms of the Dehn function of the subspace), so a supremum exists.
In the following section we will show that the volume distortion in this case is equivalent to the version obtained by taking a triangulation that is invariant under $(G,H)$.
\section{General theory}
\label{theorems}
\subsection{Equivalence of definitions}
The definition of volume distortion appears to depend on the choice of spaces; however, we will show that up the equivalence of functions given above, it is a quasi-isometry invariant, and therefore in particular a group invariant.
A \emph{$(K, C)$-quasi-isometric embedding} is a map $f: X \to X'$ where $$\frac{1}{K}d(x,y) - C \leq d(f(x), f(y)) \leq K d(x, y) + C$$ for all $x, y \in X$. This function is a quasi-isometry given the additional requirement that for all $y \in X'$ there is some $x \in X$ with $d(y, f(x)) \leq C$. This is equivalent to saying that $f$ has a $(K, C)$-quasi-isometric inverse $g:X' \to X$ with $d(x, g(f(x))) \leq C$ and $d(x, f(g(x))) \leq C$.
As with group actions, we will be considering pairs of spaces $(X, Y)$ where $Y \subset X$. We will say the pairs of spaces $(X_1, Y_1)$ and $(X_2, Y_2)$ are qusi-isometric if there is a quasi-isometry $f: X_1 \to X_2$ with $f(Y_1) \subseteq Y_2$ and $f|_{Y_1}: Y_1 \to Y_2$ also a quasi-isometry.\\
\begin{theorem}\label{qi}Suppose that $(X_1, Y_1)$ and $(X_2, Y_2)$ are $k$-Dehn spaces which are quasi-isometric as pairs. Then the distortion functions $\textrm{VolD}^k_1$ of $(X_1, Y_1)$ and $\textrm{VolD}^k_2$ of $(X_2, Y_2)$ are equivalent.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose we have $(K, C)$-quasi-isometries $f:(X_1, Y_1) \to (X_2, Y_2)$ and quasi-isometric inverse $g:(X_2, Y_2) \to (X_1, Y_1)$.
See Figure ~\ref{qiillo} for an illustration of this proof. We start, as in Figure \ref{qiillo}(a), with a $(k-1)$-cycle $z$ in $Y_1$, which is filled in $X_1$ with a $k$-chain $u$, where $V(u) = n$. We want to fill $z$ in $Y_1$ with volume linear in $n$ and $\textrm{VolD}^k_2$.
\begin{figure}[htbc]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{qiillo.eps}
\end{center}
\caption[Quasi-isometries preserve volume distortion]{Quasi-isometries preserve volume distortion}\label{qiillo}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{qiillo}(b) we construct a $k$-chain $v$ in $X_2$ using $f(u^{(0)})$, that is, the image of the vertices in $u$. We want $v$ to have boundary in $Y_2$ and volume at most $A_kn$, where $A_k$ is independent of $u$. We do this by noting that for any $m$-cell $\sigma$ in $X_1$, we can construct an $m$-chain $c(\sigma)$ in $X_2$ with $m$-volume bounded by some constant, say $A_m$. Further, if the $m$-cell was originally in $Y_1$, then we can construct the new $m$-chain in $Y_2$ with the same bound $A$ on the volume. We do this construction by induction on $m$: when $m = 1$, we simply note that the distance between the image of the boundary points of a cell are at a distance at most $K+C$ apart, and choose a geodesic between these points; this gives a 1-chain with length at most $C+K$.
Now suppose such a construction exists for dimension $(m$-$1)$ and let $\sigma$ be an $m$-cell. Carry out the construction on the boundary of $\sigma$. Since the spaces are $k$-Dehn, there is a universal bound $r$ on the volume of the boundary of any $m$-cell in $X_1$ when $m \leq k+1$. Thus we have constructed a $(k-1)$-cycle of $(k-1)$-volume at most $A_{k-1}r$. Again because the spaces are $k$-Dehn, we know that the $k^{th}$-order Dehn fuction of $X_2$ is well-defined, so the cycle can be filled in $X_2$ with volume at most $\delta_{X_2}^{(k)}(A_{k-1}r)$. If the original $k$-cell is in $Y_1$, then we can do the same thing, now filling with volume bounded by $\delta_{Y_2}^{(k)}(A_{k-1}r)$. The maximum of these two numbers is then the value of $A_k$. This constant depends on the spaces, quasi-isometries, and $k$, but is independent of $u$.
Using this procedure on each $k$-cell in $u$, we construct a $k$-chain $v$ in $X_2$ with boundary in $Y_2$ and $k$-volume at most $A_kn$. By definition, the cycle $\partial v$ can be filled in $Y_2$ with $k$-volume at most $\textrm{VolD}^k_2(A_kn)$. Call the chain with this filling $v'$; note that this chain lies entirely in $Y_2$. This is illustrated in Figure \ref{qiillo}(c). Just as above we can now construct a $k$-chain $u'$ in $Y_1$ which contains the 0-skeleton of $g(v')$ and has with volume at most $B_k\cdot \textrm{VolD}^k_2(A_kn)$, again with $B_k$ independent of $u$. The boundary of this chain will probably not be $z$, but each vertex in $z$ will correspond to a vertex in $u'$ which is a distance at most $C$ from the vertex in $z$; we can use this fact to construct a homotopy between the two cycles $z$ and $\partial u'$. Again we do this by building up by dimension on each cell of $z$. First we construct paths of length at most $C$ between a vertex in $z$ and the corresponding vertex in $u'$. Given two vertices in $z$ connected by an edge, their corresponding vertices are connected by a path of length at most $K(K+C)+C$. This gives us a loop of length at most $K(K+C) + 3C + 1$; this can be filled in with area at most $\delta_{Y_1}(K(K+C) + 3C + 1)$. See Figure \ref{qiillo}(d).
Continue this construction one dimension at a time: Given an $m$-cell in $z$, we can construct a homotopy between each of the boundary cells and a corresponding $m-1$-chain in $u'$ with some volume bounded by $D_{m-1}$, again, agreeing on their boundaries. This gives an $m$-cycle with volume at most $1 + rD_{m-1} + A_{m}B_m$, which can be filled with $m$-volume at most $D_k = \delta_{Y_1}^{(m)}(1 + rD_{m-1} + A_{m}B_m)$. Ultimately this gives us a homotopy between $z$ and $\partial u'$ with $k$-volume at most $D_kV(z)$. Since $V(z) \leq rn$, combining this with $u'$ gives us a filling of $u$ with volume bounded above by $D_krn + B_k\textrm{VolD}_2^k(A_kn)$. Thus $\textrm{VolD}_1^k(n) \leq D_krn + B_k\textrm{VolD}_2^k(A_kn)$. We can use the same process to reverse the roles of $\textrm{VolD}_1^k$ and $\textrm{VolD}_2^k$, so the two functions are equivalent.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{defeq}
Let $M$ be a $(k-1)$-connected Riemannian manifold, with $(k-1)$-connected submanifold $N$. Let the pair $(G, H)$ be $F_k$ groups, that is, have $K(\pi, 1)$ with finite $k$-skeleton, and suppose they act properly discontinuously, cocompactly and by isometries as a pair on $(M, N)$. Let $\tau$ be a $G$-invariant triangulation of $M$, with $\tau_1$ an $H$-invariant subtrangulation of $\tau|_N$. Then the distortion function of $H$ in $G$, which by definition is the distortion function $\textrm{VolD}_\tau^k$ of the $k$-skeleton of $\tau_1$ in $\tau$, is equivalent to the geometric distortion function $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(M, N)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The work done by Burillo and Taback in \cite{burillotaback02} to show the isoperimetric version of this theorem provides us with all the tools we need for this proof. In particular, they prove that, given $M$, $G$, and $\tau$ as above, the following holds.
\begin{lemma}[Pushing Lemma, Lemma 2.1 of \cite{burillotaback02}]\label{bt1} There exists a constant $C$, depending only on $M$ and $\tau$, with the following property: Let $T$ be a Lipschitz $(k-1)$-chain in M, such that $\partial T$ is included in $\tau^{(k-2)}$. Then there exists another Lipschitz $(k-1)$-chain $R$, with $\partial R = \partial T$, which is included in $\tau^{(k-1)}$, and a Lipschitz $k$-chain $S$, with $\partial S = T - R$, satisfying $V(R) \leq C V(T)$ and $V(S) \leq C V(T).$
\end{lemma}
Essentially, this is saying that $(k-1)$-chains in $M$ are very near $(k-1)$-chains in $\tau^{(k-1)}$ of comparable area.
Now let $z$ be a $(k-1)$-cycle in $N$, and let $u$ be a $k$-chain in $M$ with $\partial u = z$ and $V^k(u) \leq n$. Because $z$ has no boundary, we can apply Lemma~\ref{bt1} to get a $(k-1)$-cycle $z'$ in $\tau_1$, with homotopy between them given by the chain $S$ in $N$, where $V^k(S) \leq Cn$. Now $z'$ is a cycle in $\tau_1$; we can fill it with the chain $u - S$, so $FV(z') \leq (C+1)n$. Next we can apply Lemma~\ref{bt1} to $u - S$; this gives us a chain in $\tau$ with volume at most $C(C+1)n$ with boundary $z'$. By definition, we can fill $z'$ with some chain in $\tau_1$ with volume at most $\textrm{VolD}_\tau(C(C+1)n)$. Since $G$ acts cocompactly on $\tau$, there is some maximal volume, say $A$, of any $k$-cell in $\tau$; so we can now fill $z'$, say by $u'$, in $N$ with volume at most $A\textrm{VolD}_\tau(C(C+1)n)$. Then $u' - S$ fills $z$ with volume at most $A\textrm{VolD}_\tau(C(C+1)n) + Cn$.
On the other hand, suppose $z$ is a cycle in $\tau_1$, with a filling $u$ in $\tau$ which has volume at most $n$. Then we can fill $z$ in $M$ with volume at most $An$. This means we can fill $z$ in $N$ with a chain $u$ with volume at most $\textrm{VolD}_{(M,N)}(An)$. By applying \ref{bt1}, we can find a filling $u'$ of $z$ in $\tau_1$ with volume at most $C\textrm{VolD}_{(M, N)}(An)$.
\end{proof}
Note that the above proof is independent of the $c$ used to bound the volume of the boundary in the Riemannian manifold case; thus this constant does not affect the distortion function.
By combining Theorems \ref{qi} and \ref{defeq}, we obtain the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{riemeq}
Given pairs of spaces $(M_1, N_1)$ and $(M_2, N_2)$ which are quasi-isometric, and groups $(G_1, H_1)$ and $(G_2, H_2)$ where $(G_i, H_i)$ act cocompactly and properly discontinuously by isometries on $(M_i, N_i)$, the distortion function\\ $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(M_1,N_1)}$ is equivalent to the function $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(M_2, N_2)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Because the group actions are geometric, each pair $(G_i, H_i)$ is quasi-isometric to $(M_i, N_i)$. Since the $(M_i, N_i)$ are quasi-isometric to each other by assumption, the $(G_i, H_i)$ must be as well. Thus by Theorem~\ref{qi} their distortion functions are equivalent. By Theorem~\ref{riemeq}, the distortion functions of the pairs of Riemannian spaces are equivalent to those of the respective pair of groups. Thus the distortion functions of the spaces are equivalent as well.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Distortion and Dehn functions}
\label{dehn}
Because of the closely related definitions of Dehn functions and volume distortion functions, it can be tempting to believe that one can express the distortion function easily in terms of the Dehn functions of the group and subgroup. The reality is not so simple---for example, the subgroup may have a greater or smaller Dehn function than the ambient group. However, we can use Dehn functions to provide certain bounds for volume distortion functions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{dehnupperbound}
Let $H \subset G$ be $F_k$ groups, and let $\delta^{(k-1)}_H$ be the $(k-1)$-order Dehn function of $H$. Then $\textrm{VolD}_{(G, H)} \preceq \delta^{(k-1)}_H$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $z$ is a $(k-1)$-cycle in $H$, with filling in $G$ of $k$-volume $n$. Because these groups are $F_k$, there is an upper bound on the number of boundary faces in a $k$-cell in $G$, say $r$. Then the $(k-1)$-volume of $FR(u)$ is at most $rn$. We can then fill $FR(u)$, and therefore $z$, in $H$ with volume at most $\delta^{(k-1)}_H(rn)$.
\end{proof}
Note that under the area distortion definition used by Gersten, the upper bound is instead $AD \preceq n\delta_H$: this happens because the frontier may be disconnected, which introduces the presence of a summation. However, it is conjectured (see, for example, \cite{annals1}) that Dehn functions are super-additive, in which case we would regain the simpler bound $AD \preceq \delta_H$. When we choose homology, however, this complication disappears, because there is no requirement that the boundary be connected.\\
\begin{theorem}
\label{dehnlowerbound}
Let $H \subset G$ be $F_k$ groups, and let $\delta_H$ and $\delta_G$ be their respective $(k-1)$-order Dehn functions. Suppose $\delta_G$ is an invertible function. Then $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)} \geq \delta_H \circ \delta^{-1}_G.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $z_n$ be a sequence of $(k-1)$-cycles with $$V_H(z) = \delta^{-1}_G(n)$$ and $$FV_H(z) = \delta_H(\delta^{-1}_G(n)),$$ that is, a sequence of maximally ``hard to fill'' cycles. Then we know that $$FV_G(z) \leq \delta^{-1}_G(\delta_G(n)) = n.$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Subgroups}
\begin{theorem}
\label{subsub}
Suppose $K \subset H \subset G$ are $F_k$ groups. Then:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, K)} \preceq \textrm{VolD}^k_{(H, K)} \circ \textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)}$
\item[(ii)] $\textrm{VolD}_{(H, K)}^k \preceq \textrm{VolD}_{(G, K)}^k$
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $(i)$, let $z$ be a $(k-1)$-cycle in $K$ so that $FV_G(z) \leq n$. Then $FV^k_H(z) \leq \textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)}(n)$ and so $FV^k_K(z) \leq \textrm{VolD}^k_{(K, H)}(\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)}(n))$.
For $(ii)$, once again let $z$ be a $(k-1)$-cycle in $K$, but now suppose that $FV_H(z) \leq n$ but $FV_K(z) = \textrm{VolD}^k_{(K, H)}(n)$. Since $H \subset G$, a filling in $H$ is also a filling in $G$, so $FV_G(z) \leq n$ as well. Thus we've constructed examples of cycles in $K$ whose filling volume in $G$ is at most $n$, but whose filling volume in $K$ is $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(K, H)}(n)$, so this is a lower bound for the distortion of $K$ in $G$.
\end{proof}
This theorem is of particular interest if one of the embeddings is undistorted.
\begin{cor}\label{undistsub}
Given $K \subset H \subset G$ as above,
\begin{itemize}
\item{(i)} if $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)}$ is linear, then $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(H, K)} \asymp \textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, K)} $.
\item{(ii)} if $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(H, K)}$ is linear, then $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, K)} \preceq \textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, H)}$.
\item{(iii)} if $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(G, K)}$ is linear, then $\textrm{VolD}^k_{(H, K)}$ is linear.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
For an example applying these theorems, see \S \ref{heis}.
\subsection{Computability of distortion functions}
Papasoglu shows in Proposition 2.3 of \cite{papasoglu00} that area distortion functions are always computable. This contrasts significantly with the length distortion and first-order Dehn function cases, in which uncomputable functions can be obtained (see \cite{farb94}). The reason for this is that we start with objects we already know are the boundary of some chain; thus through brute force we will eventually be able to produce a filling.
In higher dimensions, Papasoglu's theorem generalizes:
\begin{theorem}
Given $F_p$ groups $H \subset G$, the function $\textrm{VolD}_{(G,H)}^k$ is computable for $k \geq 2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We can make a list of all ways of combining at most $n$ $k$-cells to make chains in $X_G$; now pick the subset whose boundary lies entirely in $X_H$. Because we know these must be trivial in $X_H$, we can find a volume (and thus a minimal volume) of a filling in $X_H$.
\end{proof}
While this means that volume distortion is in some ways more nicely behaved than length distortion, \cite{madlenerotto85} provides the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Madlener-Otto]
Given a computable function $f$, there exists an example of a subgroup, group pair with area distortion bounded below by $f$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Examples}
\label{exs}
\subsection{Motivational examples}
There are many geometric examples which demonstrate the concept of area distortion; we will cover some of them here.
\subsubsection{Hyperbolic space}
Consider a horosphere in three-dimensional hyperbolic space, $\mathbb{H}^3$. Hyperbolic space has a linear isoperimetric function, so that a loop of length $l$ can be filled in area approximately $l$. When restricted to the horosphere, however, we encounter Euclidean geometry, for which we have quadratic isoperimetric function. As a result, we can find loops with area $l$ in $\mathbb{H}^3$ but $l^2$ in the horosphere, giving quadratic area distortion. We cannot hope for larger distortion, since the quadratic isoperimetric function provides an upper bound as well.
\subsubsection{Sol geometry}\label{sol}
Cosider the 3-dimensional Riemannian manifold $Sol$ that is topologically $\mathbb{R}^3$ and has the metric $ds^2 = \lambda^{-2t}dx^2 + (\frac{1}{\lambda})^{-2t}dy^2 + dt^2$. If we project $y$ to zero, we obtain a hyperbolic plane; projecting $x$ to zero gives an upside-down hyperbolic plane, and projecting $t$ to zero gives a Euclidean plane. Then the $xy$-plane is exponentially length-distorted in Sol, since the point on the $x$-axis of distance $n$ from the origin can be reached via a geodesic in the hyperbolic plane of the $xz$-axis of length approximately $\log{n}$. The $y$-axis is similarly distorted, but the geodesics now travel down instead of up. However, when we consider area, the two factors cancel each other out: it is exactly as good in the $x$-direction to go up as it is bad in the $y$-direction. Given any chain $z$, we know we can find the volume of $z$ as
\begin{align}
V(z) &= \int \sqrt{(\lambda^{-t}(\frac{1}{\lambda})^{-t}dxdy)^2 + (\lambda^{-t}dxdt)^2 + ((\frac{1}{\lambda})^{-t}dydt)^2 }\\
&= \int \sqrt{(dxdy)^2 + (\lambda^{-t}dxdt)^2 + ((\frac{1}{\lambda})^{-t}dydt)^2 }
\end{align}
Note that if we project $t$ to zero, we lose the second and third term, which can only decrease the overall volume; the $dxdy$ term is unaffected since the scalars cancelled out. Thus projecting $t$ to zero can only decrease area, which means that the $xy$-plane is area undistorted in $Sol$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{sollen.eps}
\hspace{2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{solfilled.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{In $Sol$, length is distorted (left) but area is not.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Sullivan's theorem}\label{sull}
This has a generalization due to Sullivan. If $M$ is a 3-manifold and $\mathcal{F}$ is a codimension 1
foliation on $M$ which is transversely oriented, and such that there
is a transverse closed curve through every leaf, then there exists a Riemannian metric on $M$ for which every leaf of
$\mathcal{F}$ is quasi-area minimizing. As a special case, $\mathbb{Z}^2$ in $\mathbb{Z}^2 \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$ has undistorted area when $\phi
\in GL(n, \mathbb{Z})$. Gersten proves this using a concept
he calls complexity; we will adjust the definition slightly, and
generalize it to higher dimensions.
\subsection{Complexity}
\label{cxitysection}
The concept of \textit{complexity} is defined in \cite{gersten96} for area distortion of $G$ in $G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$, where $\phi$ is an automorphism of $G$ and $G$ is finitely presented.
Let $G$ be $F_k$ and let $\phi$ an be automorphism of $G$. Then $\phi$ can be thought of as a map on the edges of a CW-complex $Y = K(G,1)$, where an edge labeled $s$ is sent to a word representing $\phi(s)$. Then each 2-cell is sent to a closed loop, and so we can fill it in some way in $Y$. Choose one of minimal area for each 2-cell, and call this $\phi(r)$. Continue with this process, inductively extending the map to the $n$-skeleton of $Y$ given the image of the $(n-1)$-skeleton, until we have a map $\phi: Y \to Y$. We can then lift this to a map $\tilde{\phi}: \widetilde{Y} \to \widetilde{Y}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{height.eps}
\end{center}
\caption[Projection via $\phi$]{We can project to height zero via iterations of $\phi$.}\label{height}
\end{figure}
We can use this map to construct a $K(G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}, 1)$, given by $$X = Y \times I/[(y,0) \equiv (\phi(y), 1)],$$ which has universal cover that is setwise given by $\tilde{X} = \tilde{Y} \times \mathbb{R}$, made by taking a copy of $\tilde{Y} \times I$ for each integer, and identifying $(y,1)_i$ with $(\phi(y), 0)_{i+1}$. This construction gives us a natural projection $\pi: \tilde{X} \to \mathbb{R}$, where we call $\pi(x)$ the \textit{height} of the point $x \in \tilde{X}$. We can describe cells in this complex as follows: either they are cells inherited from $\tilde{Y}$, at a height $h$, or they are built inductively, with two-cells having boundary $tst^{-1}\phi(s)$ and higher-dimensional cells made by constructing the cells on the boundary and then filling them. See Figure~\ref{height} for a pictoral representation.
Let $c(\phi)$ be the maximal $k$-volume of the image of a $k$-cell under $\tilde{\phi}$. Since $G$ is $F_k$, $c(\phi)$ is finite. We will call $c(\phi)$ the \textit{$k$-complexity} of $\phi$.
\begin{remark}
Gersten defines (2-)complexity in a somewhat different manner: in \cite{gersten96}, the complexity of a map is the sum of the volumes of the images of all $2$-cells, minus the number of $2$-cells. His definition of complexity zero will coincide with our definition of complexity one. With his definition, one can only relate the distortion to complexity when the complexity is zero. We will be able to create a more general upper bound on the distortion, which depends on the value of $c(\phi)$.
\end{remark}
\noindent {\bf Theorem \ref{complexity}.}
Let $G$ be an $F_k$ group and let $\phi$ be an automorphism on $G$, and define $m = \max \{c_k(\phi), c_k(\phi^{-1})\}$, with $c_k(\phi)$ as defined above. Then the distortion of $G$ in $G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$ is bounded above by $n \cdot m^n$.
\vspace{.5cm}
\noindent {\bf Corollary \ref{cxitycor}.}
When $\phi$ has complexity $m = 1$, then $G$ is $k$-volume undistorted in $G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$.
In particular, if a $K(G,1)$ has only one $k$-cell, then $G$ is $k$-volume undistorted in $G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}$ for any automorphism $\phi$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cxitycor}]
The first statement is trivial; the second is proven by noting that $\phi$ must send this $k$-cell to itself, because it induces an automorphism on on the $k$-homotopy of the $(k-1)$-skeleton of the space. Thus the $k$-complexity is 1.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Theorem B of \cite{gersten96} proves the corollary in the case of $k = 2$ an Theorem 5.1 of \cite{gersten96} is related to Theorem \ref{complexity}; however, Gersten formulates his bound in such a way that Corollary \ref{cxitycor} does not follow from Theorem \ref{complexity}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{complexity}]
Let $G$ and $\phi$ be as in the theorem, and let $\tilde{X}$ be the universal cover of a $K(G \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{Z}, 1)$ as constructed above, with the height projection $\pi: \tilde{X} \to \mathbb{R}$. Let $z$ be a $(k-1)$-cycle in $\tilde{Y}$ with $u$ a $k$-chain in $\tilde{X}$, such that $\partial u = z$, and let $n = V^k(u)$. Assume $u$ has no connected components which are cycles, since these could be removed to decrease the volume of $u$, still giving a cycle with boundary $z$. Denote by $\triangle_p$ the subset of $u$ at height $p$, that is, $\triangle_p = \pi^{-1}(p) \cap u$.
Since $u$ is closed, the image of $u$ under $\pi$ is a bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}$. Note that $\tilde{Y} = \pi^{-1}(0)$, so if $\pi(u) = 0$, we are done because $u$ is actually a chain in $\tilde{Y}$. Otherwise, we wish to use $u$ to construct a new chain that is in $\tilde{Y}$, whose volume is bounded above by $nm^{n}$. To do this, we will first consider $\pi^{-1}((0, \infty))$, and then $\pi^{-1}((-\infty, 0))$, which will work similarly.
If $\pi^{-1}((0, \infty))$ is empty, we proceed directly to the second set. Otherwise, we may choose some $p \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $p$ is not an integer, $\triangle_p \neq \emptyset$, and $\triangle_{p+1} = \emptyset$, that is, a height near the top of $u$. Let $U$ be the set of all cells in $u$ which intersect $\triangle_p$. This set may consist of a number of different connected components, but we need to break it up a bit more carefully: partition $U$ into subsets $U_1, U_2, \cdots, U_l$ so that in each subset, any two cells can be connected to each other in $u$ without going below height $p$. Then any two cells in the same connected component of $U$ will be in the same partition, but a partition may contain more than one connected component in $U$.
Each $U_i$ then separates $u$ into two pieces, and gives a homology between some $(k-1)$-cycle $v_i$ at height $h = \lceil p \rceil$ and the $(k-1)$-cycle $\phi(v_i)$ at height $h-1$. The cycle $v_i$ must be the boundary for some sub-chain $c_i$ of $u$; by our choice of $p$, $c_i$ must be entirely at height $h$ and thus lie in a copy of $\tilde{Y}$. Then we can perform surgery on $u$, removing $U_i$ and $c_i$ and replacing them with $\tilde{\phi}(c_i)$ at height $h-1$. After doing this for each $i$, we have created a new $k$-chain $u'$ with height one less than the height of $u$. We may continue to do this until the maximal height of our new chain is zero.
We then do the same thing with $p < 0$ with the obvious adjustment on the choice of height, where we now use $\tilde{\phi}^{-1}$ to move the chain upward.
We must now calculate how much this surgery has increased the area. Any $k$-cell that had been at height $h$ has now been moved to height $0$, each time multiplying the volume by at most $m$, giving a total volume of $m^h$. How big can $h$ be? At most $n$, since there must be at least one cell at each height for a top cell to be connected to $z$. Thus our $n$ k-cells have been replaced by at most $nm^n$ cells at height zero.
\end{proof}
Note that this upper bound is often much larger than the actual distortion. By Theorem~\ref{dehnupperbound}, if $m > 1$, then the $k^{th}$-order Dehn function of the subgroup must be greater than exponential for the complexity bound to be greater than the one provided by the Dehn function. One problem is the height---the upper bound of $n$ is almost certainly too large. In \S \ref{abc}, we will find other ways to bound the height in a particular class of examples so that $m^h$ can be made much smaller.
\subsection{Heisenberg groups}
\label{heis}
One special case of a group $G = \mathbb{Z}^2 \rtimes_{\phi} \mathbb{Z}$ is the
{ \em Heisenberg group}, where $\phi = \left(\begin{array}{cc}1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1\end{array}\right).$ This is also commonly written as
$$\mathcal{H}^3 = \la x, y, z \mid [x, y] = z, [x, z] = [y, z] = 1 \ra.$$
(Note that the dimension ``acting'' on the $\mathbb{Z}^2$, usually denoted $t$ above, is $x$ here.) We can create ``higher-dimensional''
Heisenberg groups $\mathcal{H}^{2n + 1}$ with pairs of generators $x_i$,
$y_i$, along with $z$, such that each commutator $[x_i, y_i]$ is $z$,
and all other pairs commute. Note that any Heisenberg group is embedded in Heisenberg groups of higher order.
These groups are interesting to us in part because, while $\mathcal{H}^3$ has cubic Dehn function (see \cite{echlpt}), all higher dimensional Heisenberg groups have quadratic Dehn function, a theorem proven analytically by Allcock in \cite{allcock98} and later combinatorially by Ol'Shanskii and Sapir in \cite{olshanskiisapir}. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{dehnlowerbound}, the distortion of $\mathcal{H}^3$ in $\mathcal{H}^5$ or any higher-order Heisenberg group is at least $n^{3/2}$.
Further, we can construct an upper bound as follows: consider the intermediate group $\mathcal{H}^3 \times \mathbb{Z}$, where $\mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $y_2$. Then we have
$$\mathcal{H}^3 \subset \mathcal{H}^3 \times \mathbb{Z} \subset \mathcal{H}^5 = (\mathcal{H}^3 \times \mathbb{Z}) \rtimes \mathbb{Z},$$
with the action given by $x_2$ commuting with $\mathcal{H}^3$ and sending $y_2$ to $y_2z$. The first containment is undistorted, so by Theorem~\ref{undistsub} (ii), the distortion of $\mathcal{H}^3$ in $\mathcal{H}^5$ is at most the distortion of $\mathcal{H}^3 \times \mathbb{Z}$ in $\mathcal{H}^5$. Directly applying Theorem~\ref{complexity} would give us an exponential upper bound, but we can modify it a bit: notice that the
automorphism preserves all relators except commutators $[y_2, s]$ for $s = x_1, y_1$, each of which goes to two relators: a copy of itself, and the commutator $[z,y_2]$. Thus repeated applications of the automorphism only increase the image by one. Thus the final volume is at most $nh$, for height $h$, which is at most
$n$. Therefore $n^2$ is an upper bound for the area distortion, an improvement over the bound of $n^3$ given by the Dehn function of $\mathcal{H}^3$.
\begin{conjecture}\label{heisconj}
The area distortion of $\mathcal{H}^{3}$ in $\mathcal{H}^5$ is $n^{3/2}$.
\end{conjecture}
The reason for this is that the upper bound fails to take into account the ``side area'' coming from any filling; conceptually, any $y_2$ edge of height $h$ ought to be creating a side with $(h-t)$ relators at height $t$, creating a total area of $h^2$.
\subsection{Abelian-by-cyclic groups}
\label{abc}
Note that in this section, upper bounds are found without regard to the topology of the objects, and lower bounds are given by filling spheres with balls, so that the methods and results described work equally well if distortion is defined via homotopy rather than homology.
A group $\Gamma$ is \textit{abelian-by-cyclic} if there is an exact sequence $1 \to A \to \Gamma \to \mathbb{Z} \to 1$. By a theorem of Bieri and Strebel, given a finitely presented, torsion-free abelian-by-cyclic group, there is an $m \times m$ matrix $M$ with integer entries so that $\Gamma$ has the presentation
$$\Gamma_M = \la x_1, \cdots x_m, t \mid [x_i, x_j] = 1, tx_it^{-1} = \phi(x_i) \text{ for } 1 \leq i, j \leq m \ra,$$
where $\phi$ is a homomorphism taking $x_i$ to $x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2} \cdots x_m^{a_m}$, where the $a_j$ form the $i$th column of $M$. Several ideas from \cite{farbmosher00} will help us to find the $k$-volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ in $\Gamma_M$.
We can construct a space $X_M$ on which $\Gamma_M$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries, so that $X_M$ and $\Gamma_M$ are quasi-isometric. Topologically, this space is $\mathbb{R}^m \times T_M$, where $T_M$ is a directed tree with one edge entering each vertex and $det(M)$ edges leaving each vertex. To give $X_M$ a metric, assign $T_M$ a metric with each edge having length 1, and fix a particular vertex $v_0$ of $T_M$. This choice of $v_0$ gives us a height function from $T_M$ to $\mathbb{R}$, which we can extend to a height function $h: X_M \to \mathbb{R}$, where $h(v_0) = 0$. Then $(\mathbb{Z}^m, \mathbb{Z}^m \rtimes \mathbb{Z})$ and $(R^m \times \{v_0\}, X_M)$ are quasi-isometric as pairs.
We can also consider the continuous Lie group $G_M = \mathbb{R}^m \rtimes_M \mathbb{R}$. Here multiplication is given by $(x, t) \cdot (y, s) = (x + M^ty, t+s)$. This space is a Riemannian manifold with left-invariant metric
$$g_{ij}(x,t) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}(M^{-t})^TM^{-t} & 0 \\0 & 1\end{array}\right).$$
While this metric involves $M$, choosing any power of $M$ will give us a quasi-isometric space, so that we may replace $M$ with $M^2$ (for example, if $det(M) < 0$) or $M^{-1}$ (if $|det(M)| < 1$; this amounts to flipping the space vertically) as we wish.
We will then be able to integrate using this metric to find volumes. We also have a natural height function on $G_M$ given by the last coordinate.
While $X_M$ and $G_M$ generally differ---if $\det(M) > 1$, then $X_M$ is not a manifold---there is a relationship between them that allows us to say that they have the same $k$-volume distortion. This relationship can be seen in the form of a commutative diagram, as seen in Figure \ref{gmxm}.
\begin{figure}
$$\xymatrix{ & X_M \ar[ld]_{g_M} \ar[dd]^h \ar[rd]^{\pi_M} & \\
G_M \ar[rd]_{\pi} & & T_M \ar[ld] \\
& \mathbb{R} & }$$
\caption{Relationship between $X_M$ and $\Gamma_M$}\label{gmxm}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{GXeq}
The volume distortion function $\textrm{VolD}_X$ of $\mathbb{R}^m \times \{v_0\}$ in $X_M$ is equivalent to $\textrm{VolD}_G$ of $G_0 = \pi^{-1}(0)$ in $G_M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Choose some cross-section $\hat{g}: G_M \to X_M$ so that the image contains $v_0$; this gives an isomorphic embedding of $G_M$ into $X_M$. Given a chain in $X_M$ with boundary in $\mathbb{R}^m \times \{v_0\}$, we can map it under $g_M$ to a chain in $G_M$ with boundary in $G_0$. We can then fill the chain in $G_0$ and use $\hat{g}$ to pull this back to a filling in $\mathbb{R}^m \times \{v_0\}$; this tells us $\textrm{VolD}_X \preceq \textrm{VolD}_G$. The same process can be used to show the inequality holds the other way, giving us equivalent functions.
\end{proof}
Note that the pulling back via $\hat{g}$ is possible only because our filling lies entirely at height zero, on which $g$ and $\hat{g}$ act as inverses. (This issue is important when considering Dehn functions in these groups, where the boundary is no longer restricted to a particular vertex in the tree; see \cite{bradyforester}.)
We may now simplify the situation to considering the height zero subspace $\mathbb{R}^m$ inside of $G_M$. By \cite{farbmosher00}, this group is quasi-isometric to $G_N$, where $N$ is the {\em absolute Jordan form} for $M$, that is, a matrix with the absolute values of eigenvalues along the diagonal and ones and zeroes elsewhere, in accordance with the Jordan form. This quasi-isometry preserves the height-zero subspace, so we may restrict our attention to matrices in Jordan form with positive real eigenvalues.
\subsubsection{Diagonalizable matrices}
Suppose $M$ is in absolute Jordan form, $det(M) \geq 1$. Call the $(i,i)^{th}$ entry $\lambda_i$. If $M$ has ones on the superdiagonal, the situation gets somewhat more complicated; we shall first restrict our attention to the case that $M$ is in fact diagonal. In this case, the geometry of the resulting Riemannian metric is particularly easy to understand. Topologically, we have a space of the form $\mathbb{R}^m \times \mathbb{R}$, where the last coordinate, denoted $t$, will be considered the height. The metric either expands (if $\lambda_i < 1$) or contracts (if $\lambda_i > 1$) the $x_i$ direction as the height increases. We have the metric:
$$ds^2 = dt^2 + \sum_{i = 1}^{m} \lambda_i^{-2t} dx_i^2.$$
Further, given a map $g: \sigma^k \to G_M$, with image given by $(g_1, g_2, ..., t)$, the $k$-volume of $g$ in $G_M$ is
$$\int_{\sigma^k} (\sum \lambda_I^{-2t} |D_Ig_x|^2)^{1/2} dx,$$
where $I$ is a choice of $k$ of the basis vectors, $|D_Ig_x|$ is the determinant of $Dg$ restricted to those $k$ vectors, $\lambda_I$ is the product of the $\lambda_{i}$ of $M$ for $i \in I$. Note that the choice $m+1$ gives the $t$ direction; thus $\lambda_{m+1} = 1$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{abcdist}
Let $M$ be a diagonal $k \times k$ matrix, with $(i,i)^{th}$ entry $\lambda_i \in \mathbb{R}^+$ and determinant $d > 1$ and at least two eigenvalues off the unit circle;. Then the $k$-volume distortion of the height-zero copy of $\mathbb{R}^k$ in $G_M$ is the function
$$ \textrm{VolD}^{(k)}(n) = n^{1 + \frac{\log{d}}{log{\alpha}}}, \textrm{ where } \alpha = {(\prod_{i = 1}^k \max \{d, \lambda_i\})}/d.$$
\end{theorem}
This proof has benefitted, both in scope and simplicity, from ideas provided by Brady and Forester in \cite{bradyforester}.
\begin{proof}
To simplify later calculations, define $p_i = d/\lambda_i$ and $p = \prod_{i = 1}^{k} \min\{p_i, 1\}$. We can then compute that $\alpha$ can also be written as
$$\alpha = \frac{d^{k-1}}{p};$$
this formulation requires more notation, but will better match the approach taken in the proof.
We begin by showing this function is an upper bound. Suppose $u$ is a $k$-chain in $G_M$ with volume $n$, and boundary contained in $\mathbb{R}^k$. Then it will suffice to prove that we can fill $\partial u$ in $\mathbb{R}^k$ with volume $n^{1 + \log{d}/\log{\alpha}}$.
First, break $z$ into two pieces: the ``low'' piece $u_L$ consisting of all of $u$ with height less than $h = \log(n)/\log(\alpha)$, and the ``high'' piece $u_H$.
The projection $\pi_t$ sending $t$ to 0 sends $u$ to a filling of $\partial u$, but increases the volume. We know that the volume of $\pi_t(u_L)$ is an increase of the volume of $u_L$ by a factor of at most $d^{h} = n^{\log{d}/\log{\alpha}}$, giving us a total volume as desired. Now we need only bound the total volume of $w$, the regions interior to $\partial u$ covered only by $u_H$. The process for doing this is illustrated in Figures \ref{projpf0}--\ref{projpf5}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{bwpf0.eps}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{bwpf1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Start with a cycle with a filling of volume $n$ and cut off at height $h$.}\label{projpf0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{bwpf2.eps}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{bwpf3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Project low piece down; we want to bound the volume of the pieces not filled.}\label{projpf2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{bwpf4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Do this by projecting each coordinate to zero; bound the volumes of the projections.}\label{projpf4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{bwpf5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The projection must contain a cylinder; this bounds the volume at height zero.}\label{projpf5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{whyfilled1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{A cylinder with base $w_i$ (and thus base volume $v_i$) and height $h$ must appear in the projection.}\label{cylinder}
\end{figure}
First note that the map $\pi_i$ projecting $x_i$ to 0 is volume non-increasing. We will finds bounds $V_i$ on the $(k-1)$-volume of $w_i = \pi_i(w)$; this allows us to bound the final volume
\begin{equation}\label{Vw}
V(w) \leq (\prod V_i)^{1/(k-1)}
\end{equation}
In particular, we will show that if $p_i > 1$, then $V_i \leq C_in$, where $C_i$ is independent of $n$, and if $p_i < 1$, then $V_i \leq C_inp_i^{h}$.
Given these bounds on the $V_i$, notice that when we multiply them together, we get a factor of $p_i^h$ for each $p_i < 1$. This is exactly the definition of $p^h$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{volumeproduct}
\prod V_i \leq Cn^kp^h
\end{equation}
We can use the relationships between $p, \alpha, h$, and $n$ and basic properties of logarithms to find that
\begin{equation}\label{ph}
p^h = n^{\frac{(k-1)\log d}{\log \alpha} - 1}.
\end{equation}
We can now substitute (\ref{volumeproduct}) and (\ref{ph}) into (\ref{Vw}) to find
\begin{equation}\label{finalvol}
V(w) \leq (C'n^{(k-1)(1 + \frac{\log d}{\log \alpha})})^{\frac{1}{k-1}} = C'n^{1 + \frac{\log d}{\log \alpha}}.
\end{equation}
This allows us to fill all of $\partial u$ at height zero with volume at most $(1+C)n^{1 + \log{d}/\log{\alpha}}$, proving our upper bound.
It remains to show that these bounds on the $V_i$ are valid. We will do so by showing that the projection $\pi_i(u)$ contains the cylinder with base $w_i$ and height $h$; the bound on $V_i$ then comes from the fact that the volume of the cylinder cannot be more than $n$. The process described for finding this cylinder is illustrated in the area distortion case in Figure \ref{cylinder}.
Without loss of generality, assume $i = k$. Let $a$ be a point in the cylinder, say with $(x, x_k,t)$-coordinates given by $(q,0,h_0)$. Then $(q,0,0)$ is interior to $u_k$, so there is some $q_k$ such that $b = (q,q_k,0) \in u$. Now consider the line $(q,q_k, t)$. This will intersect $w$ for the first time at some height $H > h$. In particular, the point $(q,q_i,h_0)$ is interior to $W$. Then the line $(q,x_i,h)$ must intersect $W$ at some point $c$. Thus $\pi_k(c) = a$.
The volume of the cylinder is given by $\int_0^h p_i^{-t}V_i dt$. We will restrict the height further: if $p_i > 1$, we will consider only the cylinder from height 0 to 1; if $p_i < 1$ then we will consider the cylinder from height $h -1$ to $h$. In the former case we have:
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 p_i^{-t}V_i dt &= -\frac{1}{\log{p_i}}(p_i^{-t}V_i)|_o^1\\
&= \frac{V_i}{\log{\pi_i}}(1 - p_i^{-1})
\end{aligned}
\end{displaymath}
Since this volume is less than $n$, we must have $$V_i \leq n (\log{p_i})(1-p_i^{-t})^{-1} = C_in.$$
Similarly, in the latter case we have:
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{h-1}^{h} p_i^{-t}V_i dt &= -\frac{1}{\log{p_i}}(p_i^{-t}V_i)|_{h - 1}^{h}\\
&= \frac{V_i}{|\log{pi}|}p_i^{-h}(1 - p_i)
\end{aligned}
\end{displaymath}
Thus $V_i \leq |\log{p_i}| n p_i^{h}(1 - p_i)^{-1} = Cnp^{h}$, as desired.
\vspace{1cm}
To show this bound is sharp, we need to construct an example exhibiting this amount of distortion. We do this by costructing a $(k-1)$-dimensional box with side lengths chosen so that each projection $\pi_i$ gives an object with $(k-1)$-volume equal to the upper bound $V_i$ found above.
In order to do this, set $l_i = (\prod V_i)^{1/(k-1)}/V_j$. Now build a $(k-1)$-hyper-rectangle with the length in the $x_i$ direction equal to $l_i$.
This box can be filled in the ambient space by flowing the box up to the height $h$ and then filling the resulting box at height $h$. This height was chosen so that the volume obtained by flowing each side of the box is some $Cn$, and the the volume at height $h$ is also $Cn$. Thus the overall volume of this filling is bounded above by $C'n$.
The subspace is Euclidean, so we know the best filling for the box, which is exactly $\prod V_i = Cn^{1 + \frac{\log{d}}{\log \alpha}}$, as calculated in Equations \ref{Vw} through \ref{finalvol}, which is exactly the value of the volume distortion function.
\end{proof}
In the case $M$ has one eigenvalue off the unit circle, we must amend the bound somewhat. In particular, it is necessary to use the {\em Lambert $W$ function}, that is, the inverse of the function $e^nn$.
\begin{cor}\label{oneeig}
If $M$ is as above, but has exactly one eigenvalue off the unit circle, say $\lambda > 1$, then the $k$-volume distortion function is $(\frac{n^{k}}{W(n)})^{1/(k-1)}$, where $W$ is the Lambert $W$ function.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The reason we cannot use exactly the proof of Theorem~\ref{abcdist} is that when we project $x_1$ to zero, we obtain a space with a Euclidean metric. Thus the volume of the cylinder will be $h \cdot V_1$.
Because of this, we must change $h$ to $W(n)$ and set $V_1 = n/h$. Notice that all other $V_i$ will still be $n$, since these projections behave as before. With these changes, the argument for the proof of Theorem \ref{abc} works exactly, giving a $k$-volume distortion function of $\lambda^hn$, which is equivalent to $(\frac{n^{k}}{W(n)})^{1/(k-1)}$.
\end{proof}
By Lemma \ref{GXeq} above, the distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ in $\Gamma_M$ is the same as that of $\mathbb{R}^k$ in $G_N$, where $N$ is the absolute Jordan form for $M$, so we immediately have:\\
\noindent
{\bf Theorem \ref{gammamdist}.}
Let $M$ be an integer-entry $k$-by-$k$ diagonalizable matrix with
$det(M) = d \geq 1$,and let $\lambda_i$ denote the absolute value of the $i^{th}$ eigenvalue. Then the $k$-volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ in $\Gamma_M$ depends only on the eigenvalues of $M$. If $M$ has at least two eigenvalues off the unit circle, the volume distortion is
$$\textrm{VolD}^{(k)}(n) \asymp n^{1 + \log{d}/\log{\alpha}}, \textrm{ where } \alpha = (\prod_{i = 1}^{k} \max \{\lambda_i, d\})/d.$$
If $M$ has exactly one eigenvalue off the unit circle,
$$ \textrm{VolD}^{(k)}{n} \asymp (\frac{n^{k}}{W(n)})^{1/(k-1)}.$$
Otherwise, $\textrm{VolD}^{(k)}(n) \asymp n$.
\vspace{1cm}
The case in which $M$ has determinant $d = 1$ is covered by Theorem \ref{cxitycor}, since in this case $M$ gives an automorphism, and $\mathbb{Z}^k$ has a unique $k$-cell. This presents one extreme, the case in which volume is undistorted.
At the other extreme, when all eigenvalues are at least 1, and when at least two eigenvectors are greater than one, then the $k$-volume distortion is maximal, i.e. $n^{k/(k-1)}$, which is the $(k-1)$-order Dehn function for $\mathbb{Z}^k$.
We may wish to consider the $k$-volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ in $\Gamma_M$ with $k < m$, that is, the distortion of a smaller-dimensional volume. This is bounded below by the largest $k$-volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ inside the group we get by projecting the other $m-k$ dimensions to zero, as these projections are volume non-increasing.
\begin{cor}
For any intergers $m > 1$ and $1 < k < m$, there exists a pair $(G, H)$ with distorted $k$-volume but undistorted $m$-volume.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Simply choose a group $G = \Gamma_M$ with $M$ an $m$-by-$m$ matrix with $det(M) = 1$ and at least one eigenvector off the unit circle, and let $H = \mathbb{Z}^m$.
\end{proof}
Ideally, we would like groups that exhibit stronger behavior: for example, a pair in which only the 3-volume is distorted. Examples exist for the area case, but have proven more difficult to construct in general.
\subsubsection{Other matrices}\label{nondiag}
When the matrix $M$ is not diagonalizable, the situation gets more complicated. In this case, the automorphism no longer preserves the eigendirections, but also changes lengths along other directions at a rate proportional to a polynomial in the height. This means that techniques involving projection become more difficult to use.
\begin{conjecture}
Given a matrix $M$ with at least one eigenvalue off the unit circle, the distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^k$ in $\mathbb{Z}^k \rtimes_M \mathbb{Z}$ is the same as that of $\mathbb{R}^k$ in $\mathbb{R}^k \rtimes_N \mathbb{R}$, where $N$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries given by the norms of the eigenvalues of $M$.
\end{conjecture}
The idea behind this conjecture is that the exponential change in length created by the eigenvalues dominates the polynomial change given by the ones on the superdiagonal, and so, in a large-scale sense, we should be able to ignore the polynomial contribution.
This leaves one more case: when all of the eigenvalues are on the unit circle. In this case, there is no exponential growth coming from the eigenvalues, and so it is the polynomial effect that comes into play.
Such a matrix will have absolute Jordan form in which each block has ones on the diagonal and superdiagonal, and zeroes everywhere else. Thus it can be described completely by the number of blocks, say $c$, and the size of each block, which we will denote by $a_i$ for $i \in \{1, 2, \dots, c\}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{blockdist}
Let $M$ be a matrix whose absolute Jordan form consists of $c$ blocks along the diagonal, in which each block is $a_i$-by-$a_i$ and consists of ones on the diagonal and superdiagonal and zeros elsehwere. Then the $k$-volume distortion of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ in $\Gamma_M$ is at least $n^{\beta/\alpha}$, where
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha &= (k - 1)\sum (a_i -1) + k, \text{ and} \\
\beta &= k\sum (a_i - 1) + k
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
if $k \leq c$, and
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha &= (k-1)(m-k) + 2k - c + \sum (b_i - k_i) \text{, and }\\
\beta &= k(m-k) + 2k - c + \sum (b_i - k_i)
\end{aligned}
\end{displaymath}
when $k > c$, where $k_i$ are chosen such that $k_i \leq b_i$, the $b_i$ are a subset of the $a_i$, and the choice of $k_i$ maximizes the value of $\alpha/\beta$.
Further, the $k$-volume distortion is bounded above by $n^{\frac{k}{k-1}}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The upper bound comes from the $k^{th}$-order Dehn function for Euclidean space.
To show the lower bound, we will construct examples with the desired distortion in the following general manner. We start with the boundary of a $k$-dimensional box, where each edge is in a basis direction $x_i$ with length $l_i$. We then apply the automorphism $M^h$ to this box to get an $(k-1)$-dimensional parallelepiped. We will embed this in $G_M$ at height 0; this will be the $(k-1)$-cycle that we consider. Call the map that gives us this cycle $f(u)$. It will often be beneficial to consider the edges of the box as vectors.
This cycle can be filled in at height $0$, and we can easily compute the volume of the resulting parallelepiped. On the other hand, we can think of $G_M$ as (topologically) $\mathbb{R}^m \times \mathbb{R}$ and fill the cycle with the function $(f(u), hz)$, together with filling the paralellepiped at height $h$. When $k=2$, this would look like filling the rectangle bounding the bottom of a box with its sides and top.
The volume of the sides, which look like $\pi_i((f(u), hz))$, can be found by integrating the $(k-1)$-volume of the cross-section at a given height. We chose our chain so that this would be easy to compute: the volume of $f(u)$ at height $t$ in the space $G_M$ is the same as the Euclidean volume of $M^{-h}(f(u))$. This volume will be some polynomial in $h$ and the $l_i$; we will choose the values of the lengths $l_i$ and height $h$ so as to maximize the difference between the two volumes. To do this, we will set values so that the volumes of each of the sides and the top are all equal. Note that, while we do not prove that this maximizes the distortion, it still provides a lower bound for distortion, since we will have demonstrated an example with the distortion required.
It is convenient now to consider two cases: one, when $k \leq c$, and another when $k > c$. When two basis directions are chosen from the same Jordan block, the resulting vectors are not linearly independent, a fact that must be taken into account when computing volumes---it tends to significantly decrease the volume.
For this reason, if $k \leq c$, we will choose each vector from a different Jordan block. If a block has size $a$, then the image of the unit vector corresponding to the last column of this block is mapped under $M^h$ to a vector of the form $p_0(t)v_a + p_1(t)v_{a-1} + p_2(t)v_{a-2} + \cdots p_{a-1}(t)v_1$, where $v_i$ is the basis vector corresponding to the $i^{th}$ column of the block in question and $p_i$ is a polynomial of degree $i$. This will then be equivalent to a polynomial of degree $a-1$ in the height.
If we choose our $k$ vectors to be the last vector in each of the $k$ largest Jordan blocks, the volume of the side where the $j^{th}$ side is sent to zero is given by
$$ \int_0^h t^{\alpha_i} \frac{l_1l_2\cdots l_k}{l_j} = h^{\alpha_i + 1} \frac{l_1l_2\cdots l_k}{l_j}
$$
where
$$\alpha_i = \sum_{i \neq j} (a_i - 1).$$
These volumes will be equal when each $l_i = h^{\alpha_i}$. Under this choice, the volume of the filling in the ambient group is $h^{\alpha}$ where
$$\alpha = \sum (\alpha_i + 1) = \frac{k-1}{\sum (a_i-1)} + k.$$
At height zero, the lengths of the vectors are now $h^{a_i - 1}l_i$, so the volume below is $h^{\sum a_i} \cdot l_1l_2 \cdots l_k = h^{\beta}$ where
$$\beta = k\sum (a_i - 1) + k.$$
When we set the filling in the ambient group to be bounded above by $n$, then the area below, in terms of $n$, is $n^{\beta/\alpha}$.
Next we will find the volumes in the case $k > c$. We can, of course, also use this method to produce one bound for all choices of $k$ and $c$; however, if we know we are using all of the Jordan blocks, we can simplify the result somewhat to get a form that is less dependent on the sizes of the blocks than one might expect.
For the moment, let $a_i$ denote the sizes of the blocks from which only one vector is chosen, and $b_i$ denote the sizes of blocks in which multiple vectors are chosen, with $k_i$ representing the number chosen from this block.
As before, we wish to find the $k$-volumes of the ``side'' pieces, which we do by integrating the Euclidean volume of $M^{-h}(f(u))$ from height $t = 0$ to height $t = h$. This volume is found by taking the determinant of the matrix whose columns are the vectors of the sides of the box (in each case, projecting one of the vectors to 0). When we take vectors from the same block in $M$, the linear dependence of the vectors significantly decreases the volume from what it would be if they were independent. Generally, if we are considering a side which contains the edges corresponding to the last $k_i$ vectors from a block of size $b_i$, the volume at height $t$ is $t^{b_i-k_i} \prod l_i$. Recall that one vector will be projected to zero; if it is one of these vectors, but not the last from the block, then the power of $t$ is increased by one, created by the ``gap'' in the dependence relations.
We now find the values of $l_j$ as powers of $h$ just as above: if the $j^{th}$ vector is from a block with only one chosen vector, then $l_j = h^{\alpha_j + 1}$ where
$$\alpha_j = \sum_{i \neq j} (a_i - 1) + \sum (b_i - k_i) +1$$
If $v_j$ is from a block with more than one vector, the power of $h$ is
$$\sum (a_i - 1) + \sum(b_i -k_i) + q,$$
where $q$ is 1 when $v_j$ is the last vector in its block, and 2 otherwise.
With these values, the total volume of the filling is $h^\alpha$ where
$$\alpha = (k-1)\sum (a_i -1) + k\sum(b_i - k_i) + k + \sum (n_i - 1).$$
Notice that we can simplify some: we can think of 1 as the ``$k_i$'' for the blocks of size $a_i$. With this approach, the sum of the $k_i$'s is $k$. Further, the sum of the $a_i's$ and $b_i's$ is $m$, the dimension of the matrix. Then
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha &= (k-1)[(\sum a_i + \sum b_i) - \sum k_i] + \sum (k_i - 1) + \sum(b_i - k_i)\\
&= (k-1)(m-k) + 2k - c + \sum(b_i - k_i)
\end{aligned}
\end{displaymath}
Meanwhile, in the subspace, directions in the $a_i$ blocks contribute to the volume in the same way as previously; however, each of the sets of vectors coming from one block of size $b_i$ contribute only $h^{b_i - k_i}$ times the original lengths. This gives us a volume of $h^{\beta}$, where
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{aligned}
\beta &= (k\sum (a_i -1) + (k+1)\sum(b_i - k_i) + k + \sum (n_i -1)\\
&= k(m-k) + 2k - c + \sum(b_i - k_i)
\end{aligned}
\end{displaymath}
Then the total volume distortion is $h^{\beta/\alpha}$.
Notice that the only part of the exponent that depends on the choice of vectors from blocks is the $\sum(b_i - k_i)$ term, which appears in both the numerator and denominator. Overall, the exponent will be maximized when this term is minimized. Thus, we want to pick our vectors so that we come as close as possible to using all of the vectors from any block from which we use more than one vector.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Area distortion}\label{gerstenconj}
We can combine these results to answer a question of Gersten (\cite{gersten96}, p. 19):
{\bf Theorem \ref{areadistthm}.}
The group $\mathbb{Z}^m$, $m \geq 3$, is area undistorted in $\Gamma_M$ if and only if $M$ has finite order.
See Figure~\ref{areaflow} for a flow chart for the various possible area distortion functions.
\begin{proof}
The latter condition is equivalent to saying that $M$ is diagonalizable and all eigenvalues of $M$ are roots of unity, which, by a theorem of Kronecker, is true if and only if all eigenvalues of $M$ are on the unit circle (see for example \cite{greiter78}). Then by Theorem~\ref{abcdist}, $\mathbb{Z}^m$ is undistorted.
Otherwise, let us consider the possible cases.
\begin{case}
All eigenvalues are on the unit circle.
\end{case}
Since no power of $M$ is the identity, it must be the case that some Jordan block of $M$ has ones along the superdiagonal. Then Theorem~\ref{blockdist} gives us a lower bound on area distortion.
\begin{case}
There is a block of size more than one with eigenvalue off the unit circle.
\end{case}
It will suffice in this case to show that area is distorted in the case $M = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \lambda & 1 \\ 0 & \lambda\end{array}\right)$, as this will always be a subgroup in $G_M$, giving a lower bound on the volume distortion.
Consider the square of side length $n\lambda^{-h}$ at height $h = \frac{\log n}{\log \lambda}.$ Projecting this to height zero gives a parallelogram in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with area at least $n^2$; however, we can fill it in $G_M$ with five parallelograms each of area linear in $n$. Thus area is quadratically distorted.
\begin{case}
There are at least two eigenvalues off the unit circle.
\end{case}
Then by Theorem \ref{abcdist} it must be the case that the distortion is nonlinear.
Notice that if there are at least three such eigenvalues, then two must lie on the same side of the unit circle, which means that the area distortion is quadratic, the maximum possible.
\begin{case}
There is exactly one eigenvalue off the unit circle.
\end{case}
In this case, Theorem~\ref{oneeig} tells us the distortion is bounded below by $\frac{n^2}{W(n)}$. The distortion may in fact be higher if we have large blocks associated to unit-length eigenvectors.
\end{proof}
In the case $m = 2$, we can also classify area distortion, though the conditions are different: here area is undistorted if and only if $\det(M) = 1$. Otherwise, $M$ has two eigenvalues, say with absolute values $\lambda$ and $\mu$, and by Theorem~\ref{abcdist}, area distortion is quadratic (maximal) if $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are both greater than one, and $n^{2 + \log_\lambda(\mu)}$ if $\lambda > 1 > \mu$ and $\lambda\mu > 1$. If $\lambda > 1$ and $\mu = 1$, then the distortion is $\frac{n^2}{W(n)}$. The examples from \S \ref{sol} and \S \ref{sull} (Sol and Nil geometry) are cases of this sort where $\det(M) = 1$.
While the cases become more complicated with higher dimensions, it should be possible to generalize Gersten's conjecture as follows.
\begin{conjecture}
Let $M$ be a square matrix of size at least $m$ with nonzero determinant, and let $k < m$. Then the group $\mathbb{Z}^m$ is $k$-volume undistorted in $\Gamma_M$ if and only if $M$ has finite order.
\end{conjecture}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Overview}
\subsection{Particles in the Universe for $T>5$~MeV}
This study began with the question: At what temperature
in the expanding early Universe does the reaction
\begin{equation}
\pi ^{0}\leftrightarrow \gamma +\gamma \label{pigg}
\end{equation
`freeze' out, that is the $\pi^0$ decay overwhelms the production rate and the yield
falls away from chemical equilibrium yield. Because the $\pi^0$ life span (8.4$\,10^{-17}$ s) is
rather short, one is tempted to presume that the decay process (arrow to the right) dominates. However,
there must be a detailed balance in the thermal bath: the production process (arrow to the left)
in a suitable environment must be
able to form $\pi^0$ with strength corresponding to the decay process lifespan.
We demonstrate here that the $\pi^0$ production and equilibration relaxation time
is of the same order of magnitude as the lifespan of $\pi^0$ in the
post-quark-gluon-plasma hadronization Universe, $T<200$ MeV.
The point is that the $\pi^0$ life span is much shorter than the Universe expansion time
(inverse expansion rate) $1/H$~\cite{Kolb:1988aj}:
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{\dot R}{R}=1.66 \sqrt{g^*}\frac{T^2}{m_{pl}},
\end{equation}
where $g^*$ is the number of degrees of freedom. $m_{pl}=1.2211\,10^{19}$ GeV is the Plank mass.
Figure \ref{taupi01}
compares the $\pi^0$ production-equilibration time (blue solid line) with the Universe
expansion time $1/H$ {dashed (green) line]. We see that $\pi^0$ equilibration time is much
shorter, by 14 orders of magnitude at $T=10$ MeV, compared to the Universe expansion time constant.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{taupi0.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) $\pi^0$ equilibration time [solid (blue) line]
and Universe expansion time $1/H$ as functions of temperature [dashed (green) line].}}} \label{taupi01}
\end{figure}
The reason for this is that in thermal equilibrium the photon density remains high
[dash-dotted (red) line in figure \ref{npi2}] also for relatively small $T$.
Thus there is a small non-negligible
probability of finding high energy photons capable
to produce $\pi^0$, whose density at low $T$ is very
small (solid blue line in figure \ref{npi2}). The $\pi^0$
production has enough time to equilibrate with the decay process.
Therefore the $\pi^0$ density does not freeze out, but
decreases with decreasing ambient temperature of the expanding Universe,
all the time remaining in chemical equilibrium with the photon abundance.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{nmupi1.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) Thermal equilibrium density as a functions of temperature for:
$\gamma$ [dash-dot (red) line],
$\pi^0$ [solid (blue) line],
$\mu^{\pm}$ pair [dashed (green) line],
and nucleons $p+n$ [dotted (black) line~\cite{FromerthRafelski}].}}} \label{npi2}
\end{figure}
Let us recall how the Bose distribution describes $\pi^0$-density:
\begin{equation}
n^{eq}_{\pi^0} =\int \frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}} \frac{1}{e^{u\cdot p/kT}-1}, \label{npi}
\end{equation}
Here $u^\mu$ is the four-velocity of the observer with
reference to the heat bath rest frame, $p^\mu$ is momentum four-vector
\begin{equation}
\label{4p}
p^\mu=\left(\frac{E}{c}, \vec p\right),\qquad E=\sqrt{\vec p^{\,2}+m^2}
\end{equation}
of the particle considered: a similar expression applies for photons, which have
two fold spin degeneracy, and $m\to 0$. The resulting $\pi^0$ density
falls exponentially when $kT<m_{\pi^0}c^2$ (henceforth units are chosen
such that $\hbar=c=k=1$). However this density remains high
compared to the nucleon's density in the Universe
(dotted (black) line in Fig. \ref{npi2}, taken from \cite{FromerthRafelski}),
down to a temperature of about 6 MeV. This is the lower $T$-limit of validity in our
present study, as we consider particle production reactions in a
particle-antiparticle symmetric Universe.
Some of the results we derive here were presented in \cite{Kuznetsova:2008jt}
without a derivation: there we considered a laboratory $e^+e^-\gamma$ plasma and
postponed the theoretical and analytical details. Here we evaluate
the reaction relaxation time for reactions involving two particles fusing into one particle,
and/or particle decay into two, \req{pigg}, and relate this to the lifespan of decaying
particle in vacuum. To complement this in chapter \ref{4} subsection (c) we also consider
$\pi^{\pm}$, which can be equilibrated by the reaction:
\begin{equation}
\pi^0+\pi^0 \leftrightarrow \pi^+ + \pi^- \label{pipm}.
\end{equation}
and also by reactions involving muons
\begin{equation}
\pi^\pm \leftrightarrow \mu^\pm +\nu_{\mu}(\bar{\nu}_{\mu}), \label{pimunu}
\end{equation}
We also consider how fast muons are produced in the reactions:
\begin{equation}
\gamma+\gamma \leftrightarrow \mu^+ + \mu^-,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,e^+ + e^- \leftrightarrow \mu^+ + \mu^-; \label{muprod}
\end{equation}
and show that these particles also do not freeze out down to
a $T$ value of a few MeV~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008jt}. The muon density is slightly higher
than that pions because of their smaller mass; see the dashed (green) line in Fig. \ref{npi2}.
Another reaction that may influence muon chemical equilibration
is the decay of one particle to three particles,
and the reverse reaction, including neutrinos:
\begin{equation}
\mu^{\pm} \leftrightarrow e^{\pm} + \nu_{e}(\bar\nu_e) + \bar\nu_{\mu}(\nu_{\mu}).\label{munu}
\end{equation}
However in this case the exact influence of medium effects on the reaction rate is more complicated and
we do not consider this reaction in complete detail here. We do, however, compare
the relaxation times of particle production in all mentioned reactions with the
Universe expansion rate to see if the particle densities stay in chemical equilibrium.
\subsection{Degrees of Freedom in the Universe}
The lifespans of all unstable hadrons and leptons, except for neutrons $n$,
are much shorter than the Universe expansion rate for $5<T<200$ MeV.
Here we show that, as a result, all unstable particles stay in chemical equilibrium,
including neutrons which are effectively stable on the time scale of expansion.
The importance of this remark is that we can evaluate the active effective
degeneracy (degrees of freedom) in
the Universe in the entire temperature domain including
all unstable hadron states. In the hadron phase we define
the effective degeneracy using as reference the Stephan-Boltzmann law,
\begin{equation}
g_E(T)=\frac{\epsilon}{\sigma T^4},\qquad\sigma=\frac{\pi^2}{30},\label{gEdef}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the energy density:
\begin{equation}
{\epsilon} = \int \sum_i g_iE_if_i(p)d^3p, \quad E_i=\sqrt{m_i^2+\vec p^{\,2}},
\end{equation}
whith the sum over all particles present.
In Fig.~\ref{degen}
we show the degeneracy \req{gEdef} as a function of $T$.
The dashed (red) line accounts for the photon,
three families of neutrino and antineutrino,
electron, positron, muon, and antimuon contributions.
The dot-dashed (green) line adds pions; the solid (blue) line,
all hadrons. Pions begin to contribute
noticeably to degeneracy at $T> 30$~MeV. Among hadrons we included all light
and strange mesons and baryons, up to a mass of about 1700 MeV. The finite
density of $p$ and $n$ is also included. As noted earlier, this is
a more complicated case; fortunately the finite baryon density
contributes at just at a few percent to $g_{E}$ near the hadronization
temperature, where the particle-antiparticle symmetry is good to 10 orders of magnitude.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{degen.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) Effective degeneracy $g_{E}$ in the Universe based
on the energy density of hadrons, and for QGP, as a function of $T$.
See text for more details.}}} \label{degen}
\end{figure}
The boundary between quark-gluon and hadron phase (vertical line) is near
$T_h=170$ MeV. In figure~\ref{degen} we also show degeneracy in
QGP for $T>160$~MeV (upper lines). The results
shown are based on our earlier detailed study of QGP
properties~\cite{Kuznetsova:2006bh}. Here, the QGP degeneracy is shown for the
extreme cases of either strange quark $m_s= 90$~MeV [dashed (purple) line] or 160~MeV
[solid (turquoise) line]. Since the expansion of the Universe is relatively slow compared to
expansion of QGP in laboratory, heavy and strange quarks also have enough time
to reach chemical equilibrium density in the QGP temperature range presented in graph.
We see in figure~\ref{degen} that the effective degeneracy of hadrons,
while rising fast, is still smaller than the degeneracy in QGP in the domain
of phase transformation temperature near 160-170 MeV. Many heavy hadron states
may be missing from the experimental tables. Even though their individual
contribution to the degeneracy is decreasing, their number is expected
to grow rapidly, in accordance with the Hagedorn hypothesis, in which hadron mass
spectrum diverges exponentially near the hadronization temperature.
This theoretical exponentially growing component leads to a smoother
transition between hadronic gas and QGP, as is qualitatively indicated in Fig.\ref{degen} [dotted (black) line].
\subsection{Production and decay of unstable particles}
We show here for the first time the
detailed derivation of relaxation time for reactions involving
one-to-two particles in the thermal medium, which we considered
in ~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr} - \cite{Kuznetsova:2006bh}.
In the rest frame of the decaying particle $m_{3}$, the reaction
\begin{equation}
A_1+B_2 \leftrightarrow C_3 \label{123}
\end{equation
requires that $m_1 + m_2 \le m_{3}$, which allows the spontaneous decay process. This
is easily seen considering
\begin{eqnarray}
m_3^2&=&(p_1+p_2)^2\nonumber\\
&=&(m_1 +m_2)^2 +2(E_1E_2-m_1m_2-\vec p_1\cdot \vec p_2)\nonumber\\
&\ge& (m_1 +m_2)^2. \label{123c}
\end{eqnarray}
In the last inequality we used $E_1^2E_2^2\ge (m_1m_2+\vec p_1\cdot \vec p_2)^2 $
which can be reorganized to read
$(m_1 \vec p_2 -m_2 \vec p_1)^2\ge \vec p_1\cdot \vec p_2- \vec p_1^{\,2} \vec p_2^{\,2}$.
This is always true since the right hand side is always negative, or zero if both
vectors are parallel. The equality sign corresponds to the case $m_1+m_2=m_3$,
where the reaction rate vanishes by virtue of vanishing phase space.
This text-book exercise shows that the reaction Eq.\,(\ref {pigg}) is
possible when condition \req{123c} is satisfied.
The constraint Eq. (\ref{123c}) forbids many reactions. For example, the hydrogen formation
$p+e\to $H is forbidden, as for a bound state, $m_H<m_p+m_e$. Thus
there must be a second particle in the final state.
The electron capture involves either a radiative emission,
$p+e\to $H$+\gamma$, or a surface/third atom, which picks the recoil momentum.
The situation would be different if there were "resonant"' intermediate states of relatively long life span
with energies above the ionization threshold. Such "doorway" resonances are available in many important
physical processes.
It is natural to evaluate the rates of the processes of interest, Eq (\req{123})
in the rest frame of particle `3', boosting, as appropriate,
from or to laboratory frame. To do this effectively we need the master population
equations in an explicitly covariant fashion, which is discussed in Sec: \ref{2},
see Ref.~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr}.
The kinetic equation for time evolution of number
$N$ of decaying particles $3$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}\frac{dN_{3}}{dt}=\left( \frac{\Upsilon _{1}\Upsilon _{2}}{\Upsilon_{3}} -1\right)
\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}{dVdt}, \label{fe}
\end{equation
where ${dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}/{dVdt}$ is the decay rate of particle $3$ and
$\Upsilon _{i}$ is the fugacity of particle $i$. Here the number density
$n_{i}$ of particle $i$ in thermal (kinetic), but not necessarily in
chemical, equilibrium is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{N_i}{V} \equiv n_{i} &=&\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3}}\int d^{3}p_{i}f_{b/f}(p_{i}), \label{nf} \\
f_{b/f}(\Upsilon _{i},p_{i}) &=&
\frac{1}{\Upsilon _{i}^{-1}e^{(u\cdot p_{i}-\mu_i)/T}\mp 1}. \label{f}
\end{eqnarray
$f$ is the covariant form of the usual Bose or Fermi distribution
function defined in the rest frame of the thermal bath, and describes the
corresponding quantity in a general reference frame where the thermal bath
has the relative velocity defined by $u^{\mu }$. In the rest frame of the
thermal bath frame we have:
\begin{equation}
u^{\mu }\rightarrow \left( 1,\vec{0}\right) . \label{4v-rest}
\end{equation}
$p_{i}$ is the four-momentum-vector of particle $i$:
\begin{equation}
p_{i}^{\mu }=\left( E_{i},\vec{p_{i}}\right) . \label{4v}
\end{equation
$\mu_i$ is the chemical potential, which shows the asymmetry in particle and
antiparticle densities $\mu_{i}=-\bar \mu_{i}$. For reactions considered here
we have $\mu_i \simeq 0$. This was assumed in Eq.\ref{fe}. Note that the
distribution function $f$ is a Lorentz scalar but the spatial density $n_{i}$ is
not.
Particle $C_3$ attains the chemical equilibrium when the following
condition among fugacities is satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon_{1}\Upsilon_{2}=\Upsilon_{3}. \label{equilcon}
\end{equation
This, as expected, is equivalent to the Gibbs condition for the chemical
equilibrium. In Sec. \ref{3} we evaluate the invariant rate using the vacuum decay time
established in the rest frame of the decaying particle, and we
discuss the behavior of the average
decay rate of an unstable particle in the presence of the thermal bath. In
Sec. \ref{4}, we apply our formalism to two examples: \\
\indent {\bf a)} We study the formation
and decay rate of the $\rho $ meson through $\pi +\pi \leftrightarrow \rho $ in
a baryon-free hot hadronic gas, where mesons are considered in thermal and
chemical equilibrium. \\
\indent {\bf b)} We consider the reaction $\gamma +\gamma \leftrightarrow \pi^{0}$
in the early Universe and find that the expansion of the
Universe is slow compared to pion equilibration, which somewhat
surprisingly (for us) implies that $\pi ^{0}$ is at all times in
chemical equilibrium (but at sufficiently low temperatures e.g. 3-4 MeV, the
local density of $\pi^{0}$ is too low to apply the methods of
statistical physics).\\
\indent {\bf c)} We consider the reaction~Eq.(\ref{pimunu}) as an example of the decay
of $\pi ^{\pm}$ to fermions, and the reverse reaction, and show that $\pi^\pm$ and $\mu^\pm$
are also in chemical equilibrium until their equilibrium density vanishes
at low temperatures (about 3-4 MeV) because of the large mass. Also, we discuss
neutrinos equilibration by way of this reaction.\\
\indent {\bf d)} We study $\phi$ mesons evolution considering the reaction $K+K \leftrightarrow \phi$
in thermal hadronic gas in heavy-ion collisions.
To conclude this overview we draw attention to the fact
that unlike the one-to-two reaction the two-to-two
reactions
\begin{equation}
A_1+B_2 \leftrightarrow C_3 +D_4 \label{1234}
\end{equation
have been extensively studied in the past, in the context
of astrophysics and cosmology~ \cite{xx,Kolb:1988aj}
and heavy ion reactions~\cite{hadBook}. However, the simpler one-to-two situation
has escaped attention so far, and the adaptation of kinetic methods
is in detail not trivial given the
novel quantum and relativistic effects involving particle decay.
Aside from cosmology implications, the
insights gained in this study are clearly of
relevance to the general understanding of QGP and
hadron gas evolution in relativistic heavy ion collisions. For
example our present work allows to consider the chemical yields arising in
reactions such as $\rho \leftrightarrow \pi \pi $, $\pi^{0} \leftrightarrow \gamma \gamma $,
$\Delta \leftrightarrow N\pi $ and $K+K \leftrightarrow \phi$~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr,Kuznetsova:2008hb}.
\section{Kinetic equations for decaying particles}\label{2}
\subsection{Decaying particle density evolution equation}
Consider an unstable particle, say $C_3$, which decays into other two
particles,
\begin{equation}
C_3 \rightarrow A_1+B_2 \label{2eq}
\end{equation}
in the vacuum. In a dense and high-temperature thermal ambient phase, particles
$A_1 $ and $B_2$ are present, and the inverse reaction,
\begin{equation}
A_1+B_2\rightarrow C_3 \label{1eq}
\end{equation}
can occur, producing the particle we called $C_3$. For now we assume that the abundance of
particle $C_3$ changes solely by decay \req{2eq} and (thermal)
production \req{1eq} reactions. The
time variation of the number of particles $N_3$ than is controlled by the master equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}\frac{dN_{3}}{dt}=
\frac{dW_{12\rightarrow 3}}{dVdt}
-\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}{dVdt}, \label{popeq}
\end{equation}
where $dW_{12\rightarrow 3}/dVdt$ is the production rate per unit volume of
particle type $C_3$ via Eq.(\ref{1eq}) and $dW_{3\rightarrow 12}/dVdt$ is the decay rate of
particle type $C_3$ per unit volume.
A very similar master equation controls the abundance of particle $A_1$ and $B_2$
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{V}\frac{dN_{1,2}}{dt}=\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}{dVdt}
-\frac{dW_{12\rightarrow 3}}{dVdt} +R_{\rm other}, \label{popeq23}
\end{equation}
where the rate $R_{\rm other}$ is caused by other reactions influencing the
abundance of particles of type $A_1$ and $B_2$.
As an example, consider
the reaction $\rho \leftrightarrow \pi \pi $ in dense hot matter formed
in heavy-ion collisions. Pions can be easily created by inelastic
collisions of other hadrons and thus we have to deal with a multicomponent
system involving $R_{\rm other}$ when looking at $\pi$ abundance,
but to evaluate $\rho$ abundance the dominant terms are as in Eq.(\req{popeq}).
We often can assume that $R_{\rm other}$ dominates the yield gains and losses
and thus we can use the thermal distribution for the
particles $A_1$ and $B_2$, which in the example above are pions.
In the following, we thus assume that particles $A_1$ and $B_2$ are in thermal
equilibrium and further, we assume that the system is spatially homogeneous.
In a thermal equilibrium, the
dynamical information can be obtained from the single particle distribution
function $f\left( p\right) $ for each particle, see \req{f}. $f$ is controlled
by two parameters, the temperature $T$
and the fugacity $\Upsilon $ . In this paper, we assume that the fugacity
$\Upsilon $ changes over time by way of chemical reactions much more rapidly than
does the temperature $T$ of the ambient thermal bath, and thus we can consider
reactions at a given constant $T$. This assumption is certainly valid in the
domain of temperatures we consider, and may fail only at the very highest
primordial $T$ in the early Universe.
\subsection{Decay and production rates}
The thermal production rate ${dW_{12\rightarrow 3}}/{dVdt}$ and the decay
rate of particle $3$ under the thermal background
${dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}/{dVdt}$ can then be expressed using these distribution
functions for each of the particles involved in the reaction.
According to the boson or fermion nature of the particle $A_1$, we have to
consider different cases. If particle $A_1$ is a boson, then there are two
cases of the decay and production mode, and if the particle $C_3$
is a fermion, it can only decay into a boson and a fermion:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathrm{boson_{3}\longleftrightarrow boson_{1}+boson_{2},} \\
&&\mathrm{boson_{3}\longleftrightarrow fermion_{1}+\overline{fermion_{2}}.}\\
&&\mathrm{fermion_{3}\longleftrightarrow boson_{1}+fermion_{2}.}
\end{eqnarray
Accordingly, the Lorentz invariant transition
probability per unit time and unit volume
corresponding to the process Eq.(\ref{123}) is
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dW_{12\rightarrow 3}}{dVdt} &=&\frac{1}{1+I}
\frac{g_{1}}{(2\pi )^{3}}\int \frac{d^{3}p_{1}}{2E_{1}}f_{b,f}(\Upsilon _{1},p_{1})
\frac{g_{2}}{(2\pi )^{3}}\int \frac{d^{3}p_{2}}{2E_{2}}f_{b,f}(\Upsilon _{2},p_{2})
\int\frac{d^{3}p_{3}}{2E_{3}\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}} \notag \\[0.2cm]
&&\times
\left( 2\pi \right) ^{4}\delta ^{4}\left( p_{1}+p_{2}-p_{3}\right)
\frac{1}{g_{1}g_{2}}\sum_{\mathrm{spin}}\left\vert \langle p_{1}p_{2}
\left\vert M\right\vert p_{3}\rangle \right\vert ^{2}
\left( 1\pm f_{b,f}(\Upsilon_{3},p_{3})\right) , \label{pp}
\end{eqnarray
\end{widetext}
where $I=1$ for the case of a reaction between two indistinguishable
particles $A_1$ and $A_2$, and $I=0$ if
$A_1$ and $B_2$ are distinguishable.
The factor $1/(g_{1}g_{2})$ and the summation are
caused by averaging over all initial (iso)spin states. The last factor in \req{pp}
accounts for the enhancement or hindrance of the final-state phase owing to the quantum
statistical effect, as introduced first by Uehling and Uhlenbeck~\cite{BUU}. The
upper sign $^{\prime }+^{\prime }$ is for the case when particle $C_3$ is a boson;
the lower sign $^{\prime }-^{\prime }$ when it is a fermion. Eq. (\ref{pp})
is manifestly Lorentz invariant and therefore it can be used in any frame of reference.
This rate is related by a detailed balance relation~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr}
to the particle $C_3$ decay rate
\begin{equation}
\frac{dW_{12\rightarrow 3}}{dVdt}\Upsilon_{3}=
\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}{dVdt} \Upsilon_{1}\Upsilon_{2}.\label{pdr}
\end{equation}
Therefore chemical equilibrium
${\Upsilon_{1}\Upsilon _{2}}={\Upsilon _{3}}$ corresponds to the condition of
equal decay and production rates as we expected. Using \req{pdr},
\req{popeq} can be written in the form of Eq.(\req{fe}).
Equation (\ref{fe}) can be further simplified by defining
the decay time in matter of particle $i$:
\begin{equation}
\tau _{i}=\frac{dn_{i}/d\Upsilon _{i}}{R}, \label{taui}
\end{equation}
where rate:
\begin{equation}
R=\frac{1}{\Upsilon _{3}}\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 12}}{dVdt}
=\frac{1}{\Upsilon _{1}\Upsilon _{2}}\frac{dW_{12\rightarrow 3}}{dVdt}. \label{A}
\end{equation}
We show in the next section that this definition has the right vacuum limit and that the dynamical
equations assume a particularly simple form. However, the reader should observe that
other definitions could be considered.
It is convenient to
introduce kinematic reaction times in analogy to the dynamic expression \req{taui}. Doing this
we cast \req{fe} into the form of an equation for $\Upsilon_3$
\begin{equation}
\dot \Upsilon_{3}=\frac{1}{\tau_T}\Upsilon_3+\frac{1}{\tau_S}\Upsilon_3
+ \frac{1}{\tau_3}(\Upsilon_1\Upsilon_2 - \Upsilon_{3}), \label{uppiu}
\end{equation}
where we defined the kinematic relaxation times related to the evolution of temperature and entropy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{\tau_T}\equiv -T^3g^*\frac{d (n_{\pi}/(\Upsilon_3
g^*T^3))/dT}{dn_{\pi}/d{\Upsilon_3}}{\dot T},\label{tauT} \\
&&\frac{1}{\tau_{S}}\equiv
-\frac{n_{\pi}/\Upsilon_3}{dn_{\pi}/d{\Upsilon_3}}\frac{d\ln (g^*VT^3)}{dT}
\dot{T}. \label{Seq}
\end{eqnarray}
We introduced the minus sign above in order to have $\tau_T$, $\tau_S>0$. Compared to our
earlier definition~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr}, we now included $g^*$ in $\tau_T$ and $\tau_S$.
While in principle the values of $\tau_T$ and $\tau_S$ are unrelated, for a given kinematic
stage of system evolution the temperature change can be related to entropy change. For example, for the
radiation-dominated epoch of the Universe we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\dot T}{T}=-\frac{ \dot R}{R}. \label{Tch}
\end{equation}
In the radiation-dominated Universe the entropy conservation further implies that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tau_S} \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Freeze-out from chemical equilibrium arises for
\begin{equation}
{\tau_{T}}\approx \tau_3 \label{frcon}
\end{equation}
When $\tau_{T}$ is smaller than $\tau_3$, that is the kinematic term in \req{uppiu}
is important, $\Upsilon_3$ begins
to increase often rapidly, as the number of particles `3' is preserved but their
density decreases owing to dilution in expansion. Because $\Upsilon_3 >1 $ the multiplicity
of particle `3' in the slow decay is dominant, especially so when the
particles 1 and 2 yields remain in chemical equilibrium by the action of
other processes. These considerations can be of great importance in the
study of dark-matter particle abundance where
the lifespan against decay and/or annihilation is comparable to the life span of the
Universe. We postpone further discussion to a more appropriate opportunity.
\section{Evaluation of the invariant decay (production) rate}\label{3}
\subsection{General case}
The vacuum decay width of particle $C_3$ in its own rest frame can be found in
textbooks. In our notation,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\tau _{0}}& =\frac{1}{2m_{3}}\frac{1}{1+I}
\int \frac{d^{3}p_{1}}{2E_{1}\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}}
\int \frac{d^{3}p_{2}}{2E_{2}\left( 2\pi \right)^{3}}
\left( 2\pi \right) ^{4}\delta ^{4}\left( p_{1}+p_{2}-p_{3}\right)\frac{1}{g_3}
\sum_{spin}\left\vert \langle p_{1}p_{2}\left\vert M\right\vert p_{3}\rangle \right\vert ^{2} \notag \\
& =\frac{1}{2m_{3}g_3}\frac{1}{4\left( I+1\right) \left( 2\pi \right) ^{2}}
\int\frac{d^{3}p}{E_{1}E_{2}}\delta (E_{1}+E_{2}-m_{3})\sum_{spin}\left\vert
\langle \vec{p},-\vec{p}\left\vert M\right\vert m_{3}\rangle \right\vert ^{2}
=\frac{1}{8m_{3}^2g_3}\frac{p}{(I+1)\pi}\sum_{spin}\left\vert
\langle \vec{p},-\vec{p}\left\vert M\right\vert m_{3}\rangle \right\vert ^{2} \label{VacTau}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
Here $p=p_1=p_2$ and $E_{1,2} =\sqrt{p^2+m^2_{1,2}}$
are, respectively, the magnitudes of the momentum and the energies,
of the two particles $A_1$ and $B_2$ in the
rest frame of particle $C_3$
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{1,2}&=&\frac{m_{3}^{2}\pm (m_{1}^{2}-m_{2}^{2})}{2m_{3}}, \nonumber \\
\vec p^{\,2}&=&
\frac{m_3^2}{ 4} -\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}+\frac{(m_1^2-m_2^2)^2}{4m_3^2}. \label{encon}
\end{eqnarray}
The magnitude of three-momentum $|\vec p|$
is of course the same for particle $A_1$ and $B_2$ in the
rest frame of decaying particle $C_3$.
We denote by $\tau_3^{\prime }$ the decay rate of particle $C_3$
in the rest frame of the
thermal bath in which it is emerged, $E_{3}$ and $p_{3}$ are
the corresponding energy and the momentum of particle $C_3$ which changes
with thermal velocity distribution. The thermal decay reaction rate per unit
volume $dW_{3\rightarrow 1+2}/dVdt$ is then obtained by weighting $1/\tau_3^{\prime }$
with the probability to find the particle at a given momentum and introducing the
Lorentz factor $\gamma$, so that $E_{3}\tau ^{\prime }_3/m_3$ is the decay
time of particle $3$ with moment $p_{3}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 1+2}}{dVdt}=\frac{g_3}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}}\int
d^{3}p_{3}f_{b,f}(\Upsilon _{3},p_{3})\frac{m_{3}}{E_{3}}\frac{1}{\tau^{\prime }_3}. \label{Decay1}
\end{equation
Comparing Eq.(\ref{Decay1}) with Eq.(\ref{pp}), we conclude
that in medium, at finite temperature $T$, the
decay rate $\tau_3^{\prime }$ of particle $C_3$ in the rest frame of the heat bath
is given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\tau ^{\prime }_3}& =\frac{1}{2m_{3}}\frac{1}{1+I} \int \frac{
d^{3}p_{1}}{2E_{1}\left( 2\pi \right) ^{3}}\int \frac{d^{2}p_{2}}{2E_{2}\left(2\pi \right) ^{3}}
\left( 2\pi \right) ^{4}\delta ^{4}\left(p_{1}+p_{2}-p_{3}\right) \notag \\[0.2cm]
&
\times \frac{1}{g_3}\sum_{spin}\left\vert \langle p_{1}p_{2}\left\vert
M\right\vert p_{3}\rangle \right\vert ^{2} f_{b,f}(\Upsilon _{1},p_{1})f_{b,f}(\Upsilon _{2},p_{2})
\Upsilon_{1}^{-1}\Upsilon _{2}^{-1}\exp (u\cdot p_{3}/T), \label{tau23}
\end{align
\end{widetext}
which is a Lorentz invariant form, but $ u\cdot p_{3}\to E_3$, the energy of the
particle $3$ in the rest frame of the thermal bath.
Using the in-vacuum particle $C_3$ rest-frame decay time, Eq.(\ref {VacTau}),
we find that Eq.(\ref{tau23}) takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tau ^{\prime }_3}=\frac{1}{\tau _{0}}\frac{e^{E_{3}/T}}{2}\Phi (p_{3}).
\label{tau-tau0}
\end{equation
The function $\Phi (p_{3})$ is:
\begin{equation}
\Phi \left( p_{3}\right) =\int_{-1}^{1}d\zeta
\frac{\Upsilon_{1}^{-1}}{\Upsilon _{1}^{-1}e^{\left( a_{1}-b\zeta \right) }\pm 1}
\frac{\Upsilon_{2}^{-1}}{\Upsilon _{2}^{-1}e^{\left( a_{2}+b\zeta \right) }\pm 1}.
\label{phif}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a_{1}=\frac{E_{1}E_{3}}{m_{3}T}, \quad
a_{2} =\frac{E_{2}E_{3}}{m_{3}T}, \quad
b =\frac{pp_{3}}{m_{3}T}\quad {\rm and}\nonumber\\
&&\zeta =\cos \theta =\cos (\vec{p}_{2}\wedge \vec{p}_{1}).
\end{eqnarray}
With this the particle $C_3$ decay rate per unit volume in a thermally
equilibrated system is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{dW_{3\rightarrow 1+2}}{dVdt}=\frac{g_3}{\left(2\pi^{2}\right) }
\frac{m_{3}}{\tau _{0}}\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{p_{3}^{2}dp_{3}}{E_{3}}
\frac{e^{E_{3}/T}}{\Upsilon_{3}^{-1}e^{E_{3}/T}\pm 1}\Phi (p_{3}), \label{Decay1-final}
\end{equation}
We were able to evaluate the integral $\Phi(p_3)$ analytically in the
absence of particle-antiparticle asymmetry (absence of chemical potentials),
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(p_3)&=&\frac{1}{b(e^{a_1+a_2} \pm \Upsilon_1\Upsilon_2)}\times\nonumber\\
&&\ln\frac{\left(\Upsilon_2e^{-a_2} \pm e^b\right)
\left(e^{a_1} \pm \Upsilon_1e^{-b}\right)}{\left(\Upsilon_2e^{-a_2}\pm e^{-b}\right)\left(e^{a_1} \pm \Upsilon_1e^b\right)}. \label{phia1a2b}
\end{eqnarray}
and in the non-relativistic limit ($m_{3}\gg T, p_3$), this quantity
tends to
\begin{equation}
\Phi (p_3\to 0) = 2\frac{\Upsilon _{1}^{-1}\Upsilon_{2}^{-1}}
{(\Upsilon_{1}^{-1}e^{E_{1}/T}\pm 1)(\Upsilon _{2}^{-1}e^{E_{2}/T}\pm 1)}.
\label{philim}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Decay and production rates in the Boltzmann limit}
A useful check of the more complex quantum decay case is the Boltzmann limit.
We can then omit unity in the distribution Eq.(\ref{f}). This is possible when
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon _{i}^{-1}e^{u\cdot p_{i}/T}\gg 1, \label{Boltzmann}
\end{equation
that is, when $\Upsilon _{i}\ll 1$ or $T\ll m_{3}/2$. The condition $T\ll m_{3}/2$
comes from the fact that the minimal energy of lighter particles is
$m_{3}/2$ in the particle $3$ rest frame. In this limit the decay time in the
particle $3$ rest frame from Eq.(\ref{tau23}) $\tau ^{\prime }\rightarrow\tau _{0}$
so that from Eq.(\ref{taui}) we have, for the average decay rate
$\tau $ in the reference frame (the rest frame of the bath),
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_3^\prime &\approx &\tau _{0}
\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty }p^{2}dp \,e^{{E_{3}}/{T}}}
{\int_{0}^{\infty }p^{2}dp \, e^{{E_{3}}/{T}}{m_{3}}/E_{3}} \\[0.3cm]
&=&\tau _{0}\frac{K_{2}(m_{1}/T)}{K_{1}(m_{1}/T)}. \label{taubl}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{Decay1}) shows that the average decay time $\tau_3^\prime $
in the laboratory frame
is proportional to the (inverse) average of the Lorentz factor of particle
$C_3$. We address this effect next in a quantitative manner;
the ratio of $\tau_3^\prime $ to $\tau _{0}$ is shown
in Fig.{\ref{taurho}} as the dotted line. For $T\ll m_{3}$ this ratio goes to
unity because the Lorentz factor becomes $1$. For large $T $, the
rate increases because of the higher average energy of particle $C_3$,
that is, the increasing average Lorentz factor $\gamma$. Therefore, for the
low density classical limit with $\Upsilon _{i}\ll 1$ the average
particle life time increases with $T$ owing to relativistic effects.
However a different result can arise for a dense quantum medium.
\section{Examples}\label{4}
\subsection{Hadrons in heavy-ion collisions}
\subsubsection{Production of $\protect\rho $ mesons via the $\protect\rho
\leftrightarrow \protect\pi \protect\pi $ process}
First, we consider an example of $\rho$-meson thermal decay and production
in a thermal and chemically equilibrated pion bath:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\rho ^{0}\leftrightarrow \pi ^{+}+\pi ^{-}, \label{ropi++} \\
&&\rho ^{\pm }\leftrightarrow \pi ^{\pm }+\pi ^{0}. \label{ropi+0}
\end{eqnarray
In this example all particles are bosons and we put $m_{1}=m_{2}$
for simplicity, which is not quite exact for reaction (\ref{ropi+0}).
In integral (\ref{phif}) we have $E_{1}=E_{2}=m_{\rho }/2$ in the $\rho$ rest
frame. The integrand in $\Phi(p)$ is a symmetric function. Then we can write
\begin{equation}
\Phi \left( p_{\rho }\right) =2\int_{0}^{1}d\zeta
\frac{\Upsilon _{\pi }^{-2}}{\Upsilon _{\pi }^{-1}e^{\left( a-b\zeta \right) }-1}
\frac{1}{\Upsilon_{\pi }^{-1}e^{\left( a+b\zeta \right) }-1}. \label{phif2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation
a =\frac{\sqrt{m_{\rho }^{2}+p_{\rho }^{2}}}{2T};\quad
b =\frac{\sqrt{1-4m_{\pi }^{2}/m_{\rho }^{2}}p_{\rho }}{2T}.
\end{equation
The integral, Eq. (\ref{phif2}), can be evaluated in this case as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi (p_{\rho })&=&
\frac{2\Upsilon _{\pi }^{-2}}{b(\Upsilon _{\pi}^{-2}e^{2a}-1)} \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\times\left(b+\ln \left( 1+
\frac{ \Upsilon _{\pi}\left(e^{(b-a)}-e^{-(a+b)}\right) }
{\left(1-\Upsilon_{\pi }e^{b-a}\right) }\right) \right). \label{phiab}
\end{eqnarray
Then we substitute $\Phi$ into Eq.(\ref{Decay1}) and using Eq.(\ref{pdr})
we can calculate $\rho $ decay and production rates. To calculate $\tau_3\to \tau$
we use definition (\ref{taui}).
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=8.5cm]{taurho.eps}
\caption{\small (Color online) The ratio $\protect\tau /\protect\tau _{0}$
as a function of temperature $T$ in the
reaction $\rho\leftrightarrow \pi\pi$.
The [dotted (blue) line] is
for the Boltzmann limit showing only time dilation.
Near this limit [dash-dotted (green) line]
dilute system $\Upsilon_{\rho}=\Upsilon_{\pi}=0.1$.
Solid (red) line and dashed (turquoise) lines represent
$\protect\Upsilon_{\rho} = \Upsilon_{\pi}=1$
and $\Upsilon_{\rho} =\Upsilon_{\pi}= 2.56$, respectively. }\label{taurho}
\end{figure}
In Fig. {\ref{taurho}} we present the $\rho $ decay time
in the laboratory frame normalized by its decay time in the rest frame in a vacuum as a
function of temperature $T$ for $\Upsilon _{\rho }=\Upsilon _{\pi }=1$,
[solid (red) line], $\Upsilon _{\rho }=\Upsilon _{\pi }=2.56$
(dashed line), $\Upsilon _{\rho }=\Upsilon _{\pi }=0.1$ (dash-dot
line); the dotted line shows the Boltzmann limit, Eq.(\ref{taubl}). We consider the range of
temperatures between $50$ and $150$ MeV, which includes the QGP
hadronization temperature ($\approx$ 140 -165 MeV).
We show the case $\Upsilon _{\rho }=\Upsilon _{\pi}=0.1$ (dot-dashed line)
to check the transition to the Boltzmann limit. We can see that for this case, the
result is close to the Boltzmann approximation for our range of $T$, as
expected. In the case of chemical equilibrium, $\Upsilon _{\rho }=\Upsilon _{\pi }=1$,
the solid line in Fig.~{\ref{taurho}} shows a relatively small, 10-15\% increase in lifie span.
We finally consider a supersaturated pion state,
$\Upsilon _{\rho }=\Upsilon _{\pi }=2.56$,
which can arise after supercooled QGP
hadronization near $T=140$ MeV~\cite{Kuznetsova:2006bh}.
For small $T\ll m_{\rho }/2$, the ratio $\tau /\tau _{0}$ is near the Boltzmann
limit, close to unity, because for such a small $T$, when the Boltzmann limit is applied,
decay time $\tau $ does not depend on $\Upsilon$. When $T$ increases quantum the
effects dominate and $\tau $ decreases with increasing $T$. In general,
the larger $\Upsilon$ is, the more rapidly $\tau$ decreases with temperature.
Here we do not consider in depth the $\rho$-meson density evolution
in heavy-ions collisions, because without doubt, our limited
system (just a few hadron states) is not sufficiently realistic to
capture the physics of the $\rho$ in dense matter. Moreover, the
$\rho$ yield is a probe of the hadron density temporal evolution and
thus still more difficult to describe precisely. This can be seen as
follows: In the Boltzmann low-density limit, the chemical
equilibration time is $\tau_\rho \approx$ 1.7 fm.
Our result shows that the pion high density quantum medium effects
causes an increase in $\rho$ width, that
is a decrease in equilibration time to $\tau_\rho \approx$ 1.25 fm,
accelerating $\rho$-meson chemical equilibration near the hadronization
temperature.
The kinetic-phase time scale in heavy-ion collisions, when hadrons
interact is near 2-3 fm~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr}.
This means that the $\rho$-meson
chemical evolution is dependent on the ambient hadron density
and thus is intricately connected with the dynamics of fireball expansion.
\subsubsection{$\phi$ meson evolution in heavy ion collisions}
We consider here $\phi$-meson yield evolution in a thermal
hadronic gas after QGP hadronization
formed in heavy-ion collisions.
The temperature of QGP hadronization can be within the range 140-180 MeV.
After hadronization, individual hadrons can continue to rescatter into resonances in what
we call the kinetic evolution phase or thermal hadronic gas. This scattering effect does not
materially change the final stable particle yields, but it affects the yields of
resonances observed by the invariant mass method. The temperature of kinetic-phase freeze-out
is expected to be near 100 MeV. After kinetic freeze-out, hadrons
expand without interactions, via decay only.
The $\phi$-meson has, on the hadron reaction scale a
relatively small width $\Gamma_\phi \approx 4.26$ MeV,
that is $\tau_\phi \approx$ 46 fm, which is much
longer than the duration of the kinetic phase.
About 83$\%$ of $\phi$-mesons decay into $K+K$.
Therefore we consider here $\phi$ evolution in the
reaction:
\begin{equation}
K+K \leftrightarrow \phi. \label{phiKK}
\end{equation}
We do not consider here the decay channel $\phi \rightarrow \rho+\pi$,
which is about 15$\%$ and can influence our result at this level.
Moreover, the $\phi$ inelastic scattering in two-to-two particle
reactions also has a noticeable influence on $\phi$ yield,
about $15\%$ suppresion~\cite{AlvarezRuso:2002wx}.
In~\cite{AlvarezRuso:2002wx} only the $\phi$ decay
was included, without the reverse reaction,
assuming an initial equilibrium yield at hadronization.
We show here how the reverse reaction and nonequilibrium
hadronization conditions can influence the resulting
$\phi$ yield. The effect from the full one-to-two reactions, \req{phiKK}, can be added
to that from two-to-two particles reactions.
We did a similar study previously for baryon resonances $\Delta(1232)$ and $\Sigma(1385)$~\cite{previously:2008zr}. We found that in the case of
initial non-equilibrium yield, when we have an overabundance of stable particles
at hadronization, the resonance production can be greater than the resonance decay.
Decay becomes dominant when the temperature drops with expansion, and the lighter mass
decay product states becomes statistically preferable. The final resonance yield depends
on the study of the balance between these two effects.
The $\phi$-meson width is smaller than the width of these baryon resonances, and its
yield change during the posthadronization kinetic phase is expected to be smaller.
However, the rather low threshold energy, $m_{\phi}-m_K-m_K \approx 30$ MeV, could
mean that $\phi$ production is dominant over a longer period of time than in the aforementioned case of baryon resonance. The purpose of this short study is to determine
how much the yield of $\phi$ can change during the kinetic phase owing to kaons fusion compared to
its yield at hadronization. We do not study
how relativistic and quantum effects influence the reaction, Eq. (\ref{phiKK}),
relaxation time, because for the range of temperature considered these effects are small.
Considering that the mass of all particles involved is greater than the temperature
it is possible to use the Boltzmann distribution for $\phi$ and $K$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac {N_{\phi} }V&=&\Upsilon_{\phi}\frac{T^3}{2\pi^2}g_{\phi}x_{\phi}^2K_2(x_{\phi}), \\
\frac {N_{K} }V&=&\Upsilon_{K}\frac{T^3}{2\pi^2}g_{K}x_{K}^2K_2(x_{K}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{i}=m_{i}/T$ and $K_2(x)$ is the Bessel function. We proceed as in Ref.~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008zr},
using Eq.(\ref{uppiu}).
Initial conditions in the kinetic phase are defined
by conditions at QGP hadronization.
We introduce the initial hadron yields in a framework of a rapid
QGP hadronization with all hadrons produced with
yields governed by the entropy and strangeness
content of QGP by quark recombination. In this model
the yields of mesons and baryons are controlled by
the constituent quark fugacity $\gamma_q$:
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon^0_{K}=\gamma_q\gamma_s; \qquad \label{upinpi}
\Upsilon^0_{\phi}=\gamma_s^{2}.
\end{equation}
Thus for $\gamma_q>1$ we have the condition $\Upsilon_{\phi}<\Upsilon_{K} \Upsilon_{K}$.
At first, the reaction goes toward $\phi$ production until the $\phi$ density reaches the
equilibrium point when the right hand side of Eq.(\ref{uppiu})
is 0. If the $\phi$ density has enough time to reach this point,
it begins to decrease again because the temperature decreases owing to expansion.
For each entropy content of the QGP fireball, the corresponding fixed
background value of $\gamma_q$ can
be found once the hadronization temperature is known~\cite{Kuznetsova:2006bh}.
For $T=140$ MeV pions form a nearly fully degenerate Bose gas with
$\gamma_q\simeq 1.6$.
In the following discussion, besides this initial condition,
we also consider the value pairs
$T=160{\rm\, MeV},\,\gamma_q=1.27$
and $T=180$ MeV with $\gamma_q=1$. The value of $\gamma_s \ge 1 $
plays no significant role as, in the reaction considered, \req{phiKK}
the number of strange quarks present is the same.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.3 cm, height=8.3 cm]{nphi.eps}
\caption{\small{(Color online) The yield ratio ${\phi}/{\phi}^0$ for
hadronization temperatures $T_0=140$ MeV [solid (blue) line],
$T_0=160$ MeV [dashed (green) line]
and $T_0=180$ MeV [dash-dotted (red) line] as functions of ambient
temperature $T$.
}}
\label{phifig}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{phifig} we present results for the ratios
${\phi}/{\phi}_0$ at different hadronization temperatures as
functions of temperature $T$, beginning from the presumed initial hadronization
temperature $T_0$ through $T_ {\rm min}= 90$ MeV.
$\phi^0$ is the initial yields obtained at each hadronization
temperature. For hadronization temperatures
$T_0 < 180$ MeV ($\gamma_q=1.6$), we initially have $\Upsilon_\phi < \Upsilon_K\Upsilon_K$.
In these cases the master equation leads to an initial increase
in the yield of resonances. In the case $T_0=140$ MeV, when the effect is largest, this
increase in $\phi$ yield continues over the full range of temperature considered.
However, the effect is relatively small, about $7\%$, owing to the small $\phi$ width.
For hadronization temperature $T=160$ MeV, when $\gamma_q = 1.27$ is smaller,
the increase in yield is smaller, and at $T=105$ MeV the $\phi$ yield begins
to decrease slowly owing to the dynamics of the expansion.
We note that for $T \ge 180$ MeV there is always
a slow depletion of the $\phi$ resonance yield. This result implies that the observed
yield of $\phi$ has a systematic +7\%/-4\% uncertainty due to kaon
rescattering in the medium.
For comparison in~\cite{AlvarezRuso:2002wx} the effect from $\phi$ decay
only for equilibrium yield at hadronization ($\gamma_q=\gamma_s=1$) was
determined to be -$7.5\%$ and the effect from 2-to-2 particles
reactions was -15$\%$. Therefore $\phi$ production in kaon fusion
for nonequilibrium hadronization conditions may have an enhancement effect of about 15\%
on the final $\phi$ yield, compared
to the scenario where the $\phi$ can only decay
after in-equilibrium hadronization formation.
We cannot compare with experimental results considering
only the kaon fusion reaction, as it was argued in Ref.~\cite{AlvarezRuso:2002wx}
that certain two-to-two reactions and possibly other processes
can influence the yield. We note only that kaon fusion can
add to the observed $\phi$ yield~\cite{Abelev:2008fd}.
\subsection{Freeze-out processes in the early Universe}
\subsubsection{ $\protect\pi ^{0}$ at $T\ll m_\pi$}
As mentioned in Sec.I, it is interesting to examine the mean life
time of $\pi^{0}$ in the end of the hadronic-gas stage of the Universe where
the temperature drops to a mega-electron-volt level in the low teens. Then the reactio
\begin{equation*}
\pi ^{0} \leftrightarrow \gamma +\gamma
\end{equation*
determines the abundance of $\pi ^{0}$.
The difference from the previous example is that the photons are
massless and they are always in chemical equilibrium in the early Universe
($\Upsilon_{1}=\Upsilon_2=1$). Then we can rewrite function
(\ref{phia1a2b}) as
\begin{equation}
\Phi (p_{\pi^0})=\frac{2}{b(e^{2a}-1)} \left( b+\ln \left(1+\frac{
e^{(b-a)}-e^{-(a+b)} }{ 1-e^{b-a}
\right) \right). \label{phiab1}
\end{equation
with
\begin{equation
a =\frac{\sqrt{m_{\pi^0 }^{2}+p_{\pi^0 }^{2}}}{2T}; \quad
b=\frac{p_{\pi^0}}{2T}.
\end{equation
Again we use Eq.(\ref{Decay1}) and (\ref{pdr})
we can calculate $\pi_0$ decay and production rates. To calculate $\tau$
for $\pi^0$ decay in matter we use definition (\ref{taui}).
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{rtau1.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) The ratio $\protect\tau /\protect\tau
_{0}$ for $\pi^0$ decay/production as a function of temperature $T$.
Dashed (blue) line is for a dilute system
$\protect\Upsilon_{\pi^0}=\Upsilon_{\gamma}=0.01$ (Boltzmann limit);
solid (green) line is for a thermal chemically equilibrated system
$\Upsilon_{\pi^0}=1$.
}}} \label{taupi0}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{taupi0} we show ratio of $\pi^0$ decay time $\tau_3\to \tau$ in the
presence of thermal particles to the decay time in vacuum in $\pi_0$
rest frame: $\tau_{\pi^0}/\tau^0_{\pi^0}$. In this figure a wider
range of temperature is shown $1-200$ MeV. For
$\Upsilon_{\pi^0}=1$ the ratio $\tau_{\pi^0}/\tau^0_{\pi^0}$ the
temperature dependence is similar to that for $\rho$ decay,
considered in previous chapter. It increases at first due to
relativistic time dilution effects. Then, after $T\approx
20$ MeV, $\tau$ goes down slowly with temperature, when the quantum in-medium
effect becomes important. Quantum in-medium effects arise here
mostly from photons. They compensate relativistic Lorentz factor
effect when $T$ is about $m_{\pi}$; compare the lines in Fig.~\ref{taupi0} for $\Upsilon_{\pi}=\Upsilon_{\gamma}=0.01$
[dashed (blue)] and $\Upsilon_{\pi}=\Upsilon_{\gamma}=1$ [solid (green)]. Note that
when the yield of pions is small, that is, only $\Upsilon_{\pi}$ is small,
the result is almost the same as in chemical equilibrium, $\Upsilon_{\pi}=\Upsilon_{\gamma}=1$.
As long as the $\pi_0$ reaction relaxation time $\tau$ is much shorter compared
to the Hubble expansion time $T/\dot T=1/H$, there is chemical equilibrium
in the Universe with $\Upsilon_{\pi^0}=1$.
Freeze-out from chemical equilibrium arises when condition Eq.(\ref{frcon}) is satisfied.
Because $\tau \approx \tau_0 = 8.4\,10^{-17}$s the condition Eq. (\ref{frcon}) is always
satisfied where $\pi^0$ can exist. Only at unrealistically large temperatures this
condition can be violated.
Therefore we conclude that for the temperature range of interest,
between few MeV and 180 MeV, the $\pi^0$ are in chemical equilibrium
with photons because of their fast reaction rate. Note that
weak interaction process such as neutron decay $n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e$
is 20 orders of magnitude slower, and the Universe expansion rate can dominate
the neutron decay rate e.g. at $T > 0.1$ MeV, before having a good chance to decay,
neutrons are thus available to enter nuclear reactions.
The pion, and muons equilibrium density is large
until temperatures near a few MeV, and as a result,
they participate in reactions with each other,
nucleons and other particles; for example see the next sections.
The importance of this realization of pion chemical equilibrium in the Universe
is that it implies that all hadron species, driven by pions also remain
in chemical equilibrium.
Their abundances can thus be computed using the chemical
equilibrium hypothesis, as done in Ref.\cite{FromerthRafelski}.
\subsubsection{$\pi^{\pm}$, $\mu^{\pm}$, and $\nu,\,\bar\nu$ equilibration/freeze-out}
In the laboratory the dominant $\pi^{\pm}$ production reaction
is the pion charge exchange reaction, Eq. (\ref{pipm}), which we
considered in Ref.~\cite{Kuznetsova:2008jt}. These reactions also
can take place in the early Universe. However,
given the much slower evolution of the early Universe,
we also now encounter reactions involving
neutrinos, Eq. (\ref{pimunu}); the related in-vacuum,
weak-decay lifespan of the $\pi^{\pm}$ is $\tau_0=2.60\times10^{-8}$ s.
In Fig.~\ref{pipmmunu} we show the relaxation times in units of $\tau_0$ for $\pi^{\pm}$
equilibration, Eq. (\ref{taui}), in reaction (\ref{pimunu}), as functions of temperature:
near $T\simeq 160$ MeV the lifespan is enhanced by a factor of 3
for thermal equilibrium densities with $\Upsilon$s =1
[solid (blue) line in figure~\ref{pipmmunu}] mostly owing to Pauli blocking of the
decay products. The time dilation owing
to thermal motion, which also prolongs the life span,
has a smaller effect, visible in the Boltzmann limit,
which we study for a dilute system with $\Upsilon$s=0.01, [dashed (green) line].
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{pipmmunu.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) $\pi^{\pm}$ relaxation time
as a functions of $T$ in reaction Eq.(\ref{pimunu}),
in thermal equilibrium [solid (blue) line] and in the Boltzmann limit,
obtained for $\Upsilon$ =0.01 [dashed (green) line].}}} \label{pipmmunu}
\end{figure}
Interestingly, as we next show,
the process, Eq.(\ref{pimunu}), is the fastest mechanism of neutrino equilibration
in a wide range of temperatures relevant here, $T>7$ MeV, but the $\nu_\mu$-freeze-out condition
is at a lower $T$ and seems to be controlled by the reaction~\cite{Freese:1982ci}
\begin{equation}
e^++e^-\leftrightarrow \nu_{e,\mu} +\bar\nu_{e,\mu} \label{eenunu}
\end{equation}
which we also consider now. The neutrino oscillation effect assures that
all neutrinos remain in equilibrium as long as one is strongly coupled to
the system.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{tauneut.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) Relaxation time for neutrino $\nu_{\mu}$
equilibration as function of temperature compared to the
Universe expansion time $1/H$ [dashed (turquoise) line].
Solid (blue) line for reaction Eq.(\ref{pimunu}) with equilibrium densities ($\Upsilon$ =1);
dash-dotted (green) line , and dotted (red) line are for reaction (\ref{eenunu}) for muon and
electron neutrino, respectively.}}} \label{tauneut}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{tauneut} we show muon-neutrino equilibration
time in reaction Eq.(\ref{pimunu}) (solid line, blue);
recall that to obtain this relaxation time from the results shown in Fig. \ref{pipmmunu},
we need to replace the $\pi$ density in the nominator of Eq.(\ref{taui})
by the density of $\nu$. This relaxation time intersects the Universe
expansion rate at $T \approx 5.5$ MeV. Freese et al~\cite{Freese:1982ci} obtain the
relaxation time as a function of $T$ assuming the neutrino chemical potential $\mu_{\nu}\ll T$
in reaction \req{eenunu}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{\nu_{\mu}(ee)} = (0.1G_F T^5)^{-1},\quad
\tau_{\nu_{e}(ee)} = (0.6G_F T^5)^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where $G_F=1.1664\,10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ is the Fermi constant. These two results
are shown in Fig. \ref{tauneut}. We see that the muon-neutrino freeze-out
temperature according to reaction (\ref{pimunu}) is slightly higher than that according
to reaction (\ref{eenunu}). The temperature of the neutrino decoupling in reaction
\req{eenunu} is $T_d \cong 3.5$ MeV for $\nu_{\mu}$ and $T_d \cong 2.0$ MeV for $\nu_{e}$.
For a wide range of temperatures, to as low as 7 MeV neutrino
chemical equilibration by reaction (\ref{pimunu})
is dominant. This example shows that reactions with chemically equilibrated
pions and muons can have an influence on other, even lighter particle
evolution for temperatures $T<<m$.
Muons can be equilibrated by reaction (\ref{muprod}) and by the $1 \leftrightarrow 3$
reaction [Eq.(\ref{munu})]. We do not consider this type of reaction in detail here.
For low temperatures, $T\ll m_{\mu}$, when relativistic and medium effects are small,
we assume that the muon decay time and reverse reaction relaxation time
are nearly the muon lifespan in vacuum, $\tau_0=2.20\, 10^{-6}$s.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height = 8.5cm]{taupih.eps}
\caption{{\protect\small {(Color online) Equilibration times as functions of temperature,
for $\pi^0$ (solid line, red), $\pi^{\pm}$ [dash-dot (green) line] ,
$\mu^{\pm}$ (dashed line, blue) and
$\tau_{T} \approx T/(Hm_{\pi})$ [dotted (turquoise) line].}}} \label{taupih}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{taupih} we show relaxation times for dominant
reactions for pion and muon equilibration. For $\pi^\pm$
reaction, Eq.(\ref{pimunu}), becomes dominant
over reaction (\ref{pipm}) at $T\approx 6$ MeV.
For the $\mu^\pm$ reaction (\ref{munu}) becomes dominant
at $T\approx 4$ MeV. Therefore at these low temperatures,
relaxation times for $\mu^\pm$ and $\pi^\pm$ equilibration
becomes constant and far below the Universe expansion rate
and $\tau_{T}$ [dotted (turquoise) line]. We conclude that $\mu^\pm$ and $\pi^\pm$
stay in chemical equilibrium. This does not mean that they play an
important role in the global physics of the early Universe,
because just at these temperatures muon and pion densities begin
to drop rapidly and soon their yield is negligibly small,
far below the nucleon density in the Universe.
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented detail of the kinetic master equation for a
process involving the formation of an unstable particle through reaction
(\ref{123}) in a relativistically covariant fashion. Assuming that
all particles in the process are in thermal equilibrium, we
calculated the thermal averaged decay and formation rates of the
unstable particle. Using the time reversal
symmetry of quantum processes, we have shown
that the time evolution of the density of an
unstable particle is given by (\ref{fe}).
Therefore in chemical equilibrium the particle fugacities are connected by
(\ref{equilcon}). We have explicitly derived the thermal decay rate
of an unstable particle, obtaining \req{Decay1-final}.
The general properties of
the thermal particle decay/production kinetics have led us
to consider the relaxation time defined by \req{taui}, which results
in a greatly simplified kinetic equation \req{uppiu}. The
medium modification of reaction rates we encountered are all caused by
final-state quantum effects, Bose enhancement, and/or Fermi blocking,
absent in the Boltzmann limit. Moreover, we note the presence of
kinematic effects, in that all lifespans of particles are time dilated
owing to their motion with respect to the thermal bath rest frame.
In the present formalism, we assumed that the decay width of an
unstable particle is much smaller than the temperature $T$. This
approximation is safe in the examples we have discussed above, except
perhaps the case of $\rho$ decay, where some corrections may be needed.
For the formation of heavy resonances, whose decay width
becomes appreciable compared to the temperature $T$, we may need to
include the finite-width effect on the mass of an unstable particle
in the thermal distribution. Such effects on the statistical partition
function and the equation of state of a system have been studied based
on the virial expansion method \cite{Width}. The correction for a
kinetic equation in such a case has also been studied \cite{Width2}.
We have presented several examples,
$\rho \leftrightarrow \pi +\pi$,
$\phi \leftrightarrow {\rm K}+ \overline {\rm K}$,
$\pi ^{0}\leftrightarrow \gamma +\gamma$, and
$\pi^{\pm} \leftrightarrow \mu^{\pm} + \nu_{\mu}(\bar\nu_{\mu})$,
and explored the physics cases of hot hadron matter created
in laboratory heavy ion reactions,
and the early Universe from the condition of hadronization down to the temperature
of several mega-electron volts. The two first processes can take
place in both circumstances. The third
process is important to the understanding of how the
hadronic fraction evolves with the expansion of
the Universe. The last process we considered appears to
be the dominant mechanism of neutrino equilibration over the
entire temperature range, except close to neutrino
freeze-out, a result that requires further refinement allowing
for finite chemical potentials. This example also shows that
heavy ($m >> T$) chemically equilibrated particles can be important
in the evolution of other particles including lighter more dense particles
yields at relatively low temperatures.
The equilibration-relaxation time
for $\pi^0$ decay remains close (within 25\%) to the relaxation
time in vacuum for a large temperature range. This occurs because the
relativistic effect (Lorentz factor) is compensated by the quantum
medium effect. This time is short compared to the Universe
expansion time for all temperatures of interest here, below the
QGP hadronization temperature, when $\pi^0$ hadrons are created. Therefore
$\pi^0$ always stays in chemical equilibrium with radiation
for the temperature range of interest.
As long as $\pi^0$ is abundant it can participate in reactions
with other hadrons and influence the dynamics of the Universe evolution.
Here we also considered $\pi^{\pm}$ evolution, in the fourth reaction given
and their interaction with $\pi^{0}$. We showed
that pions and muons (mesons) stay in chemical equilibrium throughout the evolution of
Universe, despite their large mass. They can be involved
in reactions with nucleons, a topic we postpone to a
future study, down to temperatures where the meson density
drops well below the nucleon density. The contribution of mesons
disappears from the entropy and the degeneracy $g$ only at the relatively
low $T \approx 10$ MeV (see Fig.~\ref{degen}).
Our study of the $\phi$ evolution in thermal hadron medium
after QGP hadronization in heavy ions collisions,
suggests a possible slight modification of the observed $\phi$ yield:
compared to initial production, an increase in hadronization
at $T=140$ MeV, $\gamma_q=1.6$, at the level of about 6\%-7\%,
or a suppression of about 4\% for hadronization at $T=180$ MeV, $\gamma_q=1$.
To conclude, we have presented here the process of decay and
and re-creation of unstable particles, and studied
special cases of relevance to heavy-ion collisions and the early
Universe. Our results indicate that the early Universe was in
chemical equilibrium throughout its evolution and that the first
freeze-out occurs when neutrinos decouple. \\
\acknowledgments
We thank H.Th. Elze, M.J. Fromerth, T. Kodama, J. Letessier, M. Makler,
and R.L. Thews, for valuable discussions regarding hadron phase
chemical equilibration in the early Universe. We thank T. Kodama for
contributing, 9 years ago, an unpublished private communication about
the method and essential results regarding $\pi^0$ equilibration
using the detailed balance method, and for close reading of the
manuscript and valuable comments. This work was supported by U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-04ER41318.
|
\section{Introduction}
Formal concept analysis (FCA) started in the 80ies from an attempt to restructure lattice theory by Rudolf Wille~\cite{Wi82}. FCA is based on the formalization of the notions of ``concept'' and ``concept hierarchy''. In traditional philosophy a concept is defined by its extent and its intent: the extent contains all entities belonging to the concept, and the intent contains all properties satisfied by exactly all entities of the concept. The concept hierarchy states that ``a concept is more general if it contains more objects, or equivalently, if its intent is smaller''. The set of all concepts of a ``context'' with its concept hierarchy forms a complete poset called {\em concept lattice}. Based on ordered structures, FCA provides a nice formalism for knowledge management and retrieval. It has developed rapidly and now stands as a research area on its own, and has been applied in many fields. For displaying knowledge FCA offers several techniques, among them the line diagrams (visualization) and the implication theory (logical description of the information~\cite{GD86,GW99a}).
In his project to extend FCA to a broader field called {\em Contextual Logic}, Rudolf Wille needed to formalize a conceptual negation. The problem of negation is surely one of the oldest problems of the scientific and philosophic community, and still attracts the attention of many researchers (see \cite{Hl89,Wa96}). Several types of logic have been introduced, according to the behavior of the corresponding negation. To develop a contextual logic, one of the starting points is that of Boolean algebras, which arise from the encoding of the operations of human thought by George Boole~\cite{Bo54}. Is there a natural generalization of Boolean algebras to concept lattices? Boolean Concept Logic aims to develop a mathematical theory for Logic, based on concept as unit of thought, as a generalization of that developed by George Boole in~\cite{Bo54}, based on signs and classes. The main operations of human mind that Boole encoded are conjunction, disjunction, universe, "nothing" and ``negation''.
The set of all formal concepts of a given formal context forms a complete
lattice. Therefore, apart from the negation, the operations encoded
by Boole are without problem encoded by lattice operations. To encode a
negation Wille followed Boole's idea, and suggested many candidates, among them
a weak negation (taking the concept generated by the complement of the extent) and a weak opposition (taking the concept generated by the complement of the intent)~\cite{Wi00}. This approach is driven by the wish to have a negation as an internal operation on concepts\footnote{Other approaches have to relax the definition of concept. These are preconcepts, semiconcepts and protoconcepts. They have been investigated by Rudolf Wille and coworkers for example in \cite{Wi00,HLSW,VW05,BW06},\dots. In \cite{DE98}, there is another proposition to get negation on lattices.}. The concept lattice together with these operations is called concept algebra. Expressing a negation in information science and knowledge systems
can be very helpful, in particular while dealing with incomplete information (see for example \cite{MNR08,Pr06,BH05,Fe06}). In the absence of a Boolean negation, weak negation and weak opposition would offer an alternative. In this case concept algebras and weakly dicomplemented lattices (see below) would replace powerset algebras and Boolean algebras respectively.
For abstracting concept algebras, weakly dicomplemented lattices have been introduced. Those are lattices with two unary operations that satisfy some equations known to hold in concept algebras. The main problem we address in this paper is when a weakly dicomplemented lattice is isomorphic to a concept algebra. Characterizing concept algebras remains an open problem, but substantial results are obtained, especially in the finite case~\cite{Kw04,GK07}. The rest of this contribution is divided as follows: in Section~\ref{S:wdicomp} we introduce some formal definitions, give a characterization of {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s and present several constructions of {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s. Section~\ref{S:wdl+neg} shows why weakly dicompelemented lattices are considered as a generalization of Boolean algebras. In Section~\ref{S:main} we prove that completeness is not enough to get {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s isomorphic to concept algebras. We end with a new proof of the representation of Boolean algebras by fields of sets.
\section{Weak dicomplementation.}\label{S:wdicomp}
\begin{definition}\label{D:wdl}
A \neu{weakly dicomplemented lattice} is a bounded lattice $L$ equipped with two unary operations $^\tru$ and $^\trd$ called \neu{weak complementation} and \neu{dual weak complementation}, and satisfying for all $x,y\in L$ the following equations\footnote{Note that $x^{\triangle\tru}\le x\iff x^{\triangle\tru}\vee x=x$ and $x^{\bigtriangledown\trd}\ge x\iff x^{\bigtriangledown\trd}\wedge x =x$; thus conditions (1) and (1') can be written as equations. For (2) and (2') we have $x\le y\implies x^\tru\ge y^\tru$
is equivalent to $(x\wedge y)^\tru\wedge y^\tru= y^\tru$ and $x\le y\implies x^\trd\ge y^\trd$ is equivalent to $(x\wedge y)^\trd\wedge y^\trd =y^\trd$.}:
\medskip\par\noindent
\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $x^{\triangle\tru}\le x$,
\item[(2)] $x\le y\implies x^\tru\ge y^\tru$,
\item[(3)] $(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge y^\tru)=x$,
\end{enumerate}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1')] $x^{\bigtriangledown\trd}\ge x$,
\item[(2')] $x\le y\implies x^\trd\ge y^\trd$,
\item[(3')] $(x\vee y)\wedge(x\vee y^\trd)=x$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{minipage}\medskip\par\noindent
\noindent We call $x^\tru$ the \neu{weak complement} of $x$ and $x^\trd$ the \neu{dual weak complement} of $x$. The pair $(x^\tru,x^\trd)$ is called the \neu{weak dicomplement} of $x$ and the pair $(^\tru,^\trd)$ a \neu{weak dicomplementation} on $L$. The structure $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\tru,0,1)$ is called a \neu{weakly complemented lattice} and $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\trd,0,1)$ a \neu{dual weakly complemented lattice}.
\end{definition}
The following properties are easy to verify: \qquad
(i)\quad $x\vee x^\tru=1$, \quad(ii)\quad {$x\wedge x^\trd=0$}, \newline
(iii)\quad $0^\tru=1=0^\trd$,\quad (iv)\quad $1^\tru=0=1^\trd$,\quad (v)\quad $x^\trd\leq x^\tru$,\quad (vi)\quad $(x\wedge y)^\tru=x^\tru\vee y^\tru$, \newline
(vii)\quad $(x\vee y)^\trd=x^\trd\wedge y^\trd$,\quad (viii)\quad $x\sp{\triangle\tru\triangle}=x^\tru$,\quad (ix)\quad $x\sp{\bigtriangledown\trd\bigtriangledown}=x^\trd$ and \newline
(x)\quad $x{^\tru}{^\trd}\leq x{^\tru}{^\tru}\leq x \leq x{^\trd}{^\trd}\leq x{^\trd}{^\tru}$.
\begin{example}\label{E:ba}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] The natural examples of {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s are Boolean algebras. For a Boolean algebra $(B,\wedge,\vee,\bar{\phantom{a}},0,1)$, the algebra $(B,\wedge,\vee,\bar{\phantom{a}},\bar{\phantom{a}},0,1)$ (complementation duplicated, i.e. $x^\tru := \bar{x}=: x^\trd$) is a weakly dicomplemented lattice.
\item[(b)] Each bounded lattice can be endowed with a {\bf trivial weak dicomplementation} by de\-fi\-ning $(1,1),\,(0,0)$ and $(1,0)$ as the dicomplement of $0,\ 1$ and of each ${x\not\in\{0,1\}}$, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}\label{T:wcl}
Weakly complemented lattice are exactly the nonempty lattices with an additional unary operation $^\tru$ that satisfy the equations (1)--(3) in Definition~\ref{D:wdl}.
\end{theorem}
Of course, weakly complemented lattices satisfy the equations (1)--(3) in Definition~\ref{D:wdl}. So what we should prove is that all non empty lattices satisfying the equations $(1)-(3)$ are bounded.
\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be a nonempty lattice satisfying the equations (1)--(3). For an element $x\in L$, we set ${1:=x\vee x^\tru}$ and $0:=1^\tru$. We are going to prove that $1$ and $0$ are respectively the greatest and lowest element of $L$. Let $y$ be an arbitrary element of $L$. We have
$$1\geq y\wedge 1=y\wedge(x\vee x^\tru)\geq(y\wedge x)\vee(y\wedge x^\tru)=y, \quad \text{ by (3)}.$$
Thus $x\vee x^\tru$ is the greatest element of $L$. Of course, if $L$ was equipped with a unary operation $^\trd$ satisfying the equation (1')--(3') we could use the same argument as above to say that $x\wedge x^\trd$ is the smallest element of $L$. Unfortunately we have to check that $0:=1^\tru$ is less than every other element of $L$. So let $y\in L$. We want to prove that $0\leq y$. Note that
\[
(y\wedge y^\tru)^\tru\geq y^\tru\vee y^{\triangle\tru}=1.\]
Thus $(y\wedge y^\tru)^\tru=1$.
For an arbitrary element $z$ of $L$, we have
\[0\wedge z=1^\tru\wedge z=(y\wedge y^\tru)^{\triangle\tru}\wedge z\leq y\wedge y^\tru\wedge z\leq y\wedge z\]
and
\[0\wedge z^\tru=1^\tru\wedge z^\tru=(y\wedge y^\tru)^{\triangle\tru}\wedge z^\tru\leq y\wedge y^\tru\wedge z^\tru\leq y\wedge z^\tru.\]
Henceforth $0=(0\wedge z)\vee(0\wedge z^\tru)\leq (y\wedge z)\vee(y\wedge z^\tru)=y$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In Universal Algebra~\cite{BS81}, one should care about the signature while defi\-ning an algebra. By Theorem~\ref{T:wcl} we can choose between $(\wedge,\vee,^\tru)$ and $(\wedge,\vee,^\tru,0,1)$ as signature for weakly complemented lattices. Let $\mathbb{V}_1$ be the variety of algebras $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\tru)$ of type $(2,2,1)$ such that $(L,\wedge,\vee)$ is a lattice satisfying the equations (1)--(3) in Definition~\ref{D:wdl}, and $\mathbb{V}_2$ the variety of algebras of type $(2,2,1,0,0)$ such that $(L,\wedge,\vee,0,1)$ is a bounded lattice satisfying the equations (1)--(3) in Definition~\ref{D:wdl}. Then an algebra with the empty set as carrier set belongs to $\mathbb{V}_1$, but not to $\mathbb{V}_2$.
Any non empty substructure of an algebra of $\mathbb{V}_1$ is a substructure of the corresponding algebra in $\mathbb{V}_2$ and vice versa.
Any map that is a morphism between nonempty algebras of $\mathbb{V}_1$ is also a morphism between algebras of $\mathbb{V}_2$ and vice-versa. Hence, there is no big diffe\-ren\-ce is considering one signature instead of another. Here we will keep the signature $(\wedge,\vee,^\tru,0,1)$, to indicate ``contradiction'' and ``universe''.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $(P,\leq)$ be a poset and $f:P\to P$ be a map. $f$ is a \neu{closure operator} on $P$ if
\[
x\leq f(y)\iff f(x)\leq f(y), \quad \text{ for all } x,y\in P.
\]
This is equivalent to
\[x\leq f(x),\quad x\leq y\implies f(x)\leq f(y)\quad \text{ and }\quad f(f(x))=f(x), \quad \text{ for all } x,y\in P.\]
Usually we will write a closure operator on a set $X$ to mean a closure operator on the po\-wer\-set $(\cal{P}(X),\subseteq)$ of $X$.
Dually, $f$ is a \neu{kernel operator} on $P$ if
\[
x\geq f(y)\iff f(x)\geq f(y), \quad \text{ for all } x,y\in P.
\]
As above, we say that $f$ is a kernel operator on $X$ to mean a kernel operator on $(\cal{P}(X),\subseteq)$.
\end{definition}
For a weakly dicomplemented lattice\ $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\tru,^\trd,0,1)$, the maps $x\mapsto x\sp{\triangle\tru}$ and $x\mapsto x\sp{\bigtriangledown\trd}$ are resp. kernel and closure operators on $L$. If $f$ is a closure operator (resp. a kernel operator) on a lattice $L$, then $f(L)$ (with the induced order) is a lattice. Recall that for any closure operator $h$ on $L$ we have
\[
h(h(x)\wedge h(y))=h(x)\wedge h(y)\quad \text{ as well as } \quad h(h(x)\vee h(y))=h(x\vee y);
\]
dually, for any kernel operator $k$ on $L$ we have
\[
k(k(x)\wedge k(y))=k(x\wedge y)\quad \text{ and }\quad k(k(x)\vee k(y))=k(x)\vee k(y).
\]
We denote by $P^d$ the dual poset of $(P,\leq)$, i.e. $P^d:=(P,\geq)$. Then $f$ is a kernel operator on $P$ iff $f$ is a closure operator on $P^d$.
\begin{proposition}\label{L:hk}
Let $h$ be a closure operator on a set $X$ and $k$ a kernel operator on a set $Y$. For $A\subseteq X$ and $B\subseteq Y$ define $A\sp{\triangle_h}:=h(X\setminus A)$ and $B\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}:=k(Y\setminus B)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $({h}\cal{P}(X),\cap,\vee^h,\sp{\triangle_h},{h}\emptyset,X)$, with $A_1\vee^h A_2:=h(A_1\cup A_2)$, is a weakly complemented lattice.
\item[(i')] $({k}\cal{P}(Y),\wedge_k,\cup,\sp{\bigtriangledown_k},\emptyset,{k}Y)$, with $B_1\wedge_k B_2:=k(B_1\cap B_2)$, is a dual weakly complemented lattice.
\item[(ii)] If ${h}\cal{P}(X)$ is isomorphic to ${k}\cal{P}(Y)$, then $h$ and $k$ induce weakly dicomplemented lattice structures on ${h}\cal{P}(X)$ and on ${k}\cal{P}(Y)$ that are extensions of those in $(i)$ and $(i')$ above respectively.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For (i), let $h$ be a closure operator on X; $({h}\cal{P}(X),\cap,\vee^h,{h}\emptyset,X)$ is a bounded lattice. So we should only check that the equations $(1)-(3)$ in Definition~\ref{D:wdl} hold. For $x\in{h}\cal{P}(X)$, we have $x\sp{\triangle\tru}={h}(X\setminus{h}(X\setminus x))\subseteq{h}(X\setminus(X\setminus x))=h(x)=x$, and $(1)$ is proved. For $x_1\leq x_2$ in ${h}\cal{P}(X)$, we have $x_1\subseteq x_2$ and ${h}(X\setminus x_1)\supseteq{h}(X\setminus x_2)$, and $(2)$ is proved. Now we consider $x,y\in {h}\cal{P}(X)$. Trivially $(x\cap y)\vee^h(x\cap y\sp{\triangle_h})\leq x$. In addition,
\[(x\cap y)\vee^h(x\cap y\sp{\triangle_h})=(x\cap y)\vee^h(x\cap h(X\setminus y))=h((x\cap y)\cup(x\cap h(X\setminus y)))\]
\[\supseteq h((x\cap y)\cup(x\cap(X\setminus y)))= h(x)= x.\]
$(i')$ is proved similarly.
For $(ii)$ we will extend the structures of $(i)$ and $(i')$ to get {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s. By $(i)$, $({h}\cal{P}(X),\cap,\vee^h,\sp{\triangle_h},{h}\emptyset,X)$ is a weakly complemented lattice. Let $\varphi$ be an isomorphism from ${h}\cal{P}X$ to ${k}\cal{P}Y$. We define $\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi}$ on ${h}\cal{P}(X)$ by:
$$x\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi}:=\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(x)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}).$$
Then
$$x\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi\bigtriangledown_\varphi}=\left(\varphi^{-1}\left(\varphi(x)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}\right)\right)\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi} = \varphi^{-1}\left(\varphi\left(\varphi^{-1}\left(\varphi(x)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}\right)\right)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k} \right)=\varphi^{-1}\left(\varphi(x)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k\bigtriangledown_k} \right),$$
$\text{and }x\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi\bigtriangledown_\varphi}\geq\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(x))=x$.
For $x\leq y$ in ${h}\cal{P}X$ we have
$\varphi(x)\leq\varphi(y)$ implying
\[
\varphi(x)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}\geq\varphi(y)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}\quad \text{ and }\quad x\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi}=\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(x)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k})\geq\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(y)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k})=y\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi}.
\]
For $x,y$ in ${h}\cal{P}X$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(x\vee y)\wedge(x\vee y\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi})&=&(x\vee y)\wedge(x\vee \varphi^{-1}(\varphi(y)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}))\\
&=&\varphi^{-1}\left((\varphi(x)\vee \varphi(y))\wedge(\varphi(x)\vee \varphi(y)\sp{\bigtriangledown_k})\right)\\
&=&\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(x))=x.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore
$({h}\cal{P}(X),\cap,\vee^h,\sp{\triangle_h},\sp{\bigtriangledown_\varphi},{h}\emptyset,X)$ is a weakly dicomplemented lattice. Similarly \linebreak $({k}\cal{P}(Y),\wedge^k,\cup,\sp{\triangle_\varphi},\sp{\bigtriangledown_k},\emptyset,{k}Y)$ with $x\sp{\triangle_\varphi}:=\varphi(\varphi^{-1}(x)\sp{\triangle_h})$ is a weakly dicomplemented lattice.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{L:combinehk}
Let $h$ be a closure operator on $X$ and $k$ a kernel operator on $Y$ such that ${h}\cal{P}(X)$ is isomorphic to ${k}\cal{P}(Y)$. Let $\varphi$
be an isomorphism from ${h}\cal{P}(X)$ to ${k}\cal{P}(Y)$.
We set
\[L:=\{(x,y)\in {h}\cal{P}(X)\times {k}\cal{P}(Y)\mid y=\varphi(x)\}.
\]
$L$ has a weakly dicomplemented lattice\ structure induced by $h$ and $k$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{L:hk} $({h}\cal{P}(X),\cap,\vee^h,\sp{\triangle_h},{h}\emptyset,X)$ is a weakly complemented lattice and \linebreak $({k}\cal{P}(Y),\wedge^k,\cup,\sp{\bigtriangledown_k},\emptyset,{k}Y)$ a dual weakly complemented lattice.
For every $y\in {k}\cal{P}(Y)$ there is a unique $x\in{h}\cal{P}(X)$ such that $y=\varphi(x)$. For $(a,b)$ and $(c,d)$ in $L$, we have $a\leq c\iff b\leq d$.
We define a relation $\leq$ on $L$ by: $a\leq c\iff:(a,b)\leq(c,d):\iff b\leq d$. Then
\[
{h}\cal{P}(X)\stackrel{\pi_1}{\cong}L\stackrel{\pi_2}{\cong}{k}\cal{P}(Y)
\]
where $\pi_i$ is the $i^{th}$ projection. Thus $(L,\leq)$ is a bounded lattice. Moreover
\[
(a,b)\wedge(c,d)=(a\cap c, \varphi(a\cap c))\quad \text{ and } \quad (a,b)\vee(c,d)=(\varphi^{-1}(b\cup d),b\cup d).
\]
For $(x,y)\in L$, we define $(x,y)^\tru:=(x\sp{\triangle_h},\varphi(x\sp{\triangle_h}))$ and $(x,y)^\trd:=(\varphi^{-1}(y\sp{\bigtriangledown_k}),y\sp{\bigtriangledown_k})$. We claim that $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\tru,^\trd,0,1)$ is a weakly dicomplemented lattice. In fact,
\[(x,y)\sp{\triangle\tru}=(x\sp{\triangle_h},\varphi(x\sp{\triangle_h}))^\tru=(x\sp{\triangle_h\triangle_h},\varphi(x\sp{\triangle_h\triangle_h}))\leq(x,\varphi(x))=(x,y).\]
If $(x,y)\leq (z,t)$ in $L$, we have $x\leq z$ and $y\leq t$, implying $x\sp{\triangle_h}\geq z\sp{\triangle_h}$ and \newline ${\varphi(x\sp{\triangle_h})\geq\varphi(z\sp{\triangle_h})}$; thus $(x,y)^\tru=(x\sp{\triangle_h},\varphi(x\sp{\triangle_h}))\geq(z\sp{\triangle_h},\varphi(z\sp{\triangle_h}))=(z,t)^\tru$. These prove (1) and (2) of Definition~\ref{D:wdl}. It remains to prove (3). Let $(x,y)$ and $(z,t)$ in $L$
{
\begin{eqnarray*}
((x,y)\wedge(z,t))\vee((x,y)\wedge(z,t)^\tru) &=& (x\cap z, \varphi(x\cap z))\vee((x,y)\wedge(z\sp{\triangle_h},\varphi(z\sp{\triangle_h})))\\
&=&(x\cap z, \varphi(x\cap z))\vee(x\cap z\sp{\triangle_h},\varphi(x\cap z\sp{\triangle_h}))\\
&=&(\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(x\cap z)\cup\varphi(x\cap z\sp{\triangle_h})), \varphi(x\cap z)\cup\varphi(x\cap z\sp{\triangle_h}))\\
&=& ((x\cap z)\vee^h(x\cap z\sp{\triangle_h}),\varphi((x\cap z)\vee^h(x\cap z\sp{\triangle_h})))\\
&=& (x,\varphi(x))\\
&=& (x,y),
\end{eqnarray*}
}
and (3) is proved.
\end{proof}
The advantage of the weakly dicomplemented lattice\ $L$ constructed in Lemma~\ref{L:combinehk} is that, in addition to extending the weakly and dual weakly complemented lattice structures induced by $h$ and $k$, it also keeps track of the closure and kernel systems.
\begin{definition}
Let $L$ be a bounded lattice and $x\in L$. The element $x^*\in L$ (resp. $x^+\in L$) is the \neu{pseudocomplement} (resp. \neu{dual pseudocomplement}) of $x$ if
\[x\wedge y=0\iff y\leq x^*\quad\text{ (resp. $x\vee y=1\iff y\geq x^+$) for all $y\in L$}.\]
A \neu{double p-algebra} is a lattice in which every element has a pseudocomplement and a dual pseudocomplement.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Boolean algebras are double p-algebras. Finite distributive lattices are double {p-algebras}. All distributive double p-algebras are weakly dicomplemented lattices. $N_5$ is a double p-algebra that is not distributive. The double p-algebra operation $(^+,^*)$ on $N_5$ is however not a weak dicomplementation.
\end{example}
The following result give a class of ``more concrete'' {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s, and can serve as prelude to the representation problem for {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s.
\begin{proposition}\label{L:JML}
Let $L$ be a finite lattice. Denote by $J(L)$ the set of join irreducible elements of $L$ and by $M(L)$ the set of meet irreducible elements of $L$ respectively. Define two unary operations $^\tru$ and $^\trd$ on $L$ by
$$x^\tru:=\bigvee\{a\in J(L)\mid a\nleq x\}\quad \text{ and }\quad x^\trd:=\bigwedge\{m\in M(L)\mid m\ngeq x\}.$$
Then $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\tru,^\trd,0,1)$ is a weakly dicomplemented lattice. In general, for $G\supseteq J(L)$ and $H\supseteq M(L)$, the operations $\sp{\triangle\sb{G}}$ and $\sp{\bigtriangledown\sb{H}}$ defined by
\[x\sp{\triangle_G}:=\bigvee\{a\in G\mid a\nleq x\}\quad \text{ and }\quad x\sp{\bigtriangledown_H}:=\bigwedge\{m\in H\mid m\ngeq x\}\]
turn $(L,\wedge,\vee,\sp{\triangle_G},\sp{\bigtriangledown_H},0,1)$ into a weakly dicomplemented lattice.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $G\supseteq J(L)$, $b\in G$ and $x\in L$. Then $b\nleq\bigvee\{a\in G\mid a\nleq x\}$ implies $b\leq x$; \newline i.e., $b\nleq x\sp{\triangle_G}\implies b\leq x$.
Thus $x\sp{\triangle_G\triangle_G}=\bigvee\{b\in G\mid b\nleq x\sp{\triangle_G}\}\leq x$ and $(1)$ is proved. For $x\leq y$ we have $\{a\in G\mid a\nleq x\}\supseteq\{a\in G\mid a\nleq y\}$ implying $x\sp{\triangle_G}\geq y\sp{\triangle_G}$, and (2) is proved. For (3), it is enough to prove that for $a\in J(L)$, $a\leq x\iff a\leq (x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge y\sp{\triangle_G})$, since $J(L)$ is $\bigvee$-dense in $L$. Let $a\leq x$.
We have $a\leq y$ or $a\leq y\sp{\triangle_G}$. Then $a\leq x\wedge y$ or $a\leq x\wedge y\sp{\triangle_G}$. Thus $a\leq (x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge y\sp{\triangle_G})$. The reverse inequality is obvious. $(1')-(3')$ are proved similarly.
\end{proof}
Example~\ref{L:JML} above is a special case of concept algebras. Before we introduce concept algebras, let us recall some basic notions from FCA. The reader is referred to \cite{GW99}. As we mentioned before, FCA is based on the formalization of the notion of concept and concept hierarchy. Traditional philosophers considered a \neu{concept} to be determined by its extent and its intent. The extent consists of all objects belonging to the concept while the intent is the set of all attributes shared by all objects of the concept. In general, it may be difficult to list all objects or attributes of a concept. Therefore a specific {\em context} should be fixed to enable formalization.
A \neu{formal context} is a triple $(G,M,I)$ of sets such that $I\subseteq G\times M$. The members of $G$ are called \neu{objects} and those of $M$ \neu{attributes}. If $(g,m)\in I$, then the object $g$ is said to have $m$ as an attribute. For subsets $A\subseteq G$ and $B\subseteq M$, $A'$ and $B'$ are defined by
\[A':=\{m\in M\mid\ \forall g\in A\ g\mathop{\mbox{\rm I}} m \}\quad\text{and}\quad B':=\{g\in G\mid\ \forall m\in B\ g\mathop{\mbox{\rm I}} m \}.\]
A \neu{formal concept} of the formal context $(G,M,I)$ is a pair $(A,B)$ with $A\subseteq G$ and $B\subseteq M$ such that $A'=B$ and $B'=A$. The set $A$ is called the \neu{extent} and $B$ the \neu{intent} of the concept $(A,B)$. \neu{$\mathfrak{B}(G,M,I)$} denotes the set of all formal concepts of the formal context $(G,M,I)$. The concept hierarchy states that a concept is more general if it contains more objects. For capturing this notion a \neu{subconcept-superconcept relation} is defined: a concept $(A,B)$ is called a \neu{subconcept} of a concept $(C,D)$ provided that $A\subseteq C$ (which is equivalent to $D\subseteq B$); in this case, $(C,D)$ is a called \neu{superconcept} of $(A,B)$ and we write $(A,B)\leq(C,D)$. Obviously the subconcept-superconcept relation is an order relation on the set $\frak{B}(G,M,I)$ of all concepts of the formal context $(G,M,I)$.
The following result describing the concept hierarchy is considered as the basic theorem of FCA.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Wi82}]\label{T:BasicThmFCA} The poset $(\frak{B}(G,M,I),\leq)$ is a complete lattice in which infimum and supremum are given by:
{\small \[
\bigwedge_{t\in T}\left(A_t,B_t\right)=\left(\bigcap_{t\in
T}A_t,\left(\bigcup_{t\in T}B_t\right)''\right) \text{ and }
\bigvee_{t\in T}\left(A_t,B_t\right)=\left(\left(\bigcup_{t\in
T}A_t\right)'',\bigcap_{t\in T}B_t\right).
\] }
A complete lattice $L$ is isomorphic to $\frak{B}(G,M,I)$ iff
there are mappings $\tilde{\gamma}:G\to L$ and $\tilde{\mu}:M\to L$
such that $\tilde{\gamma}(G)$ is supremum-dense, $\tilde{\mu}(M)$ is
infimum-dense and $g\mathop{\mbox{\rm I}} m\iff \tilde{\gamma}g\leq\tilde{\mu}m$ for all
$(g,m)\in G\times M$.
\end{theorem}
The poset $(\mathfrak{B}(G,M,I);\leq )$ is called the \neu{concept lattice} of the context $(G,M,I)$ and is denoted by $\underline{\frak{B}}(G,M,I)$. By Theorem~\ref{T:BasicThmFCA}, all complete lattices are (copies of) concept lattices. We adopt the notations below for $g\in G$ and $m\in M$:
\[g':=\{g\}',\quad m':=\{m\}',\quad {\gamma}g:=(g'',g')\quad\mbox{ and }\quad {\mu}m:=(m',m'').\]
The concept $\gamma g$ is called \neu{object concept} and $\mu m$ \neu{attribute concept}. They form the building blocks of the concept lattice. The sets $\gamma G$ is supremum-dense and $\mu M$ is infimum-dense in $\frak{B}(G,M,I)$. We usually assume our context clarified, meaning that
$$x'=y'\implies x=y \quad\text{ for all } x,y \text{ in } G\cup M.$$
If $\gamma g$ is supremum-irreducible we say that the \neu{object} $g$ is \neu{irreducible}. An \neu{attribute} $m$ is called \neu{irreducible} if the attribute concept $\mu m$ is infimum-irreducible. A \neu{formal context} is called \neu{reduced} if all its objects and attributes are irreducible. For every finite nonempty lattice $L$ there is, up to isomorphism, a unique reduced context ${\mathbb{K}(L):=(J(L),M(L),\leq)}$ such that $L\cong\underline{\frak{B}}(\mathbb{K}(L))$. We call it \neu{standard context} of $L$. The meet and join operations in the concept lattice can be used to formalize respectively the conjunction and disjunction on concepts~\cite{GW99a}. To formalize the negation, the main problem is that the complement of an extent is probably not and extent and the complement of an intent might not be an intent. Therefore two operations are introduced as follows:
\begin{definition}\label{D:ca}
Let $\mathbb{K}:=(G,M,I)$ be a formal context. We define for each formal concept $(A,B)$
\[\mbox{ its \neu{weak negation} by}\qquad (A,B)^\tru :=\left(\left(G\setminus A\right)'',\left(G\setminus A\right)'\right)\]
\[\mbox{and its \neu{weak opposition} by}\quad (A,B)^\trd :=\left(\left(M\setminus B\right)',\left(M\setminus B\right)''\right).\]
$\frak{A}(\mathbb{K}):=\left(\frak{B}(\mathbb{K});\wedge,\vee,^\tru,^\trd,0,1\right)$ is called the \neu{concept algebra} of the formal context $\mathbb{K}$, where $\wedge$ and $\vee$ denote the meet and the join operations of the concept lattice.
\end{definition}
\noindent These operations satisfy the equations in Definition~\ref{D:wdl} (cf.~\cite{Wi00}). In fact, concept algebras are typical examples of weakly dicomplemented lattices. One of the important and still unsolved problems in this topic is to find out the equational theory of concept algebras; that is the set of all equations valid in all concept algebras. Is it finitely generated? I.e. is there a finite set $\mathcal{E}$ of equations valid in all concept algebras such that each equation valid in all concept algebras follows from $\mathcal{E}$? We start with the set of equations defining a weakly dicomplemented lattice\ and have to check whether they are enough to represent the equational theory of concept algebras.
This problem, known as ``representation problem'' (\cite{Kw04}), can be split in three sub-problems:
\begin{itemize}
\item[SRP] \neu{Strong representation problem}: describe weakly dicomplemented lattices that are isomorphic to concept algebras.
\item[EAP] \neu{Equational axiomatization problem}: find a set of equations that generate the equational theory of concept algebras.
\item[CEP] \neu{Concrete embedding problem}: given a weakly dicomplemented lattice $L$, is there a context $\mathbb{K}\sb{\bigtriangledown}\sp{\triangle}(L)$ such that $L$ embeds into the concept algebra of $\mathbb{K}\sb{\bigtriangledown}\sp{\triangle}(L)$?
\end{itemize}
We proved (see \cite{Kw04} or \cite{GK07}) that finite distributive weakly dicomplemented lattices are isomorphic to concept algebras. However we cannot expect all weakly dicomplemented lattices to be isomorphic to concept algebras, since concept algebras are necessary complete lattices. In Section~\ref{S:main} we will show that even being complete is not enough for weakly dicomplemented lattices to be isomorphic to concept algebras. Before that we show in Section~\ref{S:wdl+neg} that {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s generalize Boolean algebras.
\section{Weakly Dicomplemented Lattices with Negation}\label{S:wdl+neg}
Example~\ref{E:ba} states that duplicating the
complementation of a Boolean algebra leads to a weakly dicomplemented lattice. Does the
converse hold? I.e., is a weakly dicomplemented lattice\ in which the weak complementation and the dual weak complementation are duplicate a Boolean algebra? The finite case is easily
obtained~[Co\-rollary~\ref{C:fwdl+neg}]. Major parts of this section are taken from \cite{Kw04}. We will also describe {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s whose Boolean part is the intersection of their skeletons (definitions below).
\begin{definition}\label{D:wdl+neg}
A weakly dicomplemented lattice is said to be \neu{with
negation}\index{lattice!weakly dicomplemented!with negation}
if the unary operations coincide, i.e., if $x^\trd = x^\tru$ for all
$x$. In this case we set $x^\tru=:\bar{x}:=x^\trd$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{P:wdl+neg-uc}
A weakly dicomplemented lattice\ with negation is uniquely complemented.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$x^{\triangle\tru}\leq x\leq x^{\bigtriangledown\trd}$ implies that $x=\bar{\bar{x}}$. Moreover,
$x\wedge \bar{x} =0$ and $\bar{x}$ is a complement of $x$. If $y$ is another complement of $x$ then
\[ x=(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge\bar{y})= x\wedge\bar{y} \implies x\leq \bar{y}\]
\[ x=(x\vee y)\wedge(x\vee \bar{y})= x\vee \bar{y} \implies x\geq \bar{y}\]
Then $\bar{y} = x$ and $\bar{x} = y$. $L$ is therefore a uniquely complemented lattice.
\end{proof}
It can be easily seen that each uniquely complemented atomic lattice
is a copy of the power set of the set of its atoms, and therefore
distributive. Thus
\begin{corollary}\label{C:fwdl+neg}
The finite weakly dicomplemented lattices with negation are exactly
the finite Boolean algebras.
\end{corollary}
Of course, the natural question will be if the converse of
Lemma~\ref{P:wdl+neg-uc} holds. That is, can any uniquely
complemented lattice be endowed with a structure of a weakly
dicomplemented lattice with negation? The answer is yes for
distributive lattices. If the assertion of Corollary~\ref{C:fwdl+neg}
can be extended to lattices in general, the answer will
unfortunately be no. In fact R.~P.~Dilworth proved that each lattice can be embedded into a uniquely complemented lattice \cite{Di45}. The immediate consequence is the existence of non-distributive uniquely complemented lattices. They are however infinite.
If a uniquely complemented lattice could be endowed with a structure of weakly
dicomplemented lattice, it would be distributive. This cannot be true
for non distributive uniquely complemented lattices.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:wdl+neg-dml}
Each weakly dicomplemented lattice with negation $L$
satisfies the de Morgan laws.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We want to prove that $\overline{x\wedge y}=\bar{x}\vee\bar{y}$.
\[
(\bar{x}\vee\bar{y})\vee(x\wedge y)\geq \bar{x}\vee(x\wedge \bar{y})\vee(x\wedge
y)=\bar{x}\vee x=1
\]
and
\[
(\bar{x}\vee\bar{y})\wedge(x\wedge y)\leq (\bar{x}\vee \bar{y})\wedge x\wedge(\bar{x}\vee y)=\bar{x}\wedge x=0.
\]
So $\bar{x}\vee \bar{y}$ is a complement of $x\wedge y$, hence by uniqueness
it is equal to $\overline{x\wedge y}$. Dually we have $\overline{x\vee y}=\bar{x}\wedge \bar{y}$.
\end{proof}
Now for the distributivity we can show that
\begin{lemma}\label{P:wdl+neg-distr}
$\overline{x\wedge(y\vee z)}$ is a complement of $(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since in every lattice the equation $x\wedge(y\vee z)\geq(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)$ holds, we have that $\overline{x\wedge(y\vee z)}\leq\overline{(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)}$; so we have only to show that
$$\overline{x\wedge(y\vee z)}\vee(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)=1.$$
Using the de Morgan laws and axiom (3) several times we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{x\wedge(y\vee z)}\vee(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)
&=&\bar{x}\vee(\bar{y}\wedge \bar{z})\vee(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)\\
&=& \bar{x}\vee(\bar{y}\wedge \bar{z}\wedge x)\vee(\bar{y}\wedge \bar{z}\wedge
\bar{x})\vee(x\wedge y\wedge z)\\
& &\vee(x\wedge y\wedge \bar{z}) \vee(x\wedge z\wedge \bar{y})\\
&=& \bar{x}\vee(\bar{y}\wedge \bar{z}\wedge \bar{x})\vee(x\wedge y\wedge z)\vee(x\wedge y\wedge \bar{z})\\
& &\vee(x\wedge \bar{y}\wedge z)\vee(x\wedge \bar{y}\wedge \bar{z})\\
&=& \bar{x}\vee(\bar{y}\wedge \bar{z}\wedge \bar{x})\vee(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge \bar{y})\\
&=& \bar{x}\vee(\bar{y}\wedge \bar{z}\wedge \bar{x})\vee x\\
&=& 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $\overline{x\wedge(y\vee z)}$ is a complement of $(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)$.
\end{proof}
Since the complement is unique we get the
equality
\[
x\wedge(y\vee z)=\overline{\overline{x\wedge(y\vee z)}}=(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z).
\]
Thus {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s generalize Boolean algebras in the following sense
\begin{theorem}\label{T:wdl+neg}
Boolean algebras with duplicated complementation\footnote{see Example~\ref{E:ba}} are {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s. If $^\tru=^\trd$ in a weakly dicomplemented lattice\ $L$ then $(L,\wedge,\vee,^\tru,0,1)$ is a Boolean algebra.
\end{theorem}
As the equality $x^\tru=x^\trd$ not always holds, we can look for maximal substructures with this property.
\begin{definition} For any weakly dicomplemented lattice $L$, we will call $$B(L):=\{x\in L\mid x^\tru=x^\trd\}$$ the \neu{subset of elements with negation}.
\end{definition}
As in Definition~\ref{D:wdl+neg} we denote by $\bar{x}$ the common value of
$x^\tru$ and $x^\trd$, for any $x\in B(L)$. We set
$$L^\tru:=\{a^\tru\mid a\in L\}=\{a\in L\mid a{^\tru}{^\tru}=a\}$$
and call it the \neu{skeleton} of $L$, as well as
$$L^\trd:=\{a^\trd\mid a\in L\}=\{a\in L\mid a{^\trd}{^\trd}=a\}$$
and call it the \neu{dual skeleton} of $L$.
\begin{corollary}\label{C:elts+neg} $(B(L),\wedge,\vee,\bar{\phantom{a}},0,1)$ is a Boolean algebra that is a subalgebra of the skeleton and the dual skeleton.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From $x^\tru=x^\trd$ we get $x\sp{\triangle\tru}=x\sp{\bigtriangledown\triangle}$ and
$x\sp{\triangle\bigtriangledown}=x\sp{\bigtriangledown\trd}$. Thus
\[
x\sp{\triangle\bigtriangledown}=x\sp{\triangle\tru}=x=x\sp{\bigtriangledown\trd}=x\sp{\bigtriangledown\triangle}
\]
and
$B(L)$ is closed under the operations $^\tru$ and $^\trd$. We will prove
that $B(L)$ is a subalgebra of $L$. We consider $x$ and $y$ in
$B(L)$.
We have
\[
(x\wedge y)^\tru=x^\tru\vee y^\tru=x^\trd\vee y^\trd \leq (x\wedge y)^\trd
\leq(x\wedge y)^\tru \mbox{ and }
\]
\[
(x\vee y)^\trd=x^\trd\wedge y^\trd=x^\tru\wedge y^\tru \geq (x\vee y)^\tru \geq(x\vee y)^\trd.\]
Thus $x\wedge y$ and $x\vee y$ belong to $B(L)$. $B(L)$ is a weakly
dicomplemented lattice with negation, and is by
Theorem~\ref{T:wdl+neg}, a Boolean algebra.
\end{proof}
While proving Corollary~\ref{C:elts+neg} we have also shown that $B(L)$ is a
subalgebra of $L$. It is, in fact, the largest Boolean algebra that is a
subalgebra of the skeletons and of $L$. We call it the
\neu{Boolean part} of $L$. The inclusion $B(L)\subseteq L^\tru\cap L^\trd$ can be strict. For the weakly dicomplemented lattice\ $L_1$ in Fig.~\ref{Fi:liebsp}, we have
\[B(L_1)=\{0,1\},\ L_1^\tru=\{0,1,c,d,e,c^\tru,d^\tru,e^\tru\} \text{ and } L_1^\trd=\{0,1,c,a,b,c^\trd,a^\trd,b^\trd\}.\]
Thus $B(L_1)\subsetneq L_1^\tru\cap L_1^\trd$. It would be nice to find under which conditions the Boolean part is the intersection of the skeleton and dual skeleton.
\begin{lemma}
If $L$ is a finite distributive lattice with $^\trd=\ast$ (pseudocomplementation) and $^\tru=+$ (dual pseudocomplementation), then $B(L)$ is the set of complemented elements of $L$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be a finite distributive lattice with $^\trd=\ast$ and $^\tru=+$. We denote by $C(L)$ the set of complemented elements of $L$. Of course $B(L)\subseteq C(L)$. Let $x\in C(L)$. From the distributi\-vi\-ty there is a unique elements $z\in L$ such that $x\vee z=1$ and $x\wedge z=0$. Then $z\leq x^\trd\leq x^\tru\leq z$, and $x\in B(L)$.
\end{proof}
Even in this case, the Boolean part can still be strictly smaller than the intersection of the skeletons. For $L_1$ in Fig.~\ref{Fi:liebsp} we have
$$B(L_1)\subsetneq L_1^\tru\cap L_1^\trd=\{0,1,c,a^\trd\}= C(L_1).$$
For $L_2$ in Fig~\ref{Fi:liebsp}, we have $^\tru=\sp{+}$ and $^\trd=\sp{\ast}$; but \[L_2^\tru=\{0,1,c,c^\tru\},\ L_2^\trd=\{0,1,c,c^\trd\},\ B(L_2)=\{0,1\}=C(L_2)\subsetneq\{0,1,c\}=L_2^\tru\cap L_2^\trd.\]
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{texdraw}
\drawdim{cm} \setunitscale .6
\move(4 2) \lvec(1 5)\lvec(4 8) \lvec(7 5)\lvec(4 2)
\move(5 3) \lvec(2 6)
\move(6 4) \lvec(3 7)
\move(3 3) \lvec(6 6)
\move(2 4) \lvec(5 7)
\move(4 2) \fcir f:0 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(3 3) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(2 4) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(1 5) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(5 3) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(4 4) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(3 5) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(2 6) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(6 4) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(5 5) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(4 6) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(3 7) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(7 5) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(6 6) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(5 7) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(4 8) \fcir f:0 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\htext(4.3 2){$0$} \htext(4.3 8){$1$} \htext(2.5 3){$a$}
\htext(1.5 4){$b$} \htext(0.5 5){$c$} \htext(1.5 6){$d$}
\htext(2.5 7){$e$} \htext(5.3 3){$c^\trd$} \htext(6.3 4){$b^\trd$}
\htext(7.3 5){$a^\trd=e^\tru$} \htext(6.3 6){$d^\tru$} \htext(5.3
7){$c^\tru$} \htext(4.3 4){$u$} \htext(5.3 5){$v$} \htext(3.3 5){$w$}
\htext(4.3 6){$z$}
\htext(2.3 2){$L_1$}
\end{texdraw}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{6cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{texdraw}
\drawdim{cm} \setunitscale .6
\move(4 2) \lvec(1 5)\lvec(4 8) \lvec(6 6)
\move(6 4) \lvec(4 2)
\move(5 3) \lvec(2 6)
\move(6 4) \lvec(3 7)
\move(3 3) \lvec(6 6)
\move(2 4) \lvec(5 7)
\move(4 2) \fcir f:0 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(3 3) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(2 4) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(1 5) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(5 3) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(4 4) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(3 5) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(2 6) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(6 4) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(5 5) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(4 6) \fcir f:1 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(3 7) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(6 6) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(5 7) \fcir f:0.7 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\move(4 8) \fcir f:0 r:0.2 \lcir r:0.2
\htext(4.3 2){$0$} \htext(4.3 8){$1$} \htext(2.5 3){$a$}
\htext(1.5 4){$b$} \htext(0.5 5){$c$} \htext(1.5 6){$d$}
\htext(2.5 7){$e$} \htext(5.3 2.8){$f$} \htext(6.3 4){$c^\trd$}
\htext(6.3 6){$c^\tru$} \htext(5.3 7){$g$} \htext(4.3 4){$u$} \htext(5.3 5){$v$} \htext(3.3 5){$w$} \htext(4.3 6){$z$}
\htext(2.3 2){$L_2$}
\end{texdraw}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Examples of dicomplementations. For $L_1$, the elements $c$, $b$ and $a$ are each image (of their image). The operation $^\tru$ is the dual of $^\trd$.
For $L_2$, $^\tru=\sp{+}$ and $^\trd=\sp{\ast}$.}\label{Fi:liebsp}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
$B(L)=L^\tru\cap L^\trd$ iff $x{^\tru}{^\tru}=x{^\trd}{^\trd}\implies x{^\tru}{^\trd}=x{^\trd}{^\tru}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
($\Rightarrow$). Let $x\in L$ such that $x{^\tru}{^\tru}=x{^\trd}{^\trd}$. Then $x\in L^\tru\cap L^\trd=B(L)$ and implies $x^\tru=x^\trd$. Therefore
$x{^\tru}{^\trd}=x{^\trd}{^\trd}=x=x{^\tru}{^\tru}=x{^\trd}{^\tru}$.
($\Leftarrow$). Let $x\in L^\tru\cap L^\trd$. Then $x{^\tru}{^\tru}=x=x{^\trd}{^\trd}$ and implies $x{^\tru}=x{^\trd}{^\tru}{^\tru}\leq x^\trd$. Thus $x^\tru=x^\trd$, and $x\in B(L)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
If $L^\tru$ and $L^\trd$ are subalgebras of $L$, then there are complemented.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We assume that $L^\trd$ is a subalgebra of $L$. Let $x\in L^\trd$. Then $x\wedge x^\trd=0$ and $x\vee x^\trd=t^\trd$ for some $t\in L$. Therefore
\[0=(x\vee x^\trd)^\trd=t^{\bigtriangledown\trd} \implies 1=0^\trd=t^{\bigtriangledown\trd\bigtriangledown}=t^\trd=x\vee x^\trd.\]
Thus $L^\trd$ is complemented. The proof for $L^\tru$ is obtained analogously.
\end{proof}
In general, $L^\tru$ and $L^\trd$ are orthocomplemented lattice, when considered as lattice on their own~\cite{Kw04}.
\section{Strong representation problem}\label{S:main}
We start this section by a negative result, namely by showing that {\em completeness is not enough for weakly dicomplemented lattices to be (copies of) concept algebras}.
\begin{theorem}\label{T:main}
There is no formal context whose concept algebra is isomorphic to a complete atomfree Boolean algebra.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $B$ be a complete and atomfree Boolean algebra. By Theorem~\ref{T:BasicThmFCA}, there is a context $(G,M,I)$ such that $\underline{\frak{B}}(G,M,I)\cong B$ (lattice isomorphism). Without loss of generality, we can assume that $(G,M,I)$ is a subcontext of $(B,B,\leq)$. We claim that there are $g,h\in G$ with $0<h<g<1$. In fact, for an element $g\in G\subseteq B$ with $0\neq g$ there is $a\in B$ such that $0<a<g$, since $B$ is atomfree. Moreover $G$ is $\bigvee$-dense in $B$ and then $0\neq a=\bigvee\{x\in G\mid x\leq a\}$, implying that $\{x\in G\mid 0<x\leq a\}\neq\emptyset$. Thus we can choose $h\in G$ with $0<h\leq a<g$. In the concept algebra of $(G,M,\leq)$ we have $h^\tru=\bigvee\{x\in G\mid x\nleq h\}\geq g>h$. From $h\vee h^\tru=1$ we get $h^\tru=1\neq \bar{h}$ (the complement of $h$ in $B$).
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{T:main} says that an atomfree Boolean algebra is not isomorphic to a concept algebra. However it can be embedded into a concept algebra. The corresponding context is constructed via ultrafilters. A general construction was presented in \cite{Kw04}.
\def\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}{\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}}
\def\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}{\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}}
\def\Fx#1{\cal{F}\sb{\rm #1}}
\def\Ix#1{\cal{I}\sb{\rm #1}}
\begin{definition}\label{D:primaryfi}
A \neu{primary filter} is a (lattice) filter that contains $w$ or $w^\tru$ for all $w\in L$. Dually, a \neu{primary ideal} is an ideal that contains $w$ or $w^\trd$ for all $w\in L$. $\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$ denotes the set of all primary filters and $\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$ the set of primary ideals of $L$.
\end{definition}
For Boolean algebras, a proper filter $F$ is primary iff it is an ultrafilter, iff it is a prime filter ($x\vee y\in F \implies x\in F$ or $y\in F$). The following result based on Zorn's lemma provides the sets of a context $\mathbb{K}\sb{\bigtriangledown}\sp{\triangle}(L)$ which is the best candidate for representing a weakly dicomplemented lattice\ $L$.
\begin{theorem}[``Prime ideal theorem''~\cite{Kw04}]\label{T:pit}
For every filter $F$ and every ideal $I$ such that $F\cap I=\emptyset$
there is a primary filter $G$ containing $F$ and disjoint from $I$. Dually, for every ideal $I$ and every filter $F$ such that $I\cap F=\emptyset$
there is a primary ideal $J$ containing $I$ and disjoint from $F$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}\label{C:pit}
If $x\not\le y$ in $L$, then there exists a primary filter $F$
containing $x$ and not $y$.
\end{corollary}
For $x\in L$, we set
\[\Fx{x}:=\{F\in\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)\mid x\in F\}\quad\text{ and }\quad
\Ix{x}:=\{I\in\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}(L)\mid x\in I\}.\]
The \neu{canonical context} of a weakly dicomplemented lattice $L$ is the formal context
\[\bb{K}\sp{^\tru}\sb{^\trd}(L):=(\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L),\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}(L),\mathrel{\Box})\quad\text{ with }F\mathrel{\Box}I:\iff F\cap I\ne\emptyset.\]
The derivation in $\bb{K}\sp{^\tru}\sb{^\trd}(L)$ yields, $\Fx{x}'=\Ix{x}$ and $\Ix{x}'=\Fx{x}$ for every $x\in L$. Moreover, the map
\begin{eqnarray*}
i \colon L & \to & \frak{B}\left(\bb{K}\sp{^\tru}\sb{^\trd}(L)\right) \\
x & \mapsto & (\Fx{x},\Ix{x})
\end{eqnarray*}
is a bounded lattice embedding with
\[
i(x^\trd)\leq i(x)^\trd\leq i(x)^\tru \leq i(x^\tru).
\]
If the first and last inequalities above were equalities, we would get a weakly dicomplemented lattice embedding into the concept algebra of $\mathbb{K}\sp{\triangle}\sb{\bigtriangledown}(L)$. This would be a solution to the representation problem of weakly dicomplemented lattices.
\begin{theorem}\label{T:atcompletion}
If $L$ is a Boolean algebra, then the concept algebra of $\bb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(L)$ is a complete and atomic Boolean algebra into which $L$ embeds.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $B$ is a Boolean algebra, then a proper filter $F$ of $L$ is primary iff it is an ultrafilter, and a proper ideal $J$ is primary iff it is maximal. Thus $\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$ is the set of ultrafilters of $L$ and $\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$ the set of its maximal ideals. In addition, the complement of an ultrafilter is a maximal ideal and vice-versa. For $F\in\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$, $L\setminus F$ is the only primary ideal that does not intersect $F$, and for any $J\in\frak{I}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$, $L\setminus J$ is the only primary filter that does not intersect $J$. Thus the context $\bb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(L)$ is a copy of $(\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L),\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L),\neq)$. The concepts of this context are exactly pairs $(A,B)$ such that $A\cup B=\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$ and $A\cap B=\emptyset$. Thus $\frak{B}(\bb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(L))\cong\cal{P}(\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L))$ and each subset $A$ of $\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)$ is an extent of $\bb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(L)$. It remains to prove that the lattice embedding
\begin{eqnarray*}
i \colon L & \to & \frak{B}\left(\bb{K}\sp{^\tru}\sb{^\trd}(L)\right) \\
x & \mapsto & (\Fx{x},\Ix{x})
\end{eqnarray*}
is also a Boolean algebra embedding. If $i(x^\tru)\neq i(x)^\tru$ then there is
\[
F\in\Fx{x^\tru}\setminus\left(\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)\setminus\Fx{x}\right)''=\Fx{x^\tru}\setminus\left(\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)\setminus\Fx{x}\right)=\emptyset,
\]
which is a contradiction. Similarly $i(x^\trd)=i(x)^\trd$. Therefore $B$ embeds into the complete and atomic Boolean algebra $\frak{A}\left(\bb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(L)\right)$ which is a copy of $\mathcal{P}\left(\frak{F}\sb{\rm pr}(L)\right)$.
\end{proof}
The above result is a new proof to a well-known result (Corollary~\ref{C:Stone}) due to Marshall Stone~\cite{St36}. The advantage here is that the proof is simple and does not require any know\-ledge from topology. Recall that a field of subsets of a set $X$ is a subalgebra of $\cal{P}(X)$, i.e. a family of subsets of $X$ that contains $\emptyset$ and $X$, and that is closed under union, intersection, and complementation.
\begin{corollary}[\cite{St36}]\label{C:Stone}
Each Boolean algebra embeds into a field of sets.
\end{corollary}
We conclude this section by an example.
Consider the Boolean algebra ${F}\mathbb{N}$ of finite and cofinite subsets of $\mathbb{N}$. It is not complete. But $\cal{P}(\mathbb{N})$ is a complete and atomic Boolean algebra containing ${F}\mathbb{N}$.
By Theorem~\ref{T:atcompletion} $\frak{A}(\mathbb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle({F}\mathbb{N}))$ is also a complete and atomic Boolean algebra into which ${F}\mathbb{N}$ embeds. The atoms of ${F}\mathbb{N}$ are $\{n\}, n\in\mathbb{N}$. These generate its principal ultrafilters. ${F}\mathbb{N}$ has exactly one non-principal ultrafilter $U$ (the cofinite subsets). Thus $|{F}\mathbb{N}|=|\mathbb{N}|+1=|\mathbb{N}|$. We can find a bijection let say $f$ between the atoms of $\cal{P}(\mathbb{N})$ and the atoms of $\frak{A}(\mathbb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle({F}\mathbb{N}))$. $f$ induces an isomorphism $\hat{f}:\cal{P}(\mathbb{N})\to\frak{A}(\mathbb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle({F}\mathbb{N}))$. Henceforth, it is natural to look for a universal property to characterize $\frak{A}(\mathbb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(B))$ for any Boolean algebra $B$. For example {\em is $\frak{A}(\mathbb{K}_\bigtriangledown^\triangle(B))$ the smallest complete and atomic Boolean algebra into which $B$ embeds}?
\section{Conclusion}
Weakly dicomplemented lattices with negation are exactly Boolean algebras (Theorem~\ref{T:wdl+neg}). Even if they are not always isomorphic to concept algebras (Theorem~\ref{T:main}), they embed into concept algebras (Theorem~\ref{T:atcompletion}). Finite distributive {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s are isomorphic to concept algebras~\cite{GK07}. Extending these results to finite {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s in one sense and to distributive {weakly dicomplemented lattice}s in the other are the next steps towards the representation of weakly dicomplemented lattices. Finding a kind of universal property to characterize the construction in Theorem~\ref{T:atcompletion} is a natural question to be addressed.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was initiated as the first author was at TU Dresden, and was carried out while the first author was visiting Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Tokyo, Japan, supported by the grant of the second author. We would like to thank both universities for providing working facilities.
The authors would like to thank P\'eter P\'al P\'alfy for helpful discussions on the topic.
|
\section{Introduction}
Lead-based relaxor ferroelectrics are compounds with the general formula PbBO$_{3}$ in which the B-site is disordered. They exhibit exceptionally large piezoelectric coefficients ($d_{33} \sim 2,500$\,pC/N) and dielectric constants ($\epsilon \sim 25,000$) making them attractive for device applications.~\cite{Ye_rev:98,Park97:82,Xu_rev:xx} PbMg$_{1/3}$Nb$_{2/3}$O$_{3}$ (PMN) and PbZn$_{1/3}$Nb$_{2/3}$O$_{3}$ (PZN) are prototypical relaxor ferroelectrics and the most studied; both display a broad and unusually frequency-dependent zero-field dielectric response (see Fig.~\ref{figure1}$b$) that contrasts with the sharp and (comparatively) frequency-independent peaks observed in conventional ferroelectrics such as PbTiO$_{3}$ (PT) and BaTiO$_{3}$.
This anomalous dielectric behavior is matched by the odd structural properties of the lead-based relaxors.~\cite{Xu06:79} Instead of a well-defined structural transition to a long-range ordered ferroelectric ground state, which normally characterizes a typical ferroelectric, lead-based relaxors develop short-range ferroelectric correlations on cooling that are consistent with tiny domains of ferroelectric order embedded within a paraelectric matrix, while the average structural unit cell remains cubic. These local regions of ferroelectric order, now known as polar nanoregions or PNR, were first postulated to explain the temperature dependence of the optical index of refraction of a variety of disordered ferroelectric materials.~\cite{Burns83:48} The existence of PNR has since been confirmed by numerous x-ray and neutron scattering studies, which report the presence of strong diffuse scattering at low temperatures.~\cite{You97:79, Hirota02:65,Vak95:37,Vak89:90} The diffuse scattering in PMN, for example, was recently investigated in great detail and shown to vanish above $\sim 420$\,K.~\cite{Gehring09:79} Typical diffuse scattering intensity contours measured at 200\,K are displayed in Fig.~\ref{diffuse_figure}$a)$~\cite{Xu_TOF} and show that the neutron diffuse scattering cross section is very broad in momentum, which implies the existence of short-range structural correlations. By comparison, the sharp, resolution-limited Bragg peaks that accompany a transition to a normal ferroelectric ground state such as in PbTiO$_{3}$ are indicative of long-range structural correlations. While the lead-based relaxor diffuse scattering cross section has been modeled extensively, considerable debate persists over the underlying physical origin of the intriguing butterfly-shaped contours illustrated in Fig.\,\ref{diffuse_figure}$a$).~\cite{Vak05:7,Pasciak07:76,Welberry05:38,Welberry06:74,Xu04:70}
Despite uncertainties in the origin of the diffuse scattering cross section, the polar nature of the diffuse scattering in the lead-based relaxors has been well established through three different means. First, the onset of the diffuse scattering in PMN was shown to coincide with the temperature at which a ferroelectric-active, soft, transverse optic mode reaches a minimum frequency (see Fig.\,\ref{figure1}$a$), and which also coincides with the Curie-Weiss temperature derived from high-temperature susceptibility measurements (Fig.~\ref{figure1} $c$).~\cite{Gehring09:79,Waki02:65,Viehland92:46} Second, the diffuse scattering was shown to respond strongly to an electric field, which in PMN suppresses the diffuse scattering while simultaneously enhancing the Bragg peaks at low temperatures.~\cite{Gehring04:70,Stock07:76,Xu06:74,Xu05:72} Third, on doping PMN with PT both the piezoelectric properties and the total diffuse scattering increase but then drop sharply above PT concentrations near 32\%, at which point the diffuse scattering is replaced by a well-defined structural transition.~\cite{Matsuura06:74,Cao08:78} While there is a clear connection between the anomalous dielectric properties and the diffuse scattering in lead-based relaxors, the lattice dynamics remain poorly understood, particularly at long timescales. Specifically, broadband infrared and frequency-dependent dielectric measurements, and the diffuse scattering cross section measured with neutrons and x-rays are difficult to reconcile because the former two techniques generally probe only the momentum response near $Q=0$. This problem is further complicated by the fact that neutron scattering measurements are typically limited to energy resolutions $\delta E \sim 1$\,THz, and therefore direct comparisons with low-frequency dielectric data have not been possible.
While comparisons of dielectric and infra-red measurements to neutron and x-ray scattering data are difficult to make, data at the high frequency limit of broadband measurements ($\sim 1$\,THz) on thin films have proven to be in excellent agreement with neutron inelastic scattering measurements of the soft transverse optic mode.~\cite{Bovtun04:298} Low frequency measurements, however, have suggested the presence of significant dynamics that appear to be strongly correlated with the anomalous structural properties.~\cite{Kamba05:17} While it is tempting to attribute these long timescale dynamics to the diffuse scattering associated with the PNR, several studies using thermal neutron spin-echo and cold neutron triple-axis techniques, which provide excellent energy resolution, have reported the diffuse component to be resolution-limited (and hence static) at all temperatures.~\cite{Vak05:7,Hlinka03:15} The supposed static nature of the diffuse scattering cross section has led to some models that rely solely on strain or defects to describe the cross section and reconcile it with the dynamics observed in infra-red and dielectric measurements. On the other hand, other neutron studies have found some evidence of low-energy quasielastic scattering that has been suggested to be correlated with the dielectric properties.~\cite{Hiraka04:70,Gvasaliya05:17,Cowley09:378} However, because the same low-energy inelastic cross section also contains significant acoustic phonon scattering, the basic nature and existence of any quasielastic component remains unclear.~\cite{Stock05:74} For this reason it is highly desirable to study the diffuse scattering in lead-based relaxors with an energy resolution that is comparable to that of frequency-dependent dielectric measurements so that a direct comparison between the results from these different techniques can be made.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=9cm] {NSE_mode.eps}
\caption{$a)$ The square of the soft, transverse optic mode frequency is shown as a function of temperature (data taken from Refs. \onlinecite{Waki02:65} and \onlinecite{Stock05:74}. $b)$ The frequency dependence of the dielectric constant of PMN (data taken from Ref.~\onlinecite{Bovtun04:298}. $c)$ The inverse of the 100-kHz dielectric susceptibility as a function of temperature. The dashed line represents a high temperature fit and the Curie-Weiss temperature ($\Theta$) is indicated. The data were taken from Ref.~\onlinecite{Viehland92:46}.}
\label{figure1}
\end{figure}
We have measured the diffuse scattering using cold neutron backscattering and spin-echo techniques in an effort to characterize the dynamics of the PNR in the relaxor PMN. The large dynamic range offered by both techniques allows a direct comparison with dielectric measurements, which probe dynamics on timescales less than $\sim 1$\,GHz. While our backscattering data reproduce previously published results concerning the static nature of the diffuse cross section, our spin-echo experiments reveal that the diffuse scattering is in fact described by two components - one static and one dynamic. The static component is onset at 400\,K, where the ferroelectric-active, soft phonon reaches a minimum frequency. The temperature dependence of the static component matches well with our backscattering results and with previous data using coarser energy resolution performed on triple-axis spectrometers.~\cite{Hiraka04:70} The dynamic component is well described by a single relaxational decay time ($\tau$) on the order of $\sim 0.1$\,ns. The temperature dependence of the relaxational time is described by a simple Arrhenius law with an activation temperature of 1100\,K. We suggest that T$_{f} \sim 200$\,K, which is the so-called Vogel-Fulcher temperature, is the temperature at which the PNR freeze entirely, and that 400\,K is correlated with the onset of static, short-range ferroelectric correlations (PNR). The dynamics also reflect the high-temperature scale where previous dielectric and optical index of refraction measurements have suggested the onset of fluctuating polar nanoregions, often referred to as the Burns temperature.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8cm] {diffuse_figure.eps}
\caption{ $a)$ Diffuse scattering intensity contours measured near $\vec{Q}$=(100) on the DCS spectrometer located at NIST; the circles illustrate where in reciprocal space the measurements on IN10 and IN11 were conducted. $b)$ Backscattering spectra measured at several temperatures and summed over the Q-positions indicated in red. The error bars are related to the square root of the total number of neutron counts.}
\label{diffuse_figure}
\end{figure}
\section{Experimental Details}
Our neutron scattering experiments were conducted on the IN10 backscattering and IN11 spin-echo spectrometers located at the Institut Laue Langevin in Grenoble, France. IN10 consists of a large, vibrating Si(111) monochromator that Doppler shifts incident neutrons with energies near $E_{i}=2.08$\,meV and directs them on to the sample. Neutrons scattered from the sample are then energy analyzed by a large bank of Si(111) crystals, which backscatter neutrons having energy $E_f=2.08$\,meV through the sample and onto a series of detectors. The dynamic range for this spectrometer is $\pm 10$\,$\mu$eV, and the elastic energy resolution is $\delta E=0.5$\,$\mu$eV (half-width). Neutron spin echo (NSE) spectroscopy differs from other neutron spectroscopic methods in that it measures the real part of the normalized intermediate scattering function $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]$~\cite{Mezei}, where $Q$ is the total momentum transferred to the sample. This is achieved by encoding the neutron's speed into the Larmor precession of its nuclear magnetic moment in a well controlled, externally applied magnetic field. $I(Q,t)$ is the spatial Fourier transform of the Van Hove self correlation function $G(r,t)$ which, essentially, gives the probability of finding a particle after time $t$ at a radius $r$ around its original position~\cite{vanHove}. Furthermore, $I(Q,t)$ is the frequency Fourier transform of the scattering function $S(Q,\omega)$, which is what is measured with neutron backscattering spectroscopy. We used the NSE spectrometer IN11 in its high resolution set-up ``IN11A''. The PMN sample is a 3\,cc crystal grown using the Bridgeman technique described elsewhere.~\cite{Luo00:39} The sample has a room temperature lattice constant of 4.04\,\AA\ and was aligned in the (HK0) scattering plane for all measurements.
\section{Results and Discussion}
We first discuss our measurements of the static diffuse scattering cross section, which is associated with short-range polar correlations. Fig.~\ref{diffuse_figure}$a)$ shows the geometry of the diffuse scattering intensity contours in PMN measured near $\vec{Q}=(100)$ at 200\,K. These data were obtained using the Disk Chopper Spectrometer (DCS) located at NIST and have been published and discussed elsewhere.~\cite{Xu_TOF} The red and white circles indicate the positions in reciprocal space that we studied using the backscattering (IN10) and spin-echo (IN11) techniques, respectively. Panel $b)$ shows various constant-$Q$ scans measured using IN10. These data have been corrected for a background measured at 550\,K, above the onset of any diffuse scattering component. The data in panel $b)$ are the sum of the intensities measured at the two $\vec{Q}$-positions indicated by the red circles labeled IN10 in panel $a)$. As can be seen, both points are located far away from the (100) Bragg peak position and therefore are not contaminated by changes in the Bragg peak intensity as a function of temperature. The lines in panel $b)$ are fits to a Gaussian with a width fixed to the energy resolution of IN10, which was measured using the incoherent scattering cross section from a Vanadium standard. The data in panel $b)$ illustrate the onset of the static (resolution-limited) component of the diffuse scattering cross section. These data also show the absence of any measurable dynamics out to energy transfers of about 10 $\mu$eV between 10\,K and 550\,K (as indicated by the lack of any intensity or temperature dependence). However the dynamic range probed by backscattering is very limited, and so it is desirable to investigate the inelastic properties of PMN with a technique covering a broader dynamic range while maintaining an excellent energy resolution. Indeed, it is possible that the spectral weight gathering within the elastic ($E=0$) line at low temperatures may result from a rapid evolution of the dynamics. To investigate this possibility, we have used spin-echo spectroscopy, which covers a large dynamic range in time simultaneously.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8cm] {NSE_fits.eps}
\caption{Time dependence of the normalized intermediate scattering function $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]$ at various temperatures. Both dynamic and static components are observed for 200\,K $<T<$ 450\,K, but only the static component is present at 200\,K. The error bars are related to the square root of the total number of neutron counts.}
\label{NSE_fits}
\end{figure}
The spectra measured using spin-echo (NSE) are plotted in Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits} between 200\,K and 450\,K and characterize the intermediate scattering function $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]$ as a function of $t$. At 450\,K and above, the data are consistent with a flat line, thus indicating no time dependent dynamics are present within the range accessible with the NSE technique. The error bars are large for the 450\,K data set because the diffuse scattering intensity is extremely weak at this temperature. The relatively featureless spectrum at 450\,K contrasts with that measured at 350\,K, which clearly shows a systematic decay with time, thereby illustrating the presence of a dynamic component. At lower temperatures the decay time increases until at 200\,K only a flat, $t$-independent response is observed, which indicates that the normalized intermediate scattering function is purely static within the limits of the instrumental resolution, i.\ e.\ $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]=1$. The data in Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits} therefore reflects an interplay between static and dynamic components of the diffuse scattering as the temperature is varied. Based on the direct connection between the diffuse scattering and the short-range polar correlations observed in PMN, we attribute this interplay to the presence of both static and dynamic polar nanoregions.
To quantify the static and dynamic components we have fit the spectra to a single relaxational form $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]=\alpha+(1-\alpha)e^{-t/\tau}$. The constant $\alpha$ represents the fraction of intensity that is static on the timescale of the measurement, and $\tau$ represents the characteristic decay time of the dynamics. Based on the fits shown in Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits} we can extract the fraction of the raw uncorrected intensity associated with dynamics ($1-\alpha$) and statics ($\alpha$). A distribution of decay times can be incorporated into the fit by using the form $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]=\alpha+(1-\alpha)e^{-(t/\tau)^{\beta}}$. While there is physical justification for a distribution of decay times associated with the dynamics of the polar nanoregions, it is not clear what the value of $\beta$ should be for this case. Our choice ($\beta=1$) is justified by the fact that our data are well described by a single timescale over a broad temperature range. We interpret the single decay time extracted from the fits to be the average fluctuation time of the polar nanoregions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8cm] {intensity.eps}
\caption{ Temperature dependence of the static and dynamic components extracted from fits to the data in Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits}. $a)$ compares the static intensities measured with SPINS ($\delta E=100$\,$\mu$eV), IN10 ($\delta E=0.5$\,$\mu$eV) and IN11. Panel $b)$ plots the dynamic component of the intensity as a function of temperature. The value of $T_{max}$ from Ref.~\onlinecite{Bovtun04:298} measured at 1\,GHz is represented by a vertical line. We emphasize that all data was taken on the same PMN sample.}
\label{intensity}
\end{figure}
The static and dynamic components extracted from Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits} have been corrected for the IN11 instrumental resolution ($I(Q,0)$) and plotted as a function of temperature in Fig.~\ref{intensity}. Panel $a)$ compares the elastic (or static) intensity measured using three different instruments and experimental resolutions, and panel $b)$ displays the dynamic component normalized to have a maximum value of unity. The data taken on SPINS, a cold neutron triple-axis spectrometer located at NIST, were measured at $\vec{Q}$=(0.025,0.025,1.05) with an energy resolution of $\delta E=100$\,$\mu$eV. The backscattering (IN10) data were measured at the $\vec{Q}$ indicated in Fig.~\ref{diffuse_figure}$a)$ and represent the intensity of a Gaussian function of energy fit to the elastic peak. The NSE data represent the static parameter ($\alpha$) extracted from fits to the NSE spectra described above multiplied by $I(Q,0)$. Hence the data plotted in Fig. \ref{NSE_fits}$a)$ equals $I(Q,0) \times \alpha$. All of the data have been normalized to unity at 200\,K. The static component derived from the NSE fits described above agree well with the static component derived from backscattering. The data do not agree as well with the intensities derived from poorer energy resolution measurements on SPINS, which used a fixed final energy $E_{f}=4.5$\,meV, and are suggestive of a dynamic component over this region that has been integrated over (i.\ e.\ lumped into the elastic channel) by virtue of the fact that the SPINS instrument provides a substantially poorer energy resolution than do the IN10 backscattering and IN11 NSE spectrometers.
From Fig.~\ref{intensity}$a)$ the onset of the static portion of the diffuse scattering appears between 400\,K and 450\,K. This is significant when compared to dielectric and other neutron inelastic scattering results.~\cite{Gehring09:79} The Curie-Weiss temperature $\Theta$ derived from high temperature dielectric data (Fig.~\ref{figure1}$c)$) is 400\,K~\cite{Viehland92:46} and coincides exactly with the temperature at which the ferroelectric-active, soft mode reaches its minimum energy (Fig.~\ref{figure1}$a)$).~\cite{Waki02:65} The 400\,K temperature scale also matches the temperature at which strong deviations in the coefficient of thermal expansion in PMN are observed.~\cite{Dkhil01:65} Based on this result we interpret the onset of the static component of the diffuse scattering as the freezing of PNR. The short-range nature of these frozen regions is evident from the broad nature of the diffuse scattering cross section in momentum space, which was illustrated in Fig.~\ref{diffuse_figure}.
The dynamic component illustrated in panel $b)$ equals $I(Q,0) \times (1-\alpha)$. On cooling the dynamic component increases, peaks, then decreases; this is consistent with dynamics entering and leaving the time window probed NSE. The maximum intensity of the dynamic component occurs near $\sim 325$\,K, which is agrees well with the temperature $T_{max}$ at which the peak dielectric response occurs when measured at a frequency of 1\,GHz (see the vertical line in Fig.~\ref{figure1}$b)$). We emphasize that $T_{max}$ is not a meaningful temperature scale because it depends on the energy resolution and technique used to measure it. Rather, $T_{max}$ is a temperature that is characteristic of the dynamics and the frequency (or timescale) at which they are probed. We also note that contamination of our data from acoustic modes, which have plagued other studies, is unlikely as these phonons reside at much larger energy transfers (or at shorter times $\sim 1$\,THz) than are probed here. Also, the acoustic phonon intensity increases with temperature as required by the Bose factor; this does not reflect the trend observed in our experiment.
There is little dynamic spectral weight at 200\,K where the normalized NSE spectra (Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits}) nearly reaches unity and becomes flat. These data can then be understood in terms of two temperature scales. The first is an upper transition temperature near 400\,K where static, short-range, ferroelectric correlations are onset. This temperature coincides with the Curie-Weiss temperature derived from high-temperature dielectric data as well as the temperature where the ferroelectric-active, soft transverse optic mode reaches its minimum frequency. A second important temperature scale exists around 200\,K. This temperature is defined as that where the short-range polar correlations are truly static. This temperature is most clearly reflected in electric field studies, which show that the diffuse scattering can be suppressed by an electric field only below $\sim 200$\,K. This is also the transition temperature $T_{f}$ where dielectric measurements under a poling electric field observe a sharp peak characteristic of the presence of long-range, ferroelectric correlations.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=8cm] {parameters_fit.eps}
\caption{$a)$ The decay time $\tau$ is plotted as a function of temperature. The solid line is a fit to an Arrhenius law ($\tau = \tau_{\circ} e^{U/k_{b}T}$) with $U$=1100 K. $b)$ The fitting parameter $\alpha$ is plotted as a function of temperature.}
\label{param}
\end{figure}
We now discuss the temperature dependence of the decay time $\tau$ and the parameter $\alpha$. Both $\tau$ and the static component of the normalized intermediate scattering function $\Re[I(Q,t)/I(Q,0)]$ are displayed in Fig.~\ref{param}. Panel $a)$ shows the temperature dependence of $\tau$, which we have chosen to fit to the simple Arrhenius equation $\tau = \tau_{\circ} e^{U/k_{b}T}$ with $U=1100$\,K$\pm 300$\,K. This value for $U$ was also confirmed through a universal fit of all the data to a single exponential decay following the Arrhenius equation. Studies of spin-glasses, which exhibit analogous slow dynamics, have often described the observed relaxation rates in terms of a power law or an exponential, Arrhenius-type equation.~\cite{Aeppli85:54,Som82:25} Regardless of the exact form, all of these equations describe the dynamics in terms of some form of energy barrier and therefore have very similar physical interpretations. Some of these descriptions for the temperature dependence of the relaxation rate contain a critical temperature as, for example, in fits using a Vogel-Fulcher type analysis. More complicated fits introducing more fitting parameters beyond the simple Arrhenius law are not justified by our data. The value of the activation energy $U=1100$\,K$\pm 300$\,K is in reasonable agreement with that ($E_{a} \sim 800$\,K) derived from infrared and infra-red techniques.~\cite{Kamba05:17} It is also in agreement with the temperature at which the lowest-energy, transverse, optic mode is observed to become soft and broad in energy.~\cite{Gehring01:87}
Panel $b)$ of Fig. \ref{param} displays the value of $\alpha$ obtained from the fits shown in Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits}. The value of $\alpha$ varies smoothly from 0.5 to 1 with decreasing temperature. We do not attribute any significance to the high temperature saturation value of 0.5 for two reasons. First, the normalization value $I(Q,0)$ is based on an energy integration over the time range of the spectrometer. The value of 0.5 could thus be the result of an incomplete energy integration (and hence determination of $S(Q,0)$) at high temperatures. This is corroborated by cold neutron spectroscopy data, which provide evidence of the presence of dynamics at high temperatures on the timescale beyond the resolution of our spectrometer.~\cite{Hiraka04:70} Secondly, when the measured intensity is taken into account, as done in Fig.~\ref{intensity}, the results are consistent with no or little spectral weight residing in the static channel at high temperatures. The factor of 0.5 does illustrate the presence of very long timescale dynamics at high temperatures. The dynamics are beyond the time window of the current experiment, but we speculate that the dynamics could result from short-range chemical order found in Ref. \onlinecite{Hiraka04:70}. Further work involving longer timescales are required to confirm the origin of this extra component. The temperature dependence of $\alpha$ illustrates that all of the intensity coming from the diffuse scattering below $\sim$ 200 K is static. This temperature scale for freezing of the polar nanoregions agrees with other techniques. NMR T$_{2}$ measurements, which probes fluctuations on the order of MHz, have found evidence of an anomaly near this temperature and have attributed it to freezing of the polar correlations.~\cite{Blinc03:91}
Our results contradict claims based on thermal spin-echo measurements presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{Vak05:7} where the diffuse scattering is concluded to be solely static. Those measurements were conducted on a thermal spin-echo machine with considerably coarser energy resolution and a smaller dynamic range than was used here. We therefore believe that these previous measurements only probed the static component found in our study. We note that the results presented here are consistent with data obtained from backscattering, in particular the IN10 data discussed earlier. Backscattering probes a very narrow dynamic range of $\sim 1$\,ns; by comparison, neutron spin echo covers several orders of magnitude in time. It is apparent from Fig.~\ref{NSE_fits} that a much broader dynamic range is required to observe both the dynamic and static response. We conclude then that backscattering is not sensitive to the dynamic component because the dynamic range accessed by that technique is too narrow.
The presence of a dynamic component of the diffuse scattering and a favorable comparison with frequency-dependent dielectric data strongly link the diffuse scattering cross section to the presence of dynamic polar nanoregions. Our data also clearly illustrate two key temperature scales. A high temperature scale, where the static component appears ($\sim 400$\,K), and a lower temperature scale ($\sim 200$\,K), where no dynamic component is observed and only static correlations exist. We do not attribute any physical significance to T$_{max}$, which we believe is associated with the dynamics and not to any transition temperature. Our interpretation of the upper temperature of 400\,K is also in agreement with the ideas presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{Gehring09:79}, which further offers an alternative understanding of the Burns temperature at 620\,K in terms of dynamics.
Recent reports of a third temperature scale known as $T^{*}$ can also be understood in terms of the dynamics. Ref.~\onlinecite{Dkhil09:xx} describes a new upper transition based on deviations in the thermal expansion coefficient. Such a temperature scale may be related to the dynamics and could also be associated with the near-surface effect measured in single crystal samples of the lead-based relaxors PMN and PZN.~\cite{Conlon04:70,Xu06:79} Indeed, previous studies of the coefficient of thermal expansion in PMN using neutrons have found a strong variation as a function of depth. While these speculations are inconclusive, further study is required to understand the origin of these upper transition scales. Dielectric and infra-red work in Ref.~\onlinecite{Toulouse08:369} describe a third temperature scale T$^{*}$, which is 400\,K, and we interpret this temperature as the onset of static polar correlations. Ref.~\onlinecite{Toulouse08:369} also descrobe a high temperature scale near 600\,K. This could be related to the dynamics as evidenced by the large activation energy derived in our current experiment.
The interpretation of the dielectric and neutron data in terms of two temperature scales is in agreement with random field models previously proposed to explain the relaxor ferroelectric phase diagram. References \onlinecite{Stock04:69,Westphal92:68,Fisch03:67} interpret relaxors in terms of a 3D Heisenberg model with cubic anisotropy in a random field imposed by the disorder on the perovskite $B$ site. In this picture, the true transition temperature would correspond to 400\,K where the soft, transverse optic phonon mode energy reaches a minimum. However, this model also predicts a second (lower) temperature scale when the energy scale imposed by the cubic anisotropy becomes important. It was suggested that only below this temperature could long-range, ferroelectric correlations develop in the presence of a random field. This model is in broad agreement with the data presented here, which can be described using just two temperature scales.
We have presented a high resolution investigation of the diffuse scattering in PMN as a function of temperature that sheds new light on the underlying behavior of the polar nanoregions. We have proven the existence of a dynamic component to the diffuse scattering and that the temperature dependence is described by an interplay between dynamic and static components. We find that the static component appears between 400\,K and 450\,K, which is in excellent agreement with the Curie-Weiss temperature derived from dielectric data and also the minimum in the soft mode energy. From our spin-echo spectra, we have also derived a dynamic fraction and shown that it peaks near the temperature T$_{max}$ found in frequency-dependent dielectric constant measurements.
We would like to thank V. Garcia Sakai, S. Shapiro, J. Gardner and R. Cowley for very helpful discussions. We would also like to thank P. Phillips at the ISIS Facility for expert technical support.
\thebibliography{}
\bibitem{Ye_rev:98} Z.-G. Ye, \textit{Key Engineering Materials} Vols. {\bf{155-156}}, 81 (1998).
\bibitem{Park97:82} S.-E. Park and T. R. Shrout, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf{82}}, 1804 (1997).
\bibitem{Xu_rev:xx} G. Xu, unpublished (cond-mat/arXiv:0907.2913v1).
\bibitem{Xu06:79} G. Xu, P. M. Gehring, C. Stock, K. Conlon, Phase Transitions, {\bf{79}}, 135 (2006).
\bibitem{Burns83:48} G. Burns and F.H. Dacol, Solid State Commun. {\bf{48}}, 853 (1983).
\bibitem{You97:79} H. You and Q.M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{79}}, 3950 (1997).
\bibitem{Hirota02:65} K. Hirota, Z.-G. Ye, S. Wakimoto, P.M. Gehring, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{65}}, 104105 (2002).
\bibitem{Vak95:37} S.B. Vakhrushev, A.A. Naberezhnov, N.M. Okuneva, and B.N. Savenko, Phys. Solid State {\bf{37}}, 1993 (1995).
\bibitem{Gehring09:79} P. M. Gehring, H. Hiraka, C. Stock, S.-H. Lee, W. Chen, Z.-G. Ye, S. B. Vakhrushev, and Z. Chowdhuri, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{79}}, 224109 (2009).
\bibitem{Xu_TOF} G. Xu, G. Shirane, J. R. D. Copley, and P. M. Gehring, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 064112 (2004).
\bibitem{Vak05:7} S. Vakhrushev, A. Ivanov, and J. Kulda, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7, 2340 (2005).
\bibitem{Vak89:90} S.B. Vakhrushev, B.E. Kvyatkovsky, A.A. Naberezhnov, N.M. Okuneva, B. Toperverg, Ferroelectrics {\bf{90}}, 173 (1989).
\bibitem{Pasciak07:76} M. Pasciak, M. Wolcyrzm, and A. Pietraszko, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{76}}, 014117 (2007).
\bibitem{Welberry05:38} T.R. Welberry, M.J Gutmann, Hyungje Woo, D.J. Goossens, Guangyong Xu and C. Stock, J Appl. Cryst., {\bf{38}}, 639 (2005).
\bibitem{Welberry06:74} T.R. Welberry, D.J. Goossens, and M.J. Gutmann, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{74}}, 224108 (2006).
\bibitem{Xu04:70} G. Xu, Z. Zhong, H. Hiraka, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{70}}, 174109 (2004).
\bibitem{Gehring09:79} P. M. Gehring, H. Hiraka, C. Stock, S.-H. Lee, W. Chen, Z.-G. Ye, S. B. Vakhrushev, and Z. Chowdhuri, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{79}}, 224109 (2009).
\bibitem{Waki02:65} S. Wakimoto, C. Stock, R.J. Birgeneau, Z.-G. Ye, W. Chen, W.J.L. Buyers, P.M. Gehring, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{65}}, 172105 (2002).
\bibitem{Viehland92:46} D. Viehland, S.J. Jang, L.E. Cross, and M. Wuttig, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{46}}, 8003 (1992).
\bibitem{Gehring04:70} P.M. Gehring, K. Ohwada, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{70}}, 014110 (2004).
\bibitem{Stock07:76} C. Stock, Guangyong Xu, P. M. Gehring, H. Luo, X. Zhao, H. Cao, J. F. Li, D. Viehland, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{76}}, 064122 (2007).
\bibitem{Xu06:74} G. Xu, P.M. Gehring, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{74}}, 104110 (2006).
\bibitem{Xu05:72} G. Xu, P.M. Gehring, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{72}}m 214106 (2005).
\bibitem{Matsuura06:74} M. Matsuura, K. Hirota, P. M. Gehring, Z.-G. Ye, W. Chen, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{74}}, 144107 (2006).
\bibitem{Cao08:78} H. Cao, C. Stock, G. Xu, P.M. Gehring, J. Li, D. Viehland, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{78}}, 104103 (2008).
\bibitem{Bovtun04:298} V. Bovtun, S. Kamba, A. Pashkin, M. Savinov, P. Samoukhina, J. Petzelt, I.P. Bykov, and M.D. Glinchuk, Ferroelectrics 298, 23 (2004).
\bibitem{Kamba05:17} S. Kamba, M. Kempa, V. Bovtun, J. Petzelt, K. Brinkman, and N. Setter J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf{17}}, 3965 (2005).
\bibitem{Hlinka03:15} J. Hlinka, S. Kamba, J. Petzelt, J. Kulda, C.A. Randall, and S.J. Zhang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf{15}}, 4249 (2003).
\bibitem{Hiraka04:70} H. Hiraka, S.-H. Lee, P. M. Gehring, Guangyong Xu, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{70}}, 184105 (2004).
\bibitem{Gvasaliya05:17} S. N. Gvasaliya, B. Roessli, R. A. Cowley, P. Hubert, S. G. Lushnikov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf{17}}, 4343 (2005).
\bibitem{Cowley09:378} R. A. Cowley, S.N. Gvasaliya, and B. Roessli, Ferroelectrics {\bf{378}}, 53 (2009).
\bibitem{Stock05:74} C. Stock, H. Luo, D. Viehland, J.F. Li, I.P. Swainson, R.J. Birgeneau and G. Shirane J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf{74}}, 3002 (2005).
\bibitem{Mezei} F. Mezei (Ed.), Neutron Spin Echo , Lecture Notes in Physics , Vol. 128, Springer, Berlin, 1980.
\bibitem{vanHove} L. Van Hove, Phys. Rev. \textbf{95}, 249 (1954).
\bibitem{Luo00:39} H. Luo, G. Xu, H. Xu, P. Wang and Z. Yin, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. {\bf{39}}, 5581 (2000).
\bibitem{Dkhil01:65} B. Dkhil, J.M. Kiat, G. Calvarin, G. Baldinozzi, S.B. Vakhrushev, and E. Suard, Phys. Rev. b {\bf{65}}, 024104 (2001).
\bibitem{Aeppli85:54} G. Aeppli, J. J. Hauser, G. Shirane, and Y.J. Uemura, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{54}}, 843 (1985).
\bibitem{Som82:25} H. Sompolinsky and A. Zippelius, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{25}}, 6860 (1982).
\bibitem{Gehring01:87} P. M. Gehring, S. Wakimoto, Z.-G. Ye, and G. Shirane Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{87}}, 277601 (2001).
\bibitem{Blinc03:91} R. Blinc, V. Laguta, and B. Zalar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{91}}, 247601 (2003).
\bibitem{Dkhil09:xx} B. Dkhil, P. Gemeiner, A. Al-Barakaty, L. Bellaiche, E. Dulkin, E. Mojaev, and M. Roth, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{80}}, 064103 (2009).
\bibitem{Conlon04:70} K. H. Conlon, H. Luo, D. Viehland, J. F. Li, T. Whan, J. H. Fox, C. Stock, and G. Shirane Phys. Rev. B {\bf{70}}, 172204 (2004).
\bibitem{Toulouse08:369} J. Toulouse, Ferroelectrics, {\bf{369}}, 203 (2008).
\bibitem{Stock04:69} C. Stock, R. J. Birgeneau, S. Wakimoto, J. S. Gardner, W. Chen, Z.-G. Ye, and G. Shirane Phys. Rev. B {\bf{69}}, 094104 (2004).
\bibitem{Westphal92:68} V. Westphal, W. Kleemann, and M.D. Glinchuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{68}}, 847 (1992).
\bibitem{Fisch03:67} R. Fisch Phys. Rev. B {\bf{67}}, 094110 (2003).
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig01.eps}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\caption{
The {\it EXIST} mission spacecraft with the three instrument complex: the High Energy telescope
(HET), a large field-of-view ($\sim90$deg) coded mask telescope and the
Infrared Telescope (IRT) will be provided by the US whereas the Soft X-ray Imager (SXI)
will be contributed by Italy (ASI).
}
\end{minipage}
\label{mission}
\end{figure}
Originally conceived as
a survey hard X-ray mission (Grindlay et al. 1995), {\it EXIST}
has actually evolved into the concept of a
multiwavelength mission covering the IR/optical and soft/hard X-ray bands
(see Grindlay \& Natalucci 2010).
When fully funded, {\it EXIST} is scheduled for launch in mid 2017 with a EELV carrier.
It will be put into a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) with lower inclination than Swift.
In Fig. 1 is shown the baseline
configuration of the {\it EXIST} mission.
Its primary instrument is the High Energy
Telescope (HET), a wide field coded aperture instrument covering the 5-600 keV
energy band and imaging sources
in a $70\times90$ deg$^2$ field of view with
better than 20 arcsec
positioning (Hong et al. 2010). The energy band
of HET overlaps with the soft X-ray range covered by
SXI, 0.1-10 keV. The
effective area of SXI is $\sim950$cm$^2$ at 1.5 keV and its focal length
is 3.5m (Tagliaferri et al. 2009).
At longer wavelenghts operates the IRT, an optical-IR aperture telescope
covering the 0.3-2.2 micron range with variable
spectral resolution and high NIR sensitivity (AB=24 in 100s). The IRT can obtain
spectra of GRB afterglows
up to z$\sim20$ and make imaging and spectra of AGNs and transients
discovered by the HET during the survey.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig02a.eps}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig02b.eps}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{
{\it Left}: view of the SXI instrument with details of parts (mirrors, camera and structure).
{\it Right}: the effective area of SXI (black). Also shown are the mirror effective area (red) and
its convolution with an XRT-like transmission filter (brown).
}
\label{SXIwhole}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{Design parameters of the SXI telescope}
\label{tableSXI}
\begin{tabular}
{ l | l }
\hline
Parameter & Baseline \\
\hline
Mirror & 26 shells \\
Angular Resolution & 20~arcsec at 1 keV \\
Energy Range & 0.1-10 keV \\
Diameter of Mirror & 60cm \\
Focal Lenght & 3.5m \\
Detector Type & {\em pn}-CCD \\
Detector Size & 3x3 cm$^2$ \\
FOV & 30x30 arcmin$^2$ \\
Energy Resolution & 130eV at 6 keV \\
Readout Speed & 5-10 ms \\
Effective Area & 950 cm$^2$ at 1.5 keV, $>100$ cm$^2$ at 8 keV \\
Sensitivity ($10^{4}s$) & $2\times10^{-15}$ cgs \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
{\it EXIST} is a real multiwavelenght observatory for observations of GRBs and
Supermassive Black Holes (SMXB)
as well as of many other types of transients and high energy sources.
{\it EXIST} will take advantage of the same
concept of operability of Swift with $\sim10$ times better
survey sensitivity in the high energy band from 0.1 to 600 keV.
During the first two years of operation the {\it EXIST} observing time
will be mostly devoted to survey and GRB follow-up while the following 3 years
are predicted to
be spent on pointed observations, taking full advantage of the presence of IRT and
SXI. The first
period survey will be performed by the HET pointing at the zenith
with an offset of 30 degrees (towards
the north and the south on alternate orbits, respectively) for an all-sky
coverage each 3h.
This will allow detailed studies of obscured AGNs and to further study
the accretion luminosity of SMBHs, as well as
an "ultimate sensitivity" survey for Gamma-ray
Bursts (Grindlay et al. 2009).
In this work we shall describe the Soft X-ray Imager,
a substantially improved version of the Swift/XRT telescope, which has been
added recently as part of the {\it EXIST} mission payload.
The design of SXI in a "pre phase-A" style is in progress thanks to the provision of
an ASI grant following a competitive call for mission design studies.
\section{Design of the SXI Instrument}
The proposed design of the SXI (see Fig. 2 and Table 1) is based on a Wolter type-I
telescope consisting of a
main mirror assembly with 26 nested
cells and a focal plane camera with CCD detector. The focal plane distance is 3.5m and
the max.diameter of the mirrors is 60cm (giving 70cm on the telescope outer envelope).
The telescope structure is built around an I/F flange in titanium which is the
interface to the satellite optical bench. The effective area of the instrument is shown in
Figure 2 (right panel) and the main design parameters are listed in Table I.
\subsection{The Mirrors}
A detail of the mirror system is shown in Fig. 3 (left panel). The
mirror shells are grouped in two
blocks in order to fulfill the desired effective area requirements. Possible space
for improving the effective area at medium energies is available but this must
consider weight constraints.
A goal configuration with
38 NiCo shells instead of 26 has also been studied, based on thicknesses as
low as those designed for the shells of Simbol-X. We have then evaluated
the on- and off-axis (10arcmin) effective
area of the optics for the baseline and goal configurations. This is shown
versus energy in Figure 3
(right panel). The values of angular resolution on- and
off-axis have been also computed using a conservative model for integration errors.
The Half Power
Diameter (HPD) is estimated to be less than 20 arcsec throughout the whole
field-of-view.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{fig03.eps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
{\it Left}: Detail of the baseline SXI mirrors with the 26 Ni nested shells. The on- and
off-axis effective area are shown ({\it right}) for this configuration and an improved one
based on 36 NiCo shells.
}
\label{mirrors}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The Detector and Camera}
The characteristics of the camera design (see Figure 4) are very similar to those of the
XRT and EPIC.
In the current baseline the detector is a 3x3 cm$^2$ CCD sensor. Its
Proximity Electronics is "suspended" within an Al shield and an active cooling system
will ensure the optimal temperature for CCD operation.
In order to operate efficiently during the HET survey mode
the sensor is required to have a frame
readout between 5 and 10 ms to compensate the relatively fast scanning.
This can be achieved by the most recently developed CCDs as well as new generation
detectors like the Active Pixel Sensors (e.g., Str\"uder \& Meidinger 2009).
The camera comprises other mechanical subsystems
like the Vacuum Chamber, Filter Wheel and Vacuum Door. In the present design the
Filter Wheel has 4 apertures, one of which is completely open, and one closed for CCD
protection in case of high radiation. A third aperture consists of an X-ray filter
to reduce the optical/UV contamination. Finally,
the 4th position consists of a closed
position with a calibration source which illuminates directly the full detector
in order to monitor
its status, efficiency and the level of radiation damage.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.6\textwidth}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig04.eps}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.35\textwidth}
\caption{
3-D view of the inside of the SXI camera (left) and of the external part showing an
electronic box (right).
}
\end{minipage}
\label{camera}
\end{figure}
\section{SXI scientific performances}
\subsection{Survey Sensitivity and Coverage}
During the zenith pointed scanning SXI will record X-ray events
and the fast readout of its detector will allow to locate their direction.
The coverage of this survey will be half the sky and
the resulting average exposure time for a source is of the
order of 200s/year, yielding a limiting sensitivity of
$\sim5\times10^{-14}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$
in two years. Since during the scanning the IRT does not operate,
SXI will be able to improve the localization
of many faint HET sources from $\sim20$~arcsec to $\sim1-2$~arcsec.
On the other hand, during the second phase of the mission when {\it EXIST}
is in pointing mode,
SXI will help to obtain simultaneous coverage of the HET survey objects in the
optical/NIR, soft X-ray to soft gamma-ray bands. In particular the SXI as well as the IRT will
measure source intensities and spectra for the hard X-ray sources that will be observed by HET down to a
sensitivity limit of $\sim0.1$ mCrab in the hard X-ray band.
Serendipitous surveys by SXI during the 3 years of the inertial pointing phase
will allow to cover $\sim1500$ square degrees down to the sensitivity
limit of $\sim2\times10^{-15}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.
\subsection{Study of Individual Objects}
SXI will be very useful for broadband studies as it will
extend the high energy coverage of {\it EXIST} by more than one decade in
energy. This is of outstanding importance for the study of accretion
phenomena in particular to determine the state and physical parameters
of a high number of AGNs and Galactic Black Holes. Furthermore SXI,
together with the IRT
will help the optical identification and characterization
of those sources detected by HET that are optically too faint to be
matched by existing optical catalogs (Della Ceca et al. 2010), like the highly
obscured, distant objects. In general SXI
will provide unvaluable data during the {\it EXIST} followup observations
of GRBs and during the inertial pointing observations performed in the second
phase of the mission. These will include
SMBHs, transients of all types and GRBs. For GRBs,
the detection of spectral features in the afterglow emission can be
used in the determination of the redshift, as well as to unveal the
structure of the medium surrounding the central engine.
\section{Conclusions}
The SXI telescope on board {\it EXIST} will take full advantage of the operational
strategy adopted for the mission,
mostly based on surveys and fast follow-up of GRBs and transients. With SXI, {\it EXIST}
is a real multiwavelength
observatory with a sensitive broadband coverage at high energies: 0.1-600 keV.
SXI has an effective area of $\sim950$cm$^2$
at 1.5keV. It will perform wide area surveys (scanning and serendipitous) and
sensitive observation of transient events
in the X-ray (e.g. GRB afterglows, AGN flares).
It will also help the identification of HET
sources detected during the survey, the characterization of AGN states and
the study of the absorbed
(even Compton thick) AGN Universe.
The heritage of the Swift/XRT, XMM-Newton and INTEGRAL allows to conclude that the
SXI performance
is appropriate to the profile of the {\it EXIST} mission as currently designed.
Main improvements of the SXI with respect to Swift/XRT are: a
factor $\sim10$ effective area and sensitivity, fast detector readout allowing
full spectral imaging operation during the scanning survey.\\
{\bf Acknowledgements}
The Italian authors acknowledge the support of ASI by grant I/088/06/0.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{int}
The equivariant Morse theory of the Yang--Mills functional for vector
bundles over a compact Riemann surface has been an extremely useful tool in
studying the topology of the moduli space of semistable holomorphic
bundles, beginning with the work of Atiyah and Bott in
\cite{AtiyahBott83}, and continuing with the results of Kirwan on the
intersection cohomology in \cite{Kirwan85-2}. In the case where the rank
and degree of the bundle are coprime, this program was continued further
by Kirwan in \cite{Kirwan92-2}, by Jeffrey and Kirwan (who computed the
intersection pairings in \cite{JeffreyKirwan98}), and Earl and Kirwan in
\cite{EarlKirwan04} who wrote down the relations in the cohomology ring.
As a result, via Morse theory we now have a complete description of the
cohomology of this space.
The convergence properties of the gradient flow of the Yang--Mills
functional were first studied by
Daskalopoulos in \cite{Daskal92} and R{\aa}de in \cite{Rade92}. R{\aa}de
studies
the more general problem of the Yang--Mills flow on the space of
connections on a 2 or 3 dimensional manifold, and shows that the
gradient flow converges to a critical point of the Yang--Mills
functional. When the base manifold is a compact Riemann surface, then
R{\aa}de's results show that there exists a Morse stratification of the
space
of holomorphic bundles. In \cite{Daskal92}, Daskalopoulos shows that
this Morse stratification of the space of holomorphic bundles coincides
with the algebraically defined Harder--Narasimhan stratification used
by Atiyah and Bott, and uses this to obtain information about the
homotopy type of the space of strictly stable rank $2$ bundles.
The analytically more complicated case of the Yang--Mills flow on the
space of holomorphic structures on a K\"ahler surface (where bubbling
occurs at isolated points on the surface in the limit of the flow) was
studied by Daskalopoulos and Wentworth in \cite{DaskalWentworth04}, who
showed that the algebraic and analytic stratifications coincide, and
that the bubbling in the limit of the flow is determined by the
algebraic properties of the initial conditions.
The main theorem of \cite{Wi} extend the gradient flow
results of Daskalopoulos and R{\aa}de to
the space of Higgs vector bundles over a compact Riemann surface, where
the functional in question is now the Yang--Mills--Higgs functional (see
the definition below). These results were then used in \cite{DWWW} to
carry out an analog of Atiyah and Bott's construction on the space of
rank $2$ Higgs bundles, the first step in carrying out the
Atiyah/Bott/Kirwan program described above for Higgs bundles. The
purpose of the current paper is to generalize the gradient flow
convergence theorem of \cite{Wi} to the space of Higgs principal bundles
over a compact Riemann surface.
The main result of the paper can be stated as follows. Let $X$ be a
compact Riemann surface. Given a $C^\infty$ vector bundle
$V$ on $X$, the space of $C^\infty$ forms of type $(p\, ,q)$ with values
in $V$ will be denoted by $A^{p,q}(V)$. Let $G$ a connected reductive linear
algebraic group over $\mathbb{C}$, and fix a maximal compact subgroup
$K$. Fix a principal $K$--bundle $E_K^0$ with compact structure group
$K$, and let $E_G^0$ denote the associated principal
bundle obtained by extending the
structure group to $G$. Let $\mathcal{A}_0$ be the space of holomorphic
structures on $E^0_G$, and consider the space $\mathcal{B}_0 =
\mathcal{A}_0 \times A^{1,0}({\rm ad}(E_G^0))$ (we show in Section
\ref{sec1} that this is the total space of the cotangent bundle of
$\mathcal{A}_0$). A pair $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,\in\,
{\mathcal B}_0$ is called a \emph{Higgs pair} if $\theta$ is
holomorphic with respect to $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$. The space of
Higgs pairs is denoted $\mathcal{S}(E_G^0)$, and the
\emph{Yang--Mills--Higgs functional} on the space $\mathcal{B}_0$ is
given by
\begin{align*}
{\rm YMH}_G & : \mathcal{B}_0 \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \\
{\rm YMH}_G (\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0} , \theta) & = \left\|
K(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}) + [\theta, \theta^*] \right\|^2\, ,
\end{align*}
where $K(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0})$ is the curvature of the
connection on
$E_K^0$ associated to the holomorphic structure
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$
on $E_G^0$ (see Section \ref{sec1} and the definition in equation
\eqref{i} for full details of this construction).
The notion of the Harder--Narasimhan reduction of a Higgs principal
bundle is recalled in Section \ref{sec:reduction}, and we show that the
definition of socle reduction for semistable vector bundles (cf.
\cite{HL}) extends to the semistable Higgs
$G$--bundles. Combining the Harder--Narasimhan reduction with the socle
reduction gives the principal bundle analog of the graded object of the
Harder--Narasimhan--Seshadri filtration studied in \cite{Wi}. The main
theorem of this
paper generalizes the results of \cite{Wi} to Higgs principal bundles.
\begin{theorem} The gradient flow of ${\rm YMH}_G$ with initial
conditions $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}, \theta)$ in the space of
Higgs pairs on
$E_G^0$ converges to a Higgs pair isomorphic to the pair obtained by
combining the socle reduction with the Harder--Narasimhan reduction of
$(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}, \theta)$.
\end{theorem}
The idea of the proof is to reduce to the case of Higgs vector bundles
studied in \cite{Wi}. Fix a $C^\infty$ principal $G$--bundle $E^0_G$
on a compact Riemann surface $X$.
Given a faithful representation $\rho \,:\, G
\,\longrightarrow\, GL(V)$, let $\mathcal{S}(W)$ denote the space of
Higgs pairs on the Hermitian vector bundle $W\, =\, E^0_G(V)$
associated to $E^0_G$ via $\rho$. We
show that the Yang--Mills--Higgs flow on $\mathcal{S}(E_G^0)$ is induced
by the Yang--Mills--Higgs flow on $\mathcal{S}(W)$, and that the
convergence of the flow on $\mathcal{S}(W)$ (guaranteed by the results
of \cite{Wi}) implies that the flow of ${\rm YMH}_G$ on
$\mathcal{S}(E_G^0)$ converges also. The result then follows by showing
that the Harder--Narasimhan--socle reduction on $W$ induces the
Harder--Narasimhan--socle reduction on $E_G^0$.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec1} contains the basic
results necessary to the rest of the paper: the construction of the map
$\phi : \mathcal{S}(E_G^0) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{S}(W)$ in equation
\eqref{e9}, and a proof that the Yang--Mills--Higgs flows coincide
(Corollary \ref{cor1}). The main result of Section \ref{sec:closed} is
Theorem \ref{lw}, which shows that the flow of ${\rm YMH}_G$ on
$\mathcal{S}(E_G^0)$ converges. The results of the final section relate
the Harder--Narasimhan--socle reduction of a Higgs pair
$(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, , \theta) \in \mathcal{S}(E_G^0)$ to
that of the associated Higgs pair
$\phi(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,\in\, \mathcal{S}(W)$.
\section{The Yang--Mills--Higgs functional}\label{sec1}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive linear algebraic group defined
over $\mathbb C$. Fix a maximal compact
subgroup
\begin{equation}\label{e1}
K\, \subset\, G\, .
\end{equation}
Fix a faithful representation
\begin{equation}\label{e2}
\rho\, :\, G\, \longrightarrow\, \text{GL}(V)\, ,
\end{equation}
where $V$ is a finite dimensional complex vector space. Fix a
maximal compact subgroup $\widetilde{K}$
\begin{equation}\label{e3}
\rho(K) \, \subset\,\widetilde{K}\, \subset\, \text{GL}(V)
\end{equation}
of $\text{GL}(V)$.
The Lie algebra of $G$ will be denoted by
$\mathfrak g$. The group $G$ has the adjoint
action on $\mathfrak g$. So $\mathfrak g$ is
a $G$--module.
Let $X$ be a compact connected Riemann surface.
Fix a $C^\infty$ principal $K$--bundle
\begin{equation}\label{e4a}
E^0_K\, \longrightarrow\, X\, .
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{e4}
E^0_G\, :=\, E^0_K(G)\,=\, E^0_K\times_K G
\, \longrightarrow\, X
\end{equation}
be the principal $G$--bundle obtained by extending the structure
group of $E^0_K$ using the inclusion map $K\, \hookrightarrow\, G$.
Let $\text{ad}(E^0_G)\, :=\, E^0_G({\mathfrak g})\,=\,
E^0_G\times_G {\mathfrak g}$ be the adjoint bundle of $E^0_G$.
In other words, $\text{ad}(E^0_G)$ is the vector bundle over $X$
associated to the principal $G$--bundle $E^0_G$ for
the $G$--module $\mathfrak g$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{e5}
{\mathcal A}_0\, :=\, {\mathcal A}_{E^0_G}
\end{equation}
be the space of all holomorphic structures on the principal
$G$--bundle $E^0_G$. We note that ${\mathcal A}_0$ is an affine
space for the vector space $A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$, which is
the space of all smooth $(0\, ,1)$--forms with values in
$\text{ad}(E^0_G)$. Fix a holomorphic structure
\begin{equation}\label{e6}
\overline{\partial}_0\, :=\, \overline{\partial}^0_{E^0_G}
\end{equation}
on $E^0_G$. Using $\overline{\partial}_0$, the affine space
${\mathcal A}_0$ gets identified with $A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$.
Let $E_G\, \longrightarrow\, X$ be a holomorphic principal $G$--bundle.
A \textit{Higgs field} on $E_G$ is a holomorphic section of
$\text{ad}(E_G)\otimes K_X$ over $X$. A pair $(E_G\, ,\theta)$, where
$\theta$ is a Higgs field on $E_G$, is called a
\textit{Higgs $G$--bundle}.
A holomorphic structure on a principal $G$--bundle
$E_G$ defines a holomorphic structure
on the vector bundle $\text{ad}(E_G)\otimes K_X$. The Dolbeault
operator on $\text{ad}(E^0_G)\otimes K_X$ corresponding to any
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, \in\, {\mathcal A}_0$ (see \eqref{e5})
will also be denoted by $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$.
We note that a pair $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\, \in\,
{\mathcal A}_0\times A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$ with
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}(\theta)\,=\, 0$ defines a Higgs
$G$--bundle.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{e7}
{\mathcal B}_0\, :=\,
{\mathcal A}_0\times A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\, .
\end{equation}
So if $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, \in\, {\mathcal A}_0$,
and $\theta$ is a Higgs field on the holomorphic principal
$G$--bundle $(E^0_G\, ,\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0})$, then
$(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\, \in\, {\mathcal B}_0$.
We will see later that ${\mathcal B}_0$ is the
total space of the
cotangent bundle of the affine space ${\mathcal A}_0$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{W}
W\, :=\, E^0_K(V)\,\longrightarrow\, X
\end{equation}
be the vector bundle associated to the
principal $K$--bundle $E^0_K$ (see \eqref{e4a}) for the $K$--module
$V$ in \eqref{e2}. Therefore, $W$ is identified with the
vector bundle associated to the
principal $G$--bundle $E^0_G$ in \eqref{e4} for the $G$--module
$V$. A holomorphic structure on $E^0_G$ defines a holomorphic structure
on the vector bundle $W$. Using the injective homomorphism of Lie
algebras associated to $\rho$ in \eqref{e2}
\begin{equation}\label{l1}
{\mathfrak g}\, \longrightarrow\, \text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)\, ,
\end{equation}
we get a homomorphism of vector bundles
\begin{equation}\label{h0}
\text{ad}(E^0_G)\, \longrightarrow\, End(W)\, =\, W\otimes W^*\, ,
\end{equation}
where $W$ is the vector bundle in \eqref{W}. Take any
$(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,\in\, {\mathcal B}_0$ (see
\eqref{e7}). Let $\overline{\partial}_W$ be the holomorphic
structure on $W$ defined by $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$. Let
$\theta_W\, \in\, A^{1,0}(End(W))$ be the smooth section given by
$\theta$ using the homomorphism in \eqref{h0}.
Let ${\mathcal A}(W)$ be the space of all holomorphic
structures on the vector bundle $W$. Define
\begin{equation}\label{e8}
{\mathcal B}_W\, :=\,{\mathcal A}(W)\times A^{1,0}(End(W))\, .
\end{equation}
Since $W$ is associated to $E^0_G$ by a faithful
representation, there is a natural embedding
\begin{equation}\label{eb1}
\delta\, :\, {\mathcal A}_0\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal A}(W)\, ,
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal A}_0$ is defined in \eqref{e5}.
We have an embedding
\begin{equation}\label{e9}
\phi\, :\, {\mathcal B}_0\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal B}_W
\end{equation}
that sends any $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)$ to the
pair $(\overline{\partial}_W\, ,\theta_W)$ constructed
above from $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)$.
The Lie algebra of $\widetilde K$ (see \eqref{e3}) will be
denoted by $\widetilde{\mathfrak k}$. Let $g_0$ denote the
inner product on $\widetilde{\mathfrak k}$ defined by
$\langle A\, ,B\rangle\, =\, -\text{trace}(AB)$.
Since $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)\,=\, \widetilde{\mathfrak k}
\oplus \sqrt{-1}\widetilde{\mathfrak k}$, where $V$ is the
$G$--module in \eqref{e2}, this $g_0$ defines
a Hermitian inner product $g_1$ on $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$.
The Lie algebra of $K$ (see \eqref{e1}) will be
denoted by ${\mathfrak k}$. Let $g'_0$ be the restriction of
$g_0$ to the subspace $\mathfrak k\, \subset\,
\widetilde{\mathfrak k}$. Since $\mathfrak g\,=\,
{\mathfrak k}\oplus \sqrt{-1}{\mathfrak k}$, this $g'_0$ defines
a Hermitian inner product $g'_1$ on $\mathfrak g$. Note that
$g'_1$ is the restriction of $g_1$.
The inner products $g'_1$ and $g_1$ induce
inner products on the fibers of the vector bundle
$\text{ad}(E^0_G)$ and $End(W)$ respectively. Indeed, these
follow from the fact that $g'_1$ and $g_1$ are $K$--invariant
and $\widetilde K$--invariant respectively.
We will now show that the Cartesian product
${\mathcal B}_0$ in \eqref{e7} is the total space of
the cotangent bundle of the affine space ${\mathcal A}_0$.
For any $(\omega_{0,1}\, ,\omega_{1,0})\, \in\,
A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\times A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$,
we have
$$
\langle\omega_{0,1}\, ,\omega_{1,0}\rangle\, \in\,
A^{1,1}
$$
using the inner product on the fibers of $\text{ad}(E^0_G)$.
Consider the pairing
$$
A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\times A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))
\,\longrightarrow\, \mathbb C
$$
defined by
$$
(\omega_{0,1}\, ,\omega_{1,0})\, \longmapsto\,
\int_X \langle\omega_{0,1}\, ,\omega_{1,0}\rangle\, \in\,
\mathbb C\, .
$$
This pairing identifies $A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$ with the dual
of $A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$. Therefore,
the total space of the cotangent bundle of the affine space
${\mathcal A}_0$ gets identified with ${\mathcal B}_0$.
Similarly, using the inner product on the fibers of $End(W)$, the
Cartesian product ${\mathcal B}_W$ in \eqref{e8} gets identified with
the total space of the cotangent bundle of the affine space ${\mathcal
A}(W)$.
Since the fibers of the vector bundles
$\text{ad}(E^0_G)$ and $End(W)$ have inner products,
we get inner products on the vector spaces
$$
A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\oplus
A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G)) ~\,~\, \text{~and~}~\,~\,
A^{0,1}(End(W))\oplus A^{1,0}(End(W))\, .
$$
More precisely, the inner product on $A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\oplus
A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$ is defined by
$$
\Vert(\omega_{0,1}\, ,\omega_{1,0})\Vert^2 \, =\, \sqrt{-1} \int_X
\langle \omega_{1,0}\, , \overline{\omega_{1,0}}\rangle -\sqrt{-1}
\int_X \langle \omega_{0,1}\, , \overline{\omega_{0,1}}\rangle\, .
$$
The inner product on $A^{0,1}(End(W))\oplus A^{1,0}(End(W))$ is
defined similarly.
Recall that ${\mathcal B}_0$ and ${\mathcal B}_W$ are identified
with
$$
A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\oplus
A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G)) ~\,~\, \text{~and~}~\,~\,
A^{0,1}(End(W))\oplus A^{1,0}(End(W))
$$
respectively (the affine space ${\mathcal A}_0$
is identified with $A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$ after choosing
the base point $\overline{\partial}_0$ in \eqref{e6}; since
$\overline{\partial}_0$ gives a point in ${\mathcal A}(W)$, it
follows that ${\mathcal A}(W)$ is identified with
$A^{0,1}(End(W))$). Therefore, the
inner products on $A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\oplus A^{1,0}
(\text{ad}(E^0_G))$ and $A^{0,1}(End(W))\oplus A^{1,0}(End(W))$
define K\"ahler structures on ${\mathcal B}_0$ and ${\mathcal B}_W$
respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}
The embedding $\phi$ in \eqref{e9} preserves the
K\"ahler forms. Moreover, the second fundamental form
of the embedding $\phi$ vanishes. In particular, this
embedding is totally geodesic.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the inner product $g'_1$ on $\mathfrak g$ is the restriction
of the inner product $g_1$ on $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$, it follows
immediately
that $\phi$ preserves the K\"ahler forms.
Let ${\mathfrak g}^\perp\, \subset\, \text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ be the
orthogonal complement for the inner product $g_1$ on
$\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$. Since $g_1$ is $K$--invariant (recall that
it is in fact $\widetilde K$--invariant), and the adjoint action of
$K$ on $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ preserves the subspace ${\mathfrak
g}\,
\subset\, \text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$, it follows that the adjoint action
of
$K$ on $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ preserves ${\mathfrak g}^\perp$.
Since $K$ is Zariski dense in $G$, it follows that the
adjoint action of $G$ on $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ preserves
${\mathfrak
g}^\perp$. Therefore, the orthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{od2}
\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)\,=\, {\mathfrak g}\oplus {\mathfrak g}^\perp
\end{equation}
is preserved by the adjoint action of $G$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{f0}
F_0\, :=\, E^0_K({\mathfrak g}^\perp)\, \longrightarrow\, X
\end{equation}
be the vector bundle associated to the principal $K$--bundle
$E^0_K$ (see \eqref{e4a}) for the $K$--module ${\mathfrak g}^\perp$.
Note that the $G$--invariant orthogonal decomposition of
$\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ in \eqref{od2} induces an orthogonal
decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{od}
End(W)\, =\, \text{ad}(E^0_G)\oplus F_0\, .
\end{equation}
Hence we have orthogonal decompositions
\begin{equation}\label{o1}
A^{0,1}(End(W)) = A^{0,1}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\oplus
A^{0,1}(F_0)\, \text{~and~}\,
A^{1,0}(End(W)) = A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\oplus
A^{1,0}(F_0)\, .
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal H$ denote the trivial vector bundle over ${\mathcal
B}_0$ (see \eqref{e7}) with fiber $A^{0,1}(F_0)\oplus A^{1,0}(F_0)$.
Using the orthogonal decompositions in \eqref{o1}
it follows that the orthogonal complement of the differential
\begin{equation}\label{e10}
d\phi\, :\, T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_0\, \longrightarrow\,
\phi^*T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_W
\end{equation}
is identified with the above defined vector bundle $\mathcal H$
(here $T^{1,0}$ denotes the holomorphic tangent bundle).
On the other hand, $\mathcal H\, \subset\, \phi^*T^{1,0}
{\mathcal B}_W$ is a holomorphic subbundle because the
adjoint action of $G$ on $\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ preserves
${\mathfrak g}^\perp$. Consequently, the orthogonal
complement ${\mathcal H}\, =\, d\phi(T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_0)^\perp
\, \subset\, \phi^*T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_W$ (see \eqref{e10})
is preserved by the Chern connection on the holomorphic
Hermitian vector bundle $\phi^*T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_W$. Since
the Chern connection for a K\"ahler metric coincides with
the Levi--Civita connection, it follows that
$d\phi(T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_0)^\perp$ is preserved by the
connection on $\phi^*T^{1,0}{\mathcal B}_W$ obtained by
pulling back the Levi--Civita connection on
${\mathcal B}_W$. In other words, the
second fundamental form of the embedding $\phi$ vanishes.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem1}
{\rm Take any $z\, :=\,
(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,\in\, {\mathcal B}_0$
which is a Higgs $G$--bundle, meaning
$\theta$ is holomorphic with respect to the holomorphic
structure $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$. The $\phi(z)$ is a
Higgs vector bundle.}
\end{remark}
A connection on the principal $G$--bundle
$E^0_G$ decomposes the real tangent bundle
$T^{\mathbb R}E^0_G$ into a direct sum of horizontal and vertical
tangent bundles. Using this decomposition, the almost
complex structures of $G$ and $X$ together produce an almost
complex structure on $E^0_G$. Let $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$ be
a holomorphic structure on $E^0_G$. A connection $\nabla$ on $E^0_G$
is said to be \textit{compatible} with $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$
if the almost complex structure on $E^0_G$ given by $\nabla$
coincides with the one underlying the complex structure
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$ on $E^0_G$.
Given a holomorphic structure $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$ on
$E^0_G$, there is a unique connection $\nabla$ on $E^0_K$
such that the connection on $E^0_G$ induced by $\nabla$
is compatible with $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$; it is known
as the \textit{Chern connection}. On the other
hand, given a connection $\nabla_1$ on $E^0_G$, there is a
unique holomorphic structure $\overline{\partial}'_1$ on $E^0_G$
such that $\nabla_1$ is compatible with $\overline{\partial}'_1$
(this is because $\dim_{\mathbb C}X\,=\, 1$).
Therefore, we have a canonical bijective correspondence between
${\mathcal A}_0$ (see \eqref{e5}) and the space of all connections
on $E^0_K$. Similarly, we have a canonical bijective correspondence
between ${\mathcal A}(W)$ (the space of all holomorphic
structures on the vector bundle $W$ in \eqref{W}) and
the space of all connections
on the principal $\widetilde{K}$--bundle
\begin{equation}\label{ekt}
E^0_{\widetilde{K}}\, :=\, E^0_K(\widetilde{K})\,=\,
E^0_K\times_K \widetilde{K}\,\longrightarrow\, X
\end{equation}
obtained by extending the structure group of $E^0_K$ using
the homomorphism $\rho\, :\, K\, \longrightarrow\,
\widetilde{K}$.
The curvature of a connection $\nabla$ will be denoted
by $K(\nabla)$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{st}
*\, :\, End(W)\, \longrightarrow\, End(W)
\end{equation}
be the
conjugate linear automorphism that acts on the subbundle
$\text{ad}(E^0_{\widetilde{K}}) \, \subset\, End(W)$
(see \eqref{ekt}) as multiplication by $-1$; since
$End(W)\,=\, \text{ad}(E^0_{\widetilde{K}})\oplus
\sqrt{-1}\cdot \text{ad}(E^0_{\widetilde{K}})$, this condition
uniquely determines the automorphism in \eqref{st}.
Fix a Hermitian metric $h_0$ on $T^{1,0}X$.
Let
$$
\text{YMH}_W\, :\, {\mathcal B}_W\, \longrightarrow\,
{\mathbb R}
$$
be the function defined by $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)
\,\longmapsto\, \Vert K(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0})+[\theta\, ,
\theta^*]\Vert^2$, where $K(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0})$ is the
curvature of the connection associated to
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$, and the inner product on $2$--forms
is defined using $h$ and the inner product on the
fibers of $End(E)$. If locally $\theta\, =\, A\times dz$, then
$[\theta\, , \theta^*]\,=\, (AA^*-A^*A)dz{\wedge}d\overline{z}$;
see \cite{Wi} for more on this function $\text{YMH}_W$.
Let $*\, :\, \text{ad}(E^0_G)\, \longrightarrow\, \text{ad}(E^0_G)$
be the conjugate linear automorphism that acts on the subbundle
$\text{ad}(E^0_K) \, \subset\, \text{ad}(E^0_G)$ (see \eqref{e4a})
as multiplication by $-1$. Note that this automorphism coincides
with the restriction of the automorphism in \eqref{st}.
Consider ${\mathcal B}_0$ defined in \eqref{e7}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{e11}
\text{YMH}_G\, :\, {\mathcal B}_0\, \longrightarrow\,
{\mathbb R}
\end{equation}
be the function defined by $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)
\,\longmapsto\, \Vert K(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0})+[\theta\, ,
\theta^*]\Vert^2$; as before, $K(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0})$ is the
curvature of the connection associated to the
holomorphic structure $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$.
We first note that
\begin{equation}\label{i}
\text{YMH}_G\,=\, \text{YMH}_W\circ\phi\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the function constructed in \eqref{e9}. Let
$d\text{YMH}_W$ be the smooth exact $1$--form on ${\mathcal B}_W$.
The following lemma shows that the normal vectors to
$T^{\mathbb R}{\mathcal B}_0$ for the embedding $\phi$ in
\eqref{e9} are annihilated by the form $d\text{YMH}_W$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2}
For any point $x\, \in\, {\mathcal B}_0$, and any normal vector
$$
v\, \in\, (d\phi(T^{\mathbb R}_x{\mathcal B}_0))^\perp
\, \subset\, T^{\mathbb R}_{\phi(x)}{\mathcal B}_W\, ,
$$
the following holds:
$$
d{\rm YMH}_W(v)\, =\, 0\, .
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Take any pair $(v\, ,w)\, \in\, A^{0,1}(F_0)\oplus A^{1,0}(F_0)$,
where $F_0$ is the vector bundle in \eqref{f0}.
Take any $(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,\in\, {\mathcal
B}_0$. Let $\nabla$ be the connection on $E^0_G$ corresponding to the
holomorphic structure $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$. Therefore,
the connection on $E^0_G$ corresponding to the
holomorphic structure $\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}+tv$, where $t\,\in\,
\mathbb R$, is $\nabla+tv - tv^*$. The automorphism in \eqref{st}
preserves the orthogonal decomposition of $End(W)$ in \eqref{od}.
Hence for $t\, \in\, \mathbb R$, all four $tv$, $tv^*$,
$tw$ and $tw^*$ are $1$--forms with values in
$F_0$. On the other hand, $\theta$ and $\theta^*$ are
$1$--forms with values in $\text{ad}(E^0_G)$.
Let $\nabla'$ be the connection on the vector bundle $W$ associated
to $E^0_G$ induced by the connection $\nabla$ on $E^0_G$. So the
curvature of $\nabla'$ coincides with the curvature of $\nabla$,
in particular, $K(\nabla')$ is a $2$--form with values in
$\text{ad}(E^0_G)$. We note that
$$
K(\nabla'+tv - tv^*)\, =\, K(\nabla') +t\nabla'(v-v^*) +t^2C\, ,
$$
where $C$ is independent of $t$. Since $\nabla'$ is induced
by a connection $E^0_G$, and the decomposition in \eqref{od2}
is preserved by the action of $G$, the connection
$\nabla'$ preserves the decomposition in \eqref{od}. Hence
$\nabla'(v-v^*)$ is a $2$--form with values in $F_0$.
Using these and the fact that the decompositions in \eqref{o1}
are orthogonal, we have
$$
(\frac{d}{dt}
\Vert K(\nabla'+tv - tv^*)+[\theta+tw\, ,
\theta^*+tw^*]\Vert^2)\Big\vert_{t=0}\,=\, 0\,.
$$
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{P}
\Psi_W\, :\, {\mathcal B}_W\, \longrightarrow\,
T^{\mathbb R} {\mathcal B}_W
\end{equation}
be the gradient vector field on
${\mathcal B}_W$ for the function $\text{YMH}_W$. From
Lemma \ref{lem2} and \eqref{i} we have the following
corollary:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
The restriction of the vector field $\Psi_W$ to $\phi({\mathcal
B}_0)$ (see \eqref{e9}) lies in the image of the differential
$d\phi$ in \eqref{e10}. Furthermore, this restriction
coincides with the gradient vector field for the function
${\rm YMH}_G$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Closedness of the embedding}\label{sec:closed}
For a complex vector space $V'$, let $P(V')$ denote the
projective space of lines in $V'$. Any linear action on
$V'$ induces an action on $P(V')$.
Consider the closed
subgroup $\rho(G)\, \subset\, \text{GL}(V)$ in \eqref{e2}.
A theorem of C. Chevalley (see
\cite[p. 80]{Hu}) says that there is a finite dimensional left
$\text{GL}(V)$--module $V_1$ and a line
\begin{equation}\label{l}
\ell\, \subset\, V_1
\end{equation}
such that $\rho(G)$ is exactly the isotropy subgroup,
for the action of $\text{GL}(V)$ on $P(V_1)$,
of the point in $P(V_1)$ representing the line $\ell$.
Let $E_{\text{GL}(V)}\, :=\, E^0_G(\text{GL}(V))
\, =\, E^0_G\times_G \text{GL}(V)\, \longrightarrow\, X$
be the principal $\text{GL}(V)$--bundle obtained by extending
the structure group of $E^0_G$ (see \eqref{e4}) by the homomorphism
$\rho$ in \eqref{e2}. Therefore, the vector bundle
$E_{\text{GL}(V)}(V)$, associated to $E_{\text{GL}(V)}$ by the
standard action of $\text{GL}(V)$ on $V$, is identified with
the vector bundle $W$ in \eqref{W}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{v1}
{\mathcal V}_1 \, :=\, E_{\text{GL}(V)}(V_1)\, \longrightarrow\, X
\end{equation}
be the vector bundle associated to $E_{\text{GL}(V)}$ for the
above $\text{GL}(V)$--module $V_1$. Since
$$
{\mathcal V}_1\, =\, E^0_G(V_1)\, ,
$$
and the action of $G$ on $V_1$ preserves the line $\ell$
in \eqref{l}, the line $\ell$ defines a $C^\infty$ line subbundle
\begin{equation}\label{l0}
L_0\, \subset\, {\mathcal V}_1\, .
\end{equation}
Take any holomorphic structure $\overline{\partial}_W
\, \in\,{\mathcal A}(W)$ on the
vector bundle $W$ (see \eqref{eb1}). The holomorphic structure
$\overline{\partial}_W$ on $W$ defines a holomorphic structure
on the principal $\text{GL}(V)$--bundle $E_{\text{GL}(V)}$
corresponding to $W$. Hence $\overline{\partial}_W$ defines a
holomorphic structure on
the associated vector bundle ${\mathcal V}_1$
in \eqref{v1}. This holomorphic structure on ${\mathcal V}_1$
will be denoted by $\overline{\partial}'_1$.
Since $\rho(G)$ is the isotropy subgroup of the point in
$P(V_1)$ representing the line $\ell$ for the action of
$\text{GL}(V)$ on $P(V_1)$, we conclude that
$\overline{\partial}_W$ lies in $\delta({\mathcal A}_0)$
(see \eqref{eb1}) if and only if the line subbundle $L_0$
in \eqref{l0} is holomorphic with respect to the holomorphic
structure $\overline{\partial}'_1$ on ${\mathcal V}_1$.
Therefore, we have the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3}
The embedding $\delta$ in \eqref{eb1} is closed.
\end{lemma}
The action of $\text{GL}(V)$ on $V_1$ gives a homomorphism
$$
\text{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)\, \longrightarrow\, \text{End}_{\mathbb
C}(V_1)
$$
of Lie algebras. This homomorphism in turn gives a
homomorphism of vector bundles
\begin{equation}\label{f1}
End(W)\, \longrightarrow\, End({\mathcal V}_1)\, ,
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal V}_1$ is the vector bundle in \eqref{v1}.
Take any $\theta\, \in\, A^{1,0}(End(W))$. Let
$\theta'\, \in\, A^{1,0}(End({\mathcal V}_1))$ be the section
constructed from $\theta$ using the homomorphism in \eqref{f1}.
Since $\rho(G)$ is the isotropy subgroup of the point in
$P(V_1)$ representing the line $\ell$ for the action of
$\text{GL}(V)$ on $P(V_1)$, we conclude the following:
The section $\theta$ lies in the image of the natural homomorphism
$$
A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\, \longrightarrow\,
A^{1,0}(End(W))
$$
if and only if $\theta'(L_0)\, \in\, A^{1,0}(L_0)$, where
$L_0$ is the subbundle in \eqref{l0}.
Therefore, using Lemma \ref{lem3}, we have following proposition:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
The embedding $\phi$ in \eqref{e9} is closed.
\end{proposition}
Let
\begin{equation}\label{cs}
{\mathcal S}(E^0_G)\, \subset\, {\mathcal B}_0
\end{equation}
be the subset consisting of all pairs that are Higgs
$G$--bundles. So a pair
$$
(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,
\in\, {\mathcal A}_0\times A^{1,0}(\text{ad}(E^0_G))\,=\,
{\mathcal B}_0
$$
lies in ${\mathcal S}(E^0_G)$ if and only if the
section $\theta$ is holomorphic with respect to the holomorphic
structure on $\text{ad}(E^0_G)\otimes K_X$ defined by
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$.
Consider the gradient flow on ${\mathcal B}_0$ for the function
$\text{YMH}_G$ defined in \eqref{e11}. The following lemma shows
that this flow preserves the subset ${\mathcal S}(E^0_G)$ defined
in \eqref{cs}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem4}
Take any $z\, :=\, (\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\,
\in\, {\mathcal S}(E^0_G)$. Let
$$
\gamma_z\, :\, {\mathbb R}\, \longrightarrow\,{\mathcal B}_0
$$
be the integral curve for the gradient flow on ${\mathcal B}_0$
for the function ${\rm YMH}_G$ such that $\gamma_z(0)\,=\,z$.
Then
$$
\gamma_z(t)\, \in\, {\mathcal S}(E^0_G)
$$
for all $t\, \in\, {\mathbb R}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider ${\mathcal B}_W$ defined in \eqref{e8}. Let
$$
{\mathcal S}(W)\, \subset\, {\mathcal B}_W
$$
be the subset consisting
of all pairs $(\overline{\partial}'\, ,\theta)\,\in
\,{\mathcal A}(W)\times A^{1,0}(End(W))$ such that $\theta$ is
holomorphic with respect to the holomorphic structure given by
$\overline{\partial}'$. For the map $\phi$ in \eqref{e9},
$$
\phi({\mathcal S}(E^0_G))\, \subset\, {\mathcal S}(W)
$$
(see Remark \ref{rem1}).
In view of Corollary \ref{cor1}, to prove the lemma it suffices
to show that the vector field $\Psi_W$ (defined in \eqref{P})
preserves the subset ${\mathcal S}(W)$. But this is proved in
\cite{Wi}; from \cite[Lemma 3.10]{Wi} and the proof
of Proposition 3.2 in \cite[pp. 295--297]{Wi} it follows that the
flow $\Psi_W$ is generated by the action of the complex gauge
group, hence ${\mathcal S}(W)$ is preserved by the flow.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{lw}
The integral curve $\gamma_z$ for the gradient flow of
${\rm YMH}_G$ on $\mathcal{B}_0$ with initial condition $z \, :=\,
(\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\, \in\, {\mathcal S}(E^0_G)$
converges to a limit in ${\mathcal S}(E^0_G)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Theorem 1.1 in \cite{Wi} shows that the gradient flow of ${\rm YMH}_W$
on the space $\mathcal{B}_W$ with initial conditions in $\mathcal{S}(W)$
converges to a limit in $\mathcal{S}(W)$. Moreover,
Corollary \ref{cor1} and Lemma \ref{lem4} together with the uniqueness
of the flow from Proposition 3.2 in \cite{Wi} give the
following: when
the initial conditions are in $\phi \left( \mathcal{S}(E^0_G) \right)$,
then the flow preserves the space $\phi \left( \mathcal{S}(E^0_G)
\right)$. Combining these two facts, we see that because the embedding
$\phi$ is closed by Proposition \ref{prop1}, the limit of the flow
lies in $\phi \left( \mathcal{S}(E^0_G) \right)$. Since $\phi(\gamma_z)$
coincides with the gradient flow of ${\rm YMH}_W$ with initial
conditions in $\phi \left( \mathcal{S}(E^0_G) \right)$ by Corollary
\ref{cor1}, we conclude that $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\gamma_z(t)$ exists, and it is in $\mathcal{S}(E^0_G)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Reduction of structure group}\label{sec:reduction}
As before, $G$ is a connected reductive linear algebraic group
defined over $\mathbb C$.
See \cite{BG}, \cite{BiSc} for the definitions
of semistable, stable and polystable Higgs $G$--bundles.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5}
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a semistable Higgs $G$--bundle on $X$.
The Higgs vector bundle $({\rm ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is
semistable, where $\varphi$ is the Higgs field on ${\rm ad}(E_G)$
defined by $\theta$ using the Lie algebra structure of the
fibers of ${\rm ad}(E_G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[p. 37, Lemma 3.6]{BG}, but some
explanations are necessary.
Let $Z(G)\, \subset\,G$ be the connected component of the center
of $G$ containing the identity element. Define
$$
G'\, :=\, G/Z(G)\, .
$$
Let $(E_{G'}\, ,\theta')$ be the Higgs $G'$--bundle
over $X$ obtained by
extending the structure group of $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ using the
quotient map $G\, \longrightarrow\, G'$. Since $(E_G\, ,\theta)$
is semistable, it follows immediately that
the Higgs $G'$--bundle $(E_{G'}\, ,\theta')$ is semistable.
Let $\varphi'$ be the Higgs field on the adjoint vector
bundle $\text{ad}(E_{G'})$ induced by $\theta'$. Since
$(E_{G'}\, ,\theta')$ is semistable, and the group $G'$ does
not have any nontrivial character, the Higgs vector
bundle $(\text{ad}(E_{G'})\, ,\varphi')$ is semistable
\cite[p. 37, Lemma 3.6]{BG} (see also
\cite[p. 26, Proposition 2.4]{BG}). We have
$$
({\rm ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)\,=\, (\text{ad}(E_{G'})\, ,\varphi')\oplus
(X\times z({\mathfrak g}), 0)\, ,
$$
where $z({\mathfrak g})$ is the Lie algebra of
$Z(G)$, and $X\times z({\mathfrak g})$ is the trivial vector bundle
over $X$ with
fiber $z({\mathfrak g})$. Hence $({\rm ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is
semistable; note that $\text{degree}({\rm ad}(E_G))\,=\, 0\,=\,
\text{degree}({\rm ad}(E_{G'}))$. This completes the proof of
the lemma.
\end{proof}
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a Higgs $G$--bundle on $X$ and
$H\,\subset\, G$ a closed algebraic subgroup. A
\textit{reduction} of structure group of the Higgs $G$--bundle
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to $H$ is a holomorphic reduction of
structure group $E_H \,\subset\, E_G$ to $H$ over $X$ such that
$\theta$ lies in the image of the
homomorphism $H^0(X,\, {\rm ad}(E_H)\otimes K_X)
\, \longrightarrow\, H^0(X,\, {\rm ad}(E_G)\otimes K_X)$.
Given a Higgs $G$--bundle $(E_G\, ,\theta)$, there is a canonical
Harder--Narasimhan reduction of structure group of
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to a parabolic subgroup $P$ of $G$ \cite{DP}
(the method in \cite{DP} is based on \cite{BH}). If
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ is semistable, then $P\,=\, G$.
We recall the definition of the Harder--Narasimhan reduction
of a Higgs $G$--bundle.
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a Higgs $G$--bundle on $X$. Then there
is a parabolic subgroup $P\, \subset\, G$ and a reduction
of structure group $E_P$ of $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to $P$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the principal $L(P)$--bundle $E_{L(P)}\, :=\, E_P\times_P
L(P)\, \longrightarrow\, X$, where $L(P)$ is the Levi quotient
of $P$, is semistable, and
\item for any nontrivial character $\chi$ of $P$ which is
a nonnegative linear combination of simple roots (with
respect to some Borel subgroup contained in $P$) and is
trivial on the center of $G$, the associated line bundle
$E_P(\chi)\, \longrightarrow\, X$ is of positive degree.
\end{enumerate}
The above pair $(P\, ,E_P)$ is unique in the following sense:
for any other pair $(P_1\, , E_{P_1})$ satisfying
the above two conditions, there is some $g\, \in\, G$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $P_1\, =\, g^{-1}Pg$, and
\item $E_{P_1}\, =\, E_Pg$.
\end{itemize}
(See \cite{DP}, \cite{BH}.)
A semistable vector bundle $E\, \longrightarrow\, X$
admits a filtration of subbundles
\begin{equation}\label{s1}
0 \, =\, E_0\, \subset\, E_1 \, \subset\, E_2\, \subset\,
\cdots\, \subset\, E_{n-1} \, \subset\, E_n\, =\, E
\end{equation}
such that $E_i/E_{i-1}$, $1\,\leq\, i\, \leq\, n$, is the maximal
polystable subbundle of $E/E_{i-1}$ with
$$
\frac{\text{degree}(E_i/E_{i-1})}{\text{rank}(E_i/E_{i-1})}\,=\,
\frac{\text{degree}(E)}{\text{rank}(E)}
$$
(see \cite[p. 23, Lemma 1.5.5]{HL});
this filtration is called the \textit{socle filtration}.
In \cite{AB}, this was generalized to semistable principal
$G$--bundles (see \cite[p. 218, Proposition 2.12]{AB}). In Theorem
\ref{thm1} proved below, this is further generalized to
semistable Higgs $G$--bundles.
We will define admissible reductions of a Higgs $G$--bundle.
See \cite[pp. 3998--3999]{BS} for the definition of an admissible
reduction of structure group of a principal $G$--bundle.
\begin{definition}\label{defa}
{\rm An {\em admissible} reduction of structure group of
a Higgs $G$--bundle $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to a parabolic
subgroup $P\, \subset\, G$ is a
reduction of structure group $E_P$ of $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to
$P$ such that $E_P\, \subset\, E_G$ is an
admissible reduction of $E_G$.}
\end{definition}
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a Higgs $G$--bundle on $X$. Let
$E'_P\, \subset\, E_G$ be a reduction of structure group of
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to a parabolic subgroup $P$ of $G$. So
$\theta$ is a section of $\text{ad}(E'_P)\otimes K_X$.
Let $L(P)$ be the Levi quotient of $P$. Let
$E'_P(L(P))$ be the principal
$L(P)$--bundle over $X$ obtained by extending the structure group
of $E'_P$ using the quotient map $P\, \longrightarrow\, L(P)$. The
quotient homomorphism $\text{Lie}(P)\, \longrightarrow\,
\text{Lie}(L(P))$ induces a homomorphism of adjoint bundles
$$
\text{ad}(E'_P)\, \longrightarrow\, \text{ad}(E'_P(L(P)))\, .
$$
Using this homomorphism of vector bundles, the section $\theta$
of $\text{ad}(E'_P)\otimes K_X$ gives a holomorphic section of
$\text{ad}(E'_P(L(P)))\otimes K_X$. In other words, $\theta$ gives
a Higgs field on $E'_P(L(P))$. This Higgs field on $E'_P(L(P))$
will be denoted by $\theta'$.
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a semistable Higgs
$G$--bundle on $X$ which is not polystable.
Let $Q\, \subsetneq\, G$ be a proper parabolic subgroup which is
maximal among all the proper parabolic
subgroups $P$ such that $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ has an
admissible reduction of structure group
$E'_P\, \subset\, E_G$
(see Definition \ref{defa}) for which the associated Higgs
$L(P)$--bundle $(E'_P(L(P))\, ,\theta')$ defined above
is polystable.
\begin{definition}\label{g-s}
{\rm An admissible reduction of structure group of
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ to $Q$
$$
E_Q\, \subset\, E_G
$$
will be called a {\em socle reduction} if the associated
Higgs $L(Q)$--bundle $(E_Q(L(Q))\, ,\theta')$ is polystable,
where $L(Q)$ is the Levi quotient of $Q$.}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a semistable Higgs
$G$--bundle on $X$ which is not polystable. Then
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ admits a socle reduction. If
$(Q\, , E_Q)$ and $(Q_1\, , E_{Q_1})$ are two
socle reductions of $(E_G\, ,\theta)$,
then there is some $g\, \in\, G$ such that
$Q_1\, =\, g^{-1}Qg$, and $E_{Q_1}\, =\, E_Qg$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First note that the construction of the socle filtration of a
semistable vector bundle extends to semistable Higgs bundles;
indeed, the proof in \cite[p. 23, Lemma 1.5.5]{HL} goes through in this
case also. Therefore, if $(E\, ,\theta)$ is a semistable Higgs
vector bundle on $X$ which is not polystable, there is filtration
of subbundles
\begin{equation}\label{f}
0\, \subset\, E_1 \, \subset\, E_2\, \subset\,\cdots
\, \subset\, E_{n-1} \, \subset\, E_n\, =\, E
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}\label{f2}
\theta(E_i)\, \subset\, E_i\otimes K_X
\end{equation}
for all
$i\, \in\, [1\, ,n]$, and $(E_i/E_{i-1}\, ,\theta'_i)$
is the unique maximal polystable Higgs subbundle of the
Higgs bundle $(E/E_{i-1}\, ,\theta''_i)$ such that
$$
\frac{\text{degree}(E_i/E_{i-1})}{\text{rank}(E_i/E_{i-1})}\,=\,
\frac{\text{degree}(E)}{\text{rank}(E)}\, ,
$$
where $\theta'_i$ and
$\theta''_i$ are the Higgs fields on $E_i/E_{i-1}$ and $E/E_{i-1}$
respectively induced by $\theta$ (the condition in \eqref{f2}
ensures that $\theta$ induces Higgs fields on both
$E_i/E_{i-1}$ and $E/E_{i-1}$).
Let $\text{ad}(E_G)\, \longrightarrow\, X$ be the adjoint bundle
of $E_G$. Let $\varphi$ be the Higgs field on $\text{ad}(E_G)$
defined by $\theta$. From Lemma
\ref{lem5} we know that the Higgs vector
bundle $(\text{ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is semistable.
We note if $(\text{ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is polystable, then
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$ is polystable. Since $(E_G\, ,\theta)$
is not polystable, we conclude that the Higgs
vector bundle $(\text{ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is not polystable.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{f4}
0\, =\, E_0 \,
\subset\, E_1 \, \subset\, E_2\, \subset\,\cdots
\, \subset\, E_{m-1} \, \subset\, E_m\, =\, \text{ad}(E_G)
\end{equation}
be the socle filtration for $(\text{ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$
(see \eqref{f}).
Fix a $G$--invariant nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form $B_0$ on
the Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$ of $G$; such a form exists because $G$
is reductive. This form $B_0$ defines nondegenerate symmetric bilinear
forms on the fibers of $\text{ad}(E_G)$. So we get an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{is}
\text{ad}(E_G)\, \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\,
\text{ad}(E_G)^*\, .
\end{equation}
Let $\varphi^*$ be the dual Higgs field on $\text{ad}(E_G)^*$ defined
by $\varphi$. The isomorphism in \eqref{is} clearly takes $\varphi$
to $\varphi^*$. In particular, $(\text{ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is
self--dual.
{}From the uniqueness of the socle filtration it follows
that the filtration in \eqref{f4} is self--dual. Also,
the integer $m$ in \eqref{f4} is odd. The tensor product of two
semistable Higgs bundles on $X$ is again semistable
\cite[p. 38, Corollary 3.8]{Si1}. Using these observations
it follows that
\begin{itemize}
\item the subbundle $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$ is closed under the Lie
bracket operation on the fibers of $\text{ad}(E_G)$,
\item the fibers of $E_{\frac{m-1}{2}}$ are ideals in the
fibers of $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$, and are nilpotent,
\item the fibers of the quotient $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}/
E_{\frac{m-1}{2}}$ are reductive, and
\item the Higgs field $\theta$ is a section of
$E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}\otimes K_X$.
\end{itemize}
(see \cite[p. 218, Proposition 2.12]{AB}). It should be clarified
that to prove the above statements we need the following: for any two
polystable Higgs vector bundles $(W_1\, , \varphi_1)$ and
$(W_2\, , \varphi_2)$ over $X$, the tensor product $(W_1\otimes W_2\, ,
\varphi_1\otimes\text{Id}_{W_2}+ \text{Id}_{W_1}\otimes\varphi_2)$
is also a polystable Higgs vector bundle. To prove that
$(W_1\otimes W_2\, ,
\varphi_1\otimes\text{Id}_{W_2}+ \text{Id}_{W_1}\otimes\varphi_2)$
is polystable, let $\nabla_1$ and
$\nabla_2$ be the Hermitian--Yang--Mills connections on
$(W_1\, , \varphi_1)$ and $(W_2\, , \varphi_2)$ respectively
(see \cite[p. 19, Theorem 1(2)]{Si1}).
Then the induced connection $\nabla_1\otimes\text{Id}_{W_2}+
\text{Id}_{W_1}\otimes\nabla_2$ on $W_1\otimes W_2$ is
a Hermitian--Yang--Mills connection for
$(W_1\otimes W_2\, ,
\varphi_1\otimes\text{Id}_{W_2}+ \text{Id}_{W_1}\otimes\varphi_2)$.
Hence $(W_1\otimes W_2\, ,
\varphi_1\otimes\text{Id}_{W_2}+ \text{Id}_{W_1}\otimes\varphi_2)$
is polystable \cite[p. 19, Theorem 1(2)]{Si1}.
{}From the above statements it follows that
$E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$ is a Lie algebra subbundle of
the Lie algebra bundle $\text{ad}(E_G)$ such that the
fibers of $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$ are parabolic subalgebras.
The fibers of $\text{ad}(E_G)$ are identified with the Lie algebra
$\mathfrak g$ up to an inner automorphism. More precisely, for
any point $x\, \in\, X$, and any point $z$ in the fiber $(E_G)_x$
of $E_G$, we have an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{il}
\sigma_z \, :\, {\mathfrak g}\, \longrightarrow\, \text{ad}(E_G)_x
\end{equation}
that sends any $v\, \in\, {\mathfrak g}$ to the
image of $(z\, ,v)$ in $\text{ad}(E_G)_x$ (recall that
$\text{ad}(E_G)$ is a quotient of $E_G\times{\mathfrak g}$).
For any $g\, \in\, G$, the isomorphisms $\sigma_z$ and
$\sigma_{zg}$ differ by the inner automorphism
$\text{Ad}(g)$ of ${\mathfrak g}$.
Let $Q\, \subset\, G$ be a parabolic subgroup in the conjugacy
class of parabolic subgroups whose Lie algebras are
identified with the fibers of $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$
by some isomorphism constructed
in \eqref{il}. The normalizer of any parabolic
subgroup $P\, \subset\, G$ coincides with $P$. In particular,
the normalizer of $Q\, \subset\, G$ is $Q$ itself. Hence
the subalgebra
bundle $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}\, \subset\, \text{ad}(E_G)$ gives
a holomorphic reduction of structure group $E_Q\, \subset\, E_G$
such that the subbundle $\text{ad}(E_Q)\, \subset\, \text{ad}(E_G)$
coincides with $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$. For any point $x\, \in\, X$,
the fiber $(E_Q)_x\, \subset\, (E_G)_x$ consists of all points
$z\, \in\, (E_G)_x$
such that the isomorphism $\sigma_z$ in \eqref{il} takes
$\text{Lie}(Q)$ to $(E_{\frac{m+1}{2}})_x$.
Since $\text{ad}(E_Q)\,=\, E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$, and the Higgs field
$\theta$ is a section of $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}\otimes K_X$, we conclude
that $E_Q$ is a reduction of structure group of the Higgs $G$--bundle
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$. It is straight--forward to check that $E_Q$
is a socle reduction of $(E_G\, ,\theta)$.
Given any socle reduction $E_{Q'}$ of $(E_G\, ,\theta)$, it can be
shown that the adjoint bundle $\text{ad}(E_{Q'})$ coincides
with the subbundle $E_{\frac{m+1}{2}}$ in \eqref{f4}. From this
the uniqueness statement in the theorem follows.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
For a polystable Higgs $G$--bundle $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ the
\textit{socle reduction} is defined to be $E_G$ itself.
Given a Higgs $G$--bundle, combining the Harder--Narasimhan reduction
with the socle reduction we get a new Higgs $G$--bundle which will
be described below.
Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be a Higgs $G$--bundle. Let
$(E_P\, ,\theta_P)$ be the Harder--Narasimhan reduction of
$(E_G\, ,\theta)$. If $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ is semistable, then
$P\, =\, G$, and $(E_P\, ,\theta_P)\,=\, (E_G\, ,\theta)$.
Let $L(P)$ be the Levi quotient of $P$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{elp}
(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})
\end{equation}
be the Higgs $L(P)$--bundle obtained by
extending the structure group of the above Higgs $P$--bundle $(E_P\,
,\theta_P)$ using the quotient map $P\, \longrightarrow\, L(P)$. From
the definition of a Harder--Narasimhan reduction we know that
the Higgs $L(P)$--bundle $(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})$ is semistable.
Therefore, $(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})$ has a unique socle reduction
by Theorem \ref{thm1}. Let
$$
E_H\, \subset\, E_{L(P)}
$$
be the socle reduction of $(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})$.
So $H$ is a Levi subgroup of a parabolic subgroup
of $L(P)$; the
Higgs field on $E_H$ induced by $\theta_{L(P)}$ will
be denoted by $\theta_H$ (see Definition \ref{g-s}).
The Levi quotient $L(P)$ is identified with all the Levi factors
of $P$, and $H$ is a subgroup of $L(P)$. Therefore, $H$ becomes
a subgroup of $G$ after fixing a Levi factor of $P$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{ep}
(E'_G\, ,\theta')
\end{equation}
be the Higgs $G$--bundle obtained
by extending the structure group of the Higgs $H$--bundle $(E_H\,
,\theta_H)$ using the inclusion of $H$ in $G$.
Take any
\begin{equation}\label{z}
z \, :=\, (\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}\, ,\theta)\, \in\, {\mathcal
S}(E^0_G)
\end{equation}
(see \eqref{cs}). Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$ be the
Higgs $G$--bundle defined by the holomorphic structure
$\overline{\partial}_{E_G^0}$ on $E^0_G$ together with the section
$\theta$
in \eqref{z}. Let $(E'_G\, ,\theta')$ be the new Higgs $G$--bundle
constructed in \eqref{ep} from $(E_G\, ,\theta)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem6}
Let $\gamma_z$ be the integral curve for the gradient flow of
${\rm YMH}_G$ on $\mathcal{B}_0$ with initial condition $z$
(see \eqref{z}). Let
$$
(\overline{\partial}_1\, ,\theta_1)\, =\, \lim_{t\to \infty}
\gamma_z(t)\, \in\, {\mathcal S}(E^0_G)
$$
be the limit in Theorem \ref{lw}. Then the Higgs $G$--bundle
defined by $(\overline{\partial}_1\, ,\theta_1)$ is
holomorphically isomorphic to the Higgs $G$--bundle
$(E'_G\, ,\theta')$ constructed above.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For Higgs vector bundles this was proved in \cite{Wi}
(see \cite[p. 325, Theorem 5.3]{Wi}). Let $(E_G\, ,\theta)$
be the Higgs $G$--bundle defined by $z$ in \eqref{z}.
Let $({\rm ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ be the corresponding
Higgs vector bundle defined by the Higgs field on the
adjoint vector bundle ${\rm ad}(E_G)$ induced by $\theta$.
Recall that the Harder--Narasimhan reduction of the
Higgs $G$--bundle $(E_G\, ,
\theta)$ is constructed using the Harder--Narasimhan filtration of
the Higgs vector bundle
$({\rm ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$. Let $(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})$
be the semistable principal Higgs bundle constructed as in
\eqref{elp} from the Harder--Narasimhan reduction of $(E_G\, ,
\theta)$. Recall that the socle reduction of
a semistable Higgs $L(P)$--bundle $(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})$
is constructed using the socle filtration of the
adjoint vector bundle $\text{ad}(E_{L(P)})$
equipped with the Higgs field induced by $\theta_{L(P)}$. From
these constructions it can be deduced that the
Harder--Narasimhan--socle filtration of the Higgs vector bundle
$({\rm ad}(E_G)\, ,\varphi)$ is compatible with the filtration
of ${\rm ad}(E_G)$ obtained from $(E_{L(P)}\, ,\theta_{L(P)})$.
Using this, the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $C$ be an elliptic curve defined over $\Q$. The
Shimura-Taniyama-Weil conjecture, also known as the modularity
theorem after its proof by Wiles et al. \cite{wiles,BCDT} asserts
that there exists a surjective morphism $J_0(N){\rightarrow} C$ defined over
$\Q$, where $J_0(N)$ is the Jacobian of the modular curve
$X_0(N)$. Moreover, the minimum $N$ with this property is equal to
$\mathcal N_\Q(C)$, the conductor of $C$.
A generalization of the modularity theorem, which as Ribet showed
in \cite{ribet-avqmf} is a consequence of the recently proved
Serre's conjecture on residual Galois representations,
characterizes the modular abelian varieties over $\Q$; that is,
the $\Q$-simple abelian varieties $A$ defined over $\Q$ with a
surjective morphism $J_1(N){\rightarrow} A$. They are the so-called (simple)
varieties of $\GL_2$-type: those whose endomorphism algebra
$\Q\otimes\End_\Q(A)$ is a number field of degree over
$\Q$ equal to $\dim A$.
From the modular form side, one can start with a weight two
newform $f$ for $\Gamma_1(N)$. A construction of Shimura attaches
to such an $f$ an abelian variety $A_f$ over $\Q$, which is a
quotient of $J_1(N)$; in fact, all quotients of $J_1(N)$ over $\Q$
are of this form. For these varieties Carayol \cite{carayol}
proved that $\mathcal N_\Q(A_f)=N^{\dim A_f}$. The generalization of
Shimura-Taniyama-Weil asserts that each abelian variety of
$\GL_2$-type is isogenous over $\Q$ to an $A_f$ for some $f$,
therefore the formula $\mathcal N_\Q(A)=N^{\dim A}$ is valid for all $A$
of $\GL_2$-type.
The modular abelian varieties $A_f$ are simple over $\Q$, but they
are not absolutely simple in general: they are isogenous over
$\Qb$ to a power of an absolutely simple variety, which is called
a building block for $A_f$. To be more precise, if $L$ is the
smallest number field where all the endomorphisms of $A_f$ are
defined, then $A_f$ is isogenous over $L$ to a variety of the form
$B^n$, for some absolutely simple variety $B$ defined over $L$.
In this article we discuss possible generalizations of Carayol's
formula for these modular abelian varieties over number fields
$B/L$, in the case where they do not have CM.
More concretely, in section \ref{sec: 2} we recall the notation
and basic facts regarding modular abelian varieties and building
blocks. Afterwards, we give the explicit decomposition of the
restriction of scalars $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)$ as as product of modular
abelian varieties up to isogeny over $\Q$. We use this in section
\ref{sec: 3} in order to give an expression for the local
exponents of $\mathcal N_L(B)$, in terms of the levels of certain twists
of $f$ by Dirichlet characters related to the field $L$. In some
cases, the conductor $\mathcal N_L(B)$ turns out to be a rational integer
and we obtain similar formulas to the ones for the varieties
$A_f$; we remark that in this situation the conductor of $L$,
that we denote by $\f_L$, also appears in the expressions. We have
collected all these formulas, that appear in the text as
propositions \ref{prop: formula conductor nivel ord leq 2},
\ref{prop: formula conductor nivel Gamma0} and \ref{prop:
squarefree}, in the following
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Main Theorem.} {\it Let $f\in S_2(N,\varepsilon)$
be a weight two newform for $\Gamma_1(N)$ with Nebentypus
$\varepsilon$ and without complex multiplication. Let $A_f$ be the
modular abelian variety attached to $f$, let $L$ be the smallest
field of definition of the endomorphisms of $A_f$, and let $B/L$
be a simple quotient of $A_f$ over $L$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that one of the following conditions is satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item $N$ is odd and $\ord(\varepsilon)\leq 2$,
\item $N$ is squarefree.
\end{itemize}
Then $\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$ and $$\mathcal N_L(B)\,\f_L^{\,\dim
B}=N^{\,\dim B}.$$
\item If $f$ is a
newform for $\Gamma_0(N)$, that is if $\varepsilon=1$, then
$\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$. Moreover,
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $v_2(\f_L)=3$ and $v_2(\f_K)=2$ for some $K\subseteq L$ then $$2\ \mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B},$$
\item in the remaining cases for $L$ then $$\mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
}
\medskip
Finally, in section \ref{sec: 4} we provide some examples of
building blocks of dimension one and two with their corresponding
equations. Concretely, for the case of dimension one we compute
their conductors, in order to show the different behaviors when
the hypothesis of the above theorem are not satisfied.
We observe that, although the conductor can be a rational
integer sometimes, formulas as the ones in the
theorem do not always hold; we also give examples where the conductor is not a rational integer.
For the case of dimension two, the level-conductors local formula
provided at Proposition \ref{cond_local} allows us to compute the
conductor of the Jacobian of a genus two curve defined over a
number field that corresponds to a building block.
\section{Modular abelian varieties}\label{sec: 2}
We begin this section by recalling the basic facts about modular
abelian varieties and their absolutely simple factors that we
will use. In particular, we introduce the type of varieties that
we will be dealing with in the rest of the article: the building
blocks. Our goal is to prove a formula for the restriction of
scalars of building blocks, which will be the base for our
analysis of their conductors in the subsequent sections.
Let $f=\sum a_nq^n\in S_2(N,\varepsilon)$ be a normalized newform
without complex multiplication of weight $2$, level $N$ and
Nebentypus $\varepsilon$, and let $E=\Q\left(\{a_n\}\right)$ and
$F=\Q\left(\{a_p^2\varepsilon(p)^{-1}\}_{p\nmid N}\right)$. These
number fields will be denoted by $E_f$ and $F_f$ if we need to
make the newform from which they come from explicit. The
extension $E/F$ is abelian, and for each $s\in \Gal(E/F)$ there
exists a single Dirichlet character $\chi_s$ such that $\acc s f =
f\otimes\chi_s$, where $f\otimes\chi_s$ is a newform whose $p$-th
Fourier coefficient coincides with $a_p\chi_s(p)$ for almost all
$p$ (see \cite[\S 3 ]{ribet-twists}). Since $\acc s f$ has level
$N$, the conductor of $\chi_s$ is divisible only by primes dividing
$N$. We will also consider another number field attached to $f$,
namely $L=\Qb^{\cap\ker \chi_s}$ where $s$ runs through
$\Gal(E/F)$.
Shimura \cite[Theorem~1]{shimura73} attached to $f$ an abelian
variety $A_f/\Q$ constructed as a quotient of $J_1(N)$, the
Jacobian of the modular curve $X_1(N)$, and with an action of $E$
as endomorphisms defined over $\Q$. In fact,
$\Q\otimes_\Z\End_\Q(A_f)\simeq E$ and since $\dim A_f=[E:\Q]$,
the modular abelian varieties $A_f$ are of $\GL_2$-type; as a
consequence of Serre's conjecture all varieties of $\GL_2$-type
are isogenous to some $A_f$.
The variety $A_f$ is simple over $\Q$, but it is not necessarily
absolutely simple. In general, $A_f$ is isogenous over $\Qb$ to a
power of an absolutely simple abelian variety $B$, which is called
a \emph{building block} of $A_f$. This $B$ has some remarkable
properties; for instance, it is isogenous to all of its Galois
conjugates. In addition, its endomorphism algebra
$\Q\otimes\End(B)$ is a central division algebra over a number
field isomorphic to $F$, it has Schur index $t=1$ or $t=2$ and its
reduced degree $t[F:\Q]$ is equal to $\dim B$. The building blocks
of dimension one are the $\Q$-curves, i.e. the elliptic curves
$B/\Qb$ that are isogenous to all of their Galois conjugates.
There are infinitely many varieties $A_f$ with the same
absolutely simple factor up to isogeny. However, by a result of
Ribet \cite[Theorem 4.7]{ribet-twists} if this happens for two
varieties $A_f$ and $A_g$ we can suppose that $g$ is the twist of
$f$ by some Dirichlet character. We will need a more precise
version of this result, which already appears implicitly in
Ribet's proof.
\begin{proposition}\label{corolario ribet}
Let $f,g$ be two normalized newforms without complex
multiplication such that $A_f\sim_K B^n$ and $A_g\sim_K B^m$ for
some absolutely simple abelian variety $B$ over a number field
$K$. Then there exists a character $\chi:\Gal(K/\Q){\rightarrow} \C^\times$
such that $g=f\otimes \chi$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $V_f=T_\ell(A_f)\otimes\Q$ and $V_g=T_\ell(A_{g})\otimes\Q$,
where $T_\ell(A_f)$ and $T_\ell(A_g)$ are the Tate modules
attached to $A_f$ and $A_g$ respectively, and let $H=\Gal(\Qb/K)$.
Under the hypothesis of the proposition we have
$\Hom_H(V_f,V_g)\neq 0$. By \cite[Theorem 4.7]{ribet-twists},
there exists a character $\chi:G_\Q{\rightarrow}\C^\times$ such that
$f=g\otimes \chi$. Ribet already asserts in the proof of his
theorem that $\chi$ is necessarily trivial on $H$. Therefore,
$\chi$ comes from a character $\chi:\Gal(K/\Q){\rightarrow} \C^\times$.
\end{proof}
Gonz\'alez and Lario proved in \cite{pep-lario} that $L$ is the
smallest number field where all the endomorphisms of $A_f$ are
defined. This implies that $A_f\sim_L B^n$, with $B/L$ a building
block with the endomorphisms defined over $L$ and which is
$L$-isogenous to all of its Galois conjugates. From now on $B$
will denote such a building block obtained by decomposing $A_f$
over the field $L$ defined above, and $t$ will denote the Schur
index of $\End(B)$. Using the results in \cite{guitart-quer} one
can show that the restriction of scalars $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)$ is
isogenous over $\Q$ to a product of modular abelian varieties.
Indeed, one has the following
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: restriccion de escalares de B primera proposicion}
The restriction of scalars $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)$ decomposes into simple
abelian varieties up to isogeny as \begin{equation}\label{eq:
restricion de escalares B como producto de Afs}
\Res_{L/\Q}(B)\sim_\Q \prod \left( A_{f_1}\right)^t\times
\cdots\times \left( A_{f_r}\right)^t,
\end{equation}
where $A_{f_1},\dots,A_{f_r}$ are non-isogenous modular abelian
varieties.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
There exists a map $\alpha: \Gal(L/\Q){\rightarrow} E^\times$ such that
$\acc
\sigma\varphi=\alpha(\sigma)\comp\varphi\comp\alpha(\sigma)^{-1}$.
The $\alpha(\sigma)$ can be identified with an element of
$\Q\otimes\End_\Q(A_f)$, and together with an isogeny $A_f\sim_L
B^n$ it can be used to construct an isogeny $\mu_\sigma\colon \acc
\sigma B{\rightarrow} B$ compatible with $\End(A_f)$ (see \cite[Proposition
1.5]{pyle}). It turns out that $\mu_\sigma\comp\acc \sigma
\mu_\tau\comp
\mu_{\sigma\tau}^{-1}=\alpha(\sigma)\comp\alpha(\tau)\comp\alpha(\sigma\tau)^{-1}$
as elements of the center of $\Q\otimes\End(B)$. Therefore, the
cocycle $c_{B/L}(\sigma,\tau)=\mu_\sigma\comp\acc \sigma
\mu_\tau\comp \mu_{\sigma\tau}^{-1}$ is symmetric, since
$\Gal(L/\Q)$ is abelian. Now \cite[Theorem 5.3]{guitart-quer}
implies that $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)$ is isogenous over $\Q$ to a product
$A_1^{n_1}\times \cdots \times A_r^{n_r}$, where the $A_i$ are
non-isogenous abelian varieties of $\GL_2$-type. But each of these
varieties of $\GL_2$-type $A_i$ is isogenous to some modular
abelian variety $A_{f_i}$, and by \cite[Lemma 5.1]{guitart-quer}
each $n_i$ is equal to $t$.
\end{proof}
The rest of the section is devoted to give an explicit expression
for the modular forms that appear in \eqref{eq: restricion de
escalares B como producto de Afs}, in terms of a certain action of
$\Gal(E/F)$ on a group of characters that we now define. For $s\in
\Gal(E/F)$ let $\chi_s$ be the Galois character such that $\acc s
f =f\otimes\chi_s$, and let $G\subseteq \Hom(G_\Q,\C^\times)$ be
the group generated by all such $\chi_s$. Since $L$ is the fixed
field of $\Qb$ by $\cap_{s} \ker \chi_s$, it is also the fixed
field of $\Qb$ by $\cap_{\chi\in G}\ker \chi$. However, we remark
that a character $\chi\in G$ is not necessarily of the form
$\chi_s$, but a product of elements of the form $\chi_s$ in
general. An element $\chi\in G$ is trivial when restricted to
$\Gal(\Qb/L)$, so it can be identified with a character
$\Gal(L/\Q){\rightarrow} \C^\times$. In fact, $G$ can be identified with
$\Hom(\Gal(L/\Q),\C^\times)$ and therefore we have that $\mid G
\mid =[L:\Q]$ (cf. \cite[pp. 21-22]{Wa}). We define an action of
$\Gal(E/F)$ on $G$ by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{rcc}
\Gal(E/F) \times G & \longrightarrow & G\\
(s , \chi)&\longmapsto & s\cdot \chi=\chi_s{^s\chi}.
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
The cocycle identity of the characters $\chi_s$ (\cite[Proposition
3.3 ]{ribet-twists}) implies that it is indeed a group action,
since for $s,t\in \Gal(E/F)$ we have that $s\cdot (t\cdot
\chi)=s\cdot(\chi_t \acc t \chi)=\chi_s\acc s \chi_t
\acc{st}\chi=\chi_{st}\acc{st}\chi=(st)\cdot \chi$. Let $\hat G$
be a system of representatives for the orbits of $G$, and for
$\chi\in G$ let $I_\chi$ be the isotropy subgroup of $G$ at
$\chi$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lema: desigualdad dimension Afxchi}
$\dim (A_{f\otimes\chi})\leq [\Gal(E/F):I_\chi][F:\Q]$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $s\in \Gal(E/F)$ the character $\chi_s$ takes values in $E$,
since $\chi_s(p)=\acc s a_p/a_p$ for almost all $p$. Therefore,
any $\chi\in G$ also takes values in $E$. This implies that
$E_{f\otimes\chi}$, the field of Fourier coefficients of
$f\otimes\chi$, is contained in $E$. For any $s\in I_\chi$ we have
that $\acc s(f\otimes\chi)=\acc s f\otimes \acc s \chi=f\otimes
\chi_s\acc s \chi_s=f\otimes (s\cdot \chi )=f\otimes\chi$. By
Galois theory we find that $I_\chi\subseteq
\Gal(E/E_{f\otimes\chi})$ and so $\mid I_\chi\mid \leq
[E:\Q]/[E_{f\otimes\chi}:\Q]$, which gives that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim (A_{f\otimes\chi})=[E_{f\otimes\chi}:\Q]\leq
\frac{[E:\Q]}{\mid I_\chi\mid}=\frac{[E:F]}{\mid
I_\chi\mid}[F:\Q]=[\Gal(E/F):I_\chi][F:\Q].
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Now we can give explicitly the modular forms appearing in
proposition \ref{prop: restriccion de escalares de B primera
proposicion}, and we can also give the dimension of the
corresponding modular abelian varieties.
\begin{proposition}\label{Res}
The inequality in lemma \ref{lema: desigualdad dimension Afxchi}
is in fact an equality and
\begin{equation}\label{eq: formula restriccion de escalares la buena}
\Res_{L/\Q}(B)\sim_\Q \prod_{\chi\in \hat G}\left(A_{f\otimes
\chi}\right)^t.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $A=\Res_{L/\Q} B$. Since $B$ is $L$-isogenous to all of its
Galois conjugates and $A\simeq_L \prod_{\sigma\in \Gal(L/\Q)}
\acc\sigma B $, we have that $A$ is $L$-isogenous to $B^{[L:\Q]}$.
Therefore, if $A_g$ is a simple factor of $A$ over $\Q$ it
isogenous to a power of $B$ over $L$. Since $A_f$ is also
isogenous to a power of $B$ over $L$, proposition \ref{corolario
ribet} implies that $g=f\otimes\chi$ for some Galois character
$\chi\in G$. Hence, the modular forms $f_i$ of the decomposition
\eqref{eq: restricion de escalares B como producto de Afs} are of
the form $f\otimes\chi$ for some $\chi$ belonging to $G$. But if
$\chi,\chi'\in G$ are in the same orbit for the action of
$\Gal(E/F)$, the varieties $A_{f\otimes\chi}$ and
$A_{f\otimes\chi'}$ are isogenous over $\Q$. Indeed, in this case
$s\cdot \chi=\chi'$ for some $s\in\Gal(E/F)$, and then $\acc s
(f\otimes\chi)=f\otimes\chi'$. This, together with the fact that
the modular abelian variety attached to $\acc s(f\otimes \chi)$ is
isogenous over $\Q$ to the one attached to $ f\otimes\chi$ implies
that $A_{f\otimes\chi}$ is isogenous to $ A_{f\otimes\chi'}$ over
$\Q$.
Therefore, proposition \ref{prop: restriccion de escalares de B
primera proposicion} implies that there exists an exhaustive
morphism over $\Q$
$$\lambda\colon\prod_{\chi\in \hat G}\left( A_{f\otimes \chi}\right)^t\longrightarrow
A,$$ so we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
t[F:\Q]|G|&=&|G|\dim B=\dim A\leq \sum_{\chi\in\hat G} \dim
\left(A_{f\otimes\chi}\right)^t\\ &\leq& t[F:\Q]\sum_{\chi\in \hat
G}[\Gal(E/F):I_\chi]=t[F:\Q]|G|.
\end{eqnarray*}
We see that each inequality is in fact an equality, and $\lambda$
is an isogeny since the dimensions of the source and the target
are the same.
\end{proof}
\section{Level-conductors formulas}\label{sec: 3}
As in the previous section we consider a newform $f\in
S_2(N,\varepsilon)$ and a decomposition $A_f\sim_L B^n$ of $A_f$
into a power of a building block $B$ defined over the field $L$,
and we continue with the same notation as before with respect to
the endomorphism algebra of $B$; namely, $F$ is its center and $t$
its Schur index. In this section we use the decomposition
\eqref{eq: formula restriccion de escalares la buena} to compute
the local exponent of the conductor of $B$. In some particular
cases we prove that the conductor belongs to $\Z$ (i.e. it is a
principal ideal generated by a rational integer), and we are able
to give a global formula for it involving the conductor of $L$ and
the level of $f$. We denote by $\mathcal N_L(B)$ the conductor of $B$
over $L$, by $\f_L$ the conductor of $L$ and by $N_{L/\Q}$ the
norm in the extension $L/\Q$. If $\chi$ is a character belonging
to $G$, we also denote by $N_\chi$ the level of the newform
$f\otimes\chi$ and by $\f_\chi$ the conductor of $\chi$. For a
prime $q$, $v_q(x)$ denotes the valuation of $x$ at $q$ and
$\chi_q$ the $q$-primary component of $\chi$.
\begin{proposition}\label{cond_local}
For each rational prime $q$ we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: key equation para v_q}
v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+2\,(\dim B)\,\sum_{\chi\in G}
v_q(\f_\chi)=(\dim B) \sum_{\chi\in G}v_q(N_\chi).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By applying the formula of \cite[Proposition 1]{milne} for the
conductor of the restriction of scalars to \eqref{eq: formula
restriccion de escalares la buena} we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
N_{L/\Q}\left(\mathcal N_L(B)\right)(d_{L/\Q})^{2\dim B}=\prod_{\chi\in
\hat G}\mathcal N_\Q\left(A_{f\otimes\chi}\right)^t,
\end{equation*}
where $d_{L/\Q}$ is the discriminant of $L/\Q$. By a theorem of
Carayol (\cite{carayol}) the conductor of a modular abelian
variety $A_g$ is $N_g^{\dim A_g}$, where $N_g$ is the level of the
newform $g$. Using this property and the conductor-discriminant
formula (cf. \cite[p. 28]{Wa}) we find that
\begin{equation*}
N_{L/\Q}\left(\mathcal N_L(B)\right)\prod_{\chi\in G}(\f_\chi)^{2\dim B
}=\prod_{\chi\in \hat G}N_{\chi}^{t[\Gal(E/F):I_\chi][F:\Q]}.
\end{equation*}
But $t[F:\Q]=\dim B$, and the orbit of $\chi$ contains
$[\Gal(E/F):I_\chi]$ elements, each one giving a modular abelian
variety of the same dimension. Thus we have that
\begin{equation*}
N_{L/\Q}\left(\mathcal N_L(B)\right)\prod_{\chi\in G}(\f_\chi)^{2\dim B
}=\prod_{\chi\in G}N_\chi^{\dim B}
\end{equation*}
from which \eqref{eq: key equation para v_q} follows by taking
valuations at $q$.
\end{proof}
Each prime $\mathfrak q$ dividing $q$ appears in $\mathcal N_L(B)$ with
the same exponent (see the proof of lemma \ref{lemma: integrality
of the conductor}). This observation together with \eqref{eq: key
equation para v_q} gives a way of computing the local exponents
of $\mathcal N_L(B)$ in terms of the levels $N_\chi$. In almost all cases
\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Atkin-Li} can be used to compute the levels of
the twisted newforms. Under some hypothesis one can also perform
directly the computation, as in the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2}
If $\ord(\varepsilon)\leq 2$ then for all primes $q\neq 2$ we have
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2}
v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+ [L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\,v_q(\f_L)=[L:\Q]\,(\dim
B)\,v_q(N).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all suppose that $v_q(\f_L)=0$. Then for each $\chi\in G
$ we have that $v_q(\f_\chi)=0$ and \eqref{eq: formula ord eps leq
2 q neq 2} follows from \eqref{eq: key equation para v_q} since
$v_q(N_\chi)=v_q(N)$ for all $\chi\in G$ and $|G|=[L:\Q]$.
Suppose now that $v_q(\f_L)\neq 0$. This means that there exists
an element $s\in\Gal(E/F)$ such that $v_q(\f_{\chi_s})\neq 0$. But
$\chi_{s}$ is a quadratic character since the relation $\acc s
f=f\otimes\chi_s$ implies that $\chi_s^2=\acc s
\varepsilon/\varepsilon=1$. So $\chi_{s,q}$, the $q$-primary part
of $\chi_s$, is the unique character of order 2 and conductor a
power of $q$, that we denote by $\xi_q$. Since $\xi_q$ has
conductor $q$ we see that $v_q(\f_L)=1$. For $i=0,1$ define
$G_q^i=\{\chi\in G \,| \chi_q=\xi_q^i \}$. We have that
$G=G_q^0\sqcup G_q^1$ and that the map $\chi\mapsto \chi\chi_s$ is
a bijection between $G_q^0$ and $G_q^1$. Hence
$|G_q^0|=|G_q^1|=|G|/2$. For $\chi\in G_q^0$ we have that
$v_q(\f_\chi)=0$ and $v_q(N_\chi)=v_q(N)$. For $\chi\in G_q^1$ we
have that $v_q(\f_\chi)=1=v_q(\f_L)$ and
$v_q(N_\chi)=v_q(N_{\chi_s})=v_q(N)$, because the level of
$f\otimes\chi_s$ is the level of $\acc s f$ which is $N$. Plugging
all this into \eqref{eq: key equation para v_q} one obtains
\eqref{eq: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma: integrality of the conductor}
$\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$ if and only if $[L:\Q]$ divides
$v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))$ for all rational primes $q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $q$ decomposes in $L$ as $\mathfrak q_1^e\mathfrak
q_2^e\cdots \mathfrak q_g^e$. For each $\sigma\in \Gal(L/\Q)$ we
have that $\acc\sigma B$ is $L$-isogenous to $B$, so
$\mathcal N_L(B)=\mathcal N_L(\acc\sigma B)=\acc\sigma\mathcal N_L(B)$. This means that
if $\mathfrak q_1^n$ exactly divides $\mathcal N_L(B)$ then the rest of
$\mathfrak q_i^n$ also exactly divide $\mathcal N_L(B)$ and then
$v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))=nfg$, where $f$ denotes the residual
degree of $\mathfrak q_i$. Now $\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$ if and
only if for all primes $q$ the exponent $e$ divides $ n$, and
because of the relation $efg=[L:\Q]$ this is equivalent to the
fact that $v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))$ is divisible by $[L:\Q]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: formula conductor nivel ord leq 2}
If $N$ is odd and $\ord(\varepsilon)\leq 2$ then $\mathcal N_L(B)$
belongs to $\Z$ and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\,\dim B}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By lemma \ref{lemma: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2} for each
prime $q$ we have that $v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))$ is multiple of
$[L:\Q]$, and by lemma \ref{lemma: integrality of the conductor}
this implies that $\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$. In consequence,
$N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B))=\mathcal N_L(B)^{[L:\Q]}$, and using this in
\eqref{eq: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2} we have that
$v_q(\mathcal N_L(B))+(\dim B)\,v_q(\f_L)=(\dim B)\, v_q(N).$ Since this
holds for all $q$, the proposition follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If $\dim A_f=2$ and $\ord(\varepsilon)\leq 2$, then either $A_f$
is absolutely simple or it is isogenous over a quadratic number
field $L$ to the square of a $\Q$-curve $B/L$. In the second case it is always true that
$\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$ and $\mathcal N_L(B)\f_L=N$. This follows by
applying Milne's formula to the restriction of scalars of $B$,
for which we have that $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)\sim_\Q A_f$.
\end{remark}
Proposition \ref{prop: formula conductor nivel ord leq 2} might be
seen as a generalization of Carayol's formula
$\mathcal N_\Q(A_f)=N^{\dim A_f}$ for modular abelian varieties. As we
will see this formula does not generalize to arbitrary newforms;
in other words, our hypothesis on the parity of $N$ and on the
order of the character are necessary. However, for modular forms
on $\Gamma_0(N)$ and with arbitrary $N$ it is still true except
for a factor $2$, that appears or not depending on the field $L$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: formula conductor nivel Gamma0}
Suppose that $\varepsilon=1$. Then $\mathcal N_L(B)$ is an integer and
\begin{enumerate}
\item $2\ \mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B}$\ if $v_2(\f_L)=3$ and $v_2(\f_K)=2$ for some $K\subseteq L$.
\item $\mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B}$ \ otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, if $v_2(N)\leq 4$ the second formula holds.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $\varepsilon$ is trivial the character $\chi_s$ is quadratic
for all $s\in \Gal(E/F)$, so that any $\chi\in G$ is quadratic.
Define the set $P_2=\{\chi_2\,|\, \chi\in G\}$, which has cardinal
$\leq 4$ because the set of quadratic characters of conductor a
power of $2$ is isomorphic to $\Z/2\Z\times \Z/2\Z$. Observe that
the condition $v_2(\f_L)=3$ and $v_2(\f_K)=2$ for some $K\subseteq
L$ is equivalent to $|P_2|=4$. We begin by proving the second
formula in the statement, which corresponds to the case $|P_2|\leq
2$.
If $2\nmid \f_L$ then $|P_2|=1$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq: formula v_2 q nmid}
v_2(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+ [L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\,
v_2(\f_L)=[L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\,v_2(N).
\end{equation}
If $2\mid \f_L$, then for each $s\in \Gal(E/F)$ the character
$\chi_{s,2}$ is either trivial or quadratic, so that the set $P_2$
can have cardinal $2$ or $4$. Suppose first that $|P_2|=2$, and
fix an $s$ such that $\chi_{s,2}\in P_2$. Then for $i=0,1$ define
$G_2^i=\{\chi\in G\, | \, \chi_2=\chi_{s,2}^i\}$. Observe that if
$\chi\in G_2^0$ then $v_2(\f_\chi)=0$ and if $\chi\in G_2^1$ then
$v_2(\f_\chi)=v_2(\f_L)$. Moreover, for all $\chi\in G$ we have
that $v_2(N_\chi)=v_2(N)$, since
$v_2(N_\chi)=v_2(N_{\chi_s})=v_2(N)$. Now with the same reasoning
as in lemma \ref{lemma: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2} we find
that \eqref{eq: formula v_2 q nmid} also holds in this case. This,
together with lemma \ref{lemma: formula ord eps leq 2 q neq 2}
implies that the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq: formula for q neq 2 inside a proposition}v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+
[L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\, v_q(\f_L)=[L:\Q]\, (\dim B)\,
v_q(N)\end{equation} is true for all $q$. Arguing as in the proof
of proposition \ref{prop: formula conductor nivel ord leq 2} this
implies the second formula of the statement.
Suppose now that $|P_2|=4$. If we denote by $\xi$ and $\psi$ the
quadratic characters of conductor $8$, then $\xi\psi$ is the
quadratic character of conductor $4$ and
$P_2=\{1,\xi,\psi,\xi\psi\}$. Define $G_\xi=\{\chi\in G \, |\,
\chi_2=\xi\}$, and similarly for the other characters define
$G_{\psi}$, $G_{\xi\psi}$ and $G_1$. Each one of these sets has
cardinal $|G|/4$. If $\chi$ belongs to $G_\xi$ or $G_{\psi}$, then
$v_2(\f_\chi)=3$, while if $\chi$ belongs to $G_{\chi\psi}$ then
$v_2(\f_\chi)=2$. Therefore the relation \eqref{eq: key equation
para v_q} gives
$$v_2(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+2\,(\dim B)\,\left( 2\frac{|G|}{4}+3\frac{|G|}{4}+3\frac{|G|}{4} \right)=|G|\,(\dim B)\,v_2(N),$$
and since now $v_2(\f_L)=3$ we arrive at
$$v_2(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+[L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\,(v_2(\f_L)+1)=[L:\Q]\,(\dim
B)\,v_2(N).$$We see that in this case $v_2(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))$ is
also multiple of $[L:\Q]$. As before, for $q\neq 2$ formula
\eqref{eq: formula for q neq 2 inside a proposition} also holds in
this case, so we conclude that now $2\,\mathcal N_L(B)\,\f_L=N^{\dim B}$.
To prove the last statement, let $s\in \Gal(E/F)$ and let $\chi_s$
be the corresponding quadratic character. Then
$v_2(N_{\chi_s})=v_2(N)$, and if $\varepsilon=1$ and $v_2(N)\leq 4
$ by \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Atkin-Li} this is not possible if the
conductor of $\chi_{s,2}$ is $8$. Therefore $\chi_{s,2}$ is
either trivial or the quadratic character of conductor $4$, and
we see that $|P_2|\leq 2$.
\end{proof}
We remark that the first case in (\ref{prop: formula conductor
nivel Gamma0}) does occur. For instance, let $f$ be the unique (up
to conjugation) normalized newform for $\Gamma_0(512)$ such that
$A_f$ has dimension $4$. Using {\tt Magma} \cite{magma} one can
compute the characters associated to the inner twists of $f$; it
turns out that some of them have conductor divisible by $8$ and
some of them have conductor exactly divisible by $4$ and therefore
$|P_2|=4$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: squarefree}
If $N$ is squarefree then for all primes $q$ dividing $N$ we have
that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))=(\dim B)[L:\Q]$ if
$q\nmid\f_\varepsilon$.
\item $v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))=0$ if $q\mid
\f_\varepsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, $\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq: conductor formula N squarefree}\mathcal N_L(B)\, \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim
B}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $q\nmid\f_\varepsilon$ then $v_q(\f_\chi)=0$ for all $\chi\in
G$ and then the formula follows easily from \eqref{eq: key
equation para v_q}.
Suppose that $q\mid \f_\varepsilon$. Let $s\in\Gal(E/F)$ and let
$\chi_s$ be the character such that $\acc s f=f\otimes\chi_s$.
Observe that $v_q(N)=v_q(N_{\chi_s})$, and by \cite[Theorem
3.1]{Atkin-Li} under our hypothesis this is possible if and only
if $\chi_{s,q}=1$ or $\chi_{s,q}=\varepsilon^{-1}_q$. This means
that for each $\chi\in G$, the character $\chi_q$ is of the form
$\varepsilon_q^i$ for some $i$. In particular,
$v_q(\f_L)=v_q(\f_\varepsilon)$. Let $n=\ord(\varepsilon_q)$, and
for $i=0,\dots,n-1$ define $G_q^i=\{\chi\in G \, | \,
\chi_q=\varepsilon_q^i\}$. The map $\chi\mapsto \chi\varepsilon$
is a bijection between $G_q^i$ and $G_q^{i+1}$, and since
$G=\sqcup_{i=0}^{n-1} G_q^i$ we see that $|G_q^i|=|G|/n$.
If $\chi\in G_q^i$ then $v_q(\f_\chi)=1$ for $i=1,\dots, n-1$,
while $v_q(\f_\chi)=0$ for $i=0$. If $\chi\in G_q^i$ for $i=0,n-1$
then $v_q(N_\chi)=v_q(N)$; if $\chi\in G_q^0$ this is clear, and
if $\chi\in G_q^{n-1}$ this is because
$v_q(N_\chi)=v_q(N_{\varepsilon_q^{-1}})=v_q(N_{\varepsilon^{-1}})=v_q(N)$
since $\overline f=f\otimes\varepsilon^{-1}$. On the other hand,
for the rest of the values $i=2,\dots,n-2$ then $v_q(N_\chi)=2$ if
$\chi\in G_q^i$; this follows from \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Atkin-Li}.
Gathering all this information we can rewrite \ref{eq: key
equation para v_q} in this case as
\begin{equation*}
v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(E)))+2\,(\dim B)\,\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\sum_{\chi\in
G_q^i} v_q(\f_\chi)=(\dim B)\, \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\sum_{\chi\in
G_q^i}v_q(N_\chi),
\end{equation*}
and this gives
$$v_q({N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(E))})+2\,(\dim B)\,\frac{|G|}{n}(n-1)=(\dim
B)\,\left(|G|+\frac{|G|}{n}(n-2)\right),$$ which is directly the
formula for the second case.
Finally, the two formulas in the statement can be written as the
following expression, which is valid for all $q$:
$$v_q(N_{L/\Q}(\mathcal N_L(B)))+[L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\,v_q(\f_L)=[L:\Q]\,(\dim B)\,
v_q(N).$$ This implies that $\mathcal N_L(B)$ belongs to $\Z$ and also
the formula \eqref{eq: conductor formula N squarefree}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Observe that for squarefree $N$ proposition \ref{prop: squarefree}
completely characterizes the places of good reduction of $B$: a
prime $\mathfrak q\mid q$ is a prime of good reduction of $B$ if
and only if $q\nmid N$ or $q\mid \f_\varepsilon$.
\end{remark}
\section{Examples}\label{sec: 4}
In this section we show explicit examples of building blocks of
dimension one and two where we compute their conductors. As in the
rest of the paper, all the newforms we consider are without
complex multiplication.
\subsection{$\Q$-curves}
All the examples in this paragraph come from modular abelian
varieties $A_f$ where the corresponding building block $B$ has
dimension one. An algorithm to compute equations of building
blocks of dimension one is provided by Gonz\'alez and Lario in
\cite{pep-lario}. The equations for the first three examples were
computed using that algorithm, and the equations for examples
\ref{ex64} and \ref{ex81} have been provided by Jordi Quer.
The conductor of these elliptic curves have been computed using
\verb+Magma+.
\begin{example}{\rm
Let $f$ be the unique (up to conjugation) normalized newform of
weight two, level $42$ and Nebentypus of order $2$ and conductor
$21$. We have $\dim A_f=4$ and $L=\Q(\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{-7})$. In
\cite{pep-lario} it is proved that an equation for $B$ is given by
$$
B:y^2=x^3+\frac{81}{4}(69+43\sqrt{-3}+29\sqrt{-7}+17\sqrt{21})x+162(207-84\sqrt{-3}-54\sqrt{-7}+46\sqrt{21}).
$$
We have $\mathcal N_L(B)=2$ and $\mathfrak{f}_L=21$. Therefore we have
that the Proposition \ref{prop: formula conductor nivel ord leq 2}
holds although $N$ is even in this case. }\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex64}{\rm
Let $f$ be the unique (up to conjugation) normalized newform of
weight two, level $64$ and Nebentypus of order $4$ and conductor
$16$. In this case, $A_f$ is an abelian surface and
$L=\Q(\alpha)$, where $\alpha^4-4\alpha^2+2=0$. An equation for
$B$ is
$$
B:y^2=x^3-432(5-8\alpha+14\alpha^2-6\alpha^3)x-864(-124+74\alpha+194\alpha^2-107\alpha^3).
$$
We have $\mathcal N_L(B)=2$ and $\mathfrak{f}_L=16$. Therefore we have
that $2\ \mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B}$. }\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{ex81}{\rm
Let $f$ be the unique (up to conjugation) normalized newform
(without complex multiplication) of weight two, level $81$ and
Nebentypus of order $3$ and conductor $9$. In this case, $\dim
A_f=4$ and $L=\Q(\sqrt{-3},\alpha)$, where $\alpha^3-3\alpha+1=0$.
An equation for the building block is:
$$
B:y^2=x^3-\frac{81}{2}(-54+14\sqrt{-3}+2
(12+5\sqrt{-3})\alpha+(27-7\sqrt{-3})
\alpha^2)x+729(37+19\sqrt{-3}).
$$
We have $\mathcal N_L(B)=3$ and $\mathfrak{f}_L=9$. Therefore we have
that $3\ \mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B}$. }\end{example}
In the above examples the conductors $\mathcal N_L(B)$ turned out to be
rational integers. The following example shows that this is not
always the case.
\begin{example}\label{ex98}{\rm
There are two normalized newforms of weight two, level $98$ and
Nebentypus $\varepsilon$ of order $3$ and conductor $7$ such that
the the associated abelian variety is a surface. In both cases
$L=\Q(\alpha)$, where $\alpha^3 + \alpha^2 - 2\alpha - 1=0$. To
obtain an equation for the building block we are going to proceed
in a different way than above. Let $f$ be one of these two
newforms. Then, $A_f\sim_L B^2$ and by Proposition \ref{Res} we
have that $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)\sim_\Q A_f\times
A_{f\otimes\varepsilon}$. Therefore $\dim
A_{f\otimes\varepsilon}=1$. In particular, $B\sim_L
A_{f\otimes\varepsilon}$. Then, instead of computing an equation
of $B/L$ using the Gonz\'alez-Lario algorithm \cite{pep-lario} we
are going to compute an equation of $A_{f\otimes\varepsilon}$ over
$\Q$. In this case the results of Atkin and Li \cite{Atkin-Li} do
not provide the exact level of $f\otimes\varepsilon$, althought
they assert that the level is a divisor of $98$ of the form
$2\cdot 7^n$. One of the twisted newforms corresponds to the
unique (up to $\Q$-isogeny) elliptic curve defined over $\Q$ of
level $14$ and the other one to the unique (up to $\Q$-isogeny)
elliptic curve defined over $\Q$ of level $98$ (they are labelled
as \verb+14A+ and \verb+98A+ respectively in Cremona's tables
\cite{cremona} or in Antwerp tables \cite{antwerp}). The equations
for these building blocks are:
$$
\begin{array}{crcl}
B_1\,:\, & y^2 + x y + y & = & x^3 + 4 x - 6,\\
B_2\,:\, & y^2 + x y & = & x^3 + x^2 - 25 x - 111.
\end{array}
$$
For $i=1,2$, we have $\mathcal N_L(B_i)= 2 (\alpha^2 - \alpha -
2)^i\cdot\mathcal{O}_L$, which is not an ideal generated by a
rational integer.
}
\end{example}
\subsection{Genus $2$ curves}
In the opposite to the elliptic curve case, there is no
implementation of an algorithm to compute the conductor of a genus
$2$ curve over a number field. For that purpose, Proposition
\ref{cond_local} allows us to compute the conductor of a genus $2$
curve that corresponds to the building block of a modular abelian
variety.
\begin{example}\label{g2_xevi}{\rm
Let $C$ be the genus $2$ curve defined over $\Q(\sqrt{-6})$
defined by
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
C\,:\,y^2= & \!\!\!\!\!(27\sqrt{-6} - 324)x^6 - 15876x^5 + (-7938\sqrt{-6} - 222264)x^4 - 345744x^3 \\
& \!\!+ (-259308\sqrt{-6} + 7260624)x^2 - 16941456x +
941192\sqrt{-6} + 11294304.
\end{array}
$$
The jacobian $B={\rm Jac}(C)$ is a building block with
quaternionic multiplication, and in \cite{guitart-quer} it is
proved that $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)$ is isogenous to a product of modular
abelian varieties over $\Q$, where $L=\Q(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{-3})$. In
fact, there are numerical evidences suggesting that
$\Res_{L/\Q}(B)\sim_\Q A_f^2$, where $f$ is a newform of level
$N=2^8 3^5$ and Nebentypus $\varepsilon$ of order $2$ and
conductor $8$ with $\dim A_f=4$. Assuming this we are going to
prove that $\mathcal N_L(B)=2^{10} 3^8$, and therefore the formula
$\mathcal N_L(B)\ \f_L^{\,\dim B}=N^{\dim B}$ would hold again. The
subfields of $L$ are the quadratic fields $\Q(\sqrt{2})$,
$\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ and $\Q(\sqrt{-6})$, and they correspond to the
non-trivial homomorphisms from $G$ to $\C^\times$. Therefore the
conductors of these quadratic fields correspond to the conductors
of the non-trivial elements at $G$. On the other hand, by the
decomposition of $\Res_{L/\Q}(B)$ given above and by \cite[Theorem
3.1]{Atkin-Li} we have that $N_\chi=N$ for all $\chi\in G$. Now,
Proposition \ref{cond_local} at the primes $q=2$ and $q=3$ give
us the stated conductor of $B$ over $L$. }\end{example}
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank A. Brumer for useful discussion on conductors of abelian
varieties and J. Quer for providing us equations for some of the
examples of Section \ref{sec: 4}.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is not yet known how quantum theory and gravity will be reconciled.
However, the four-dimensional nature of reality revealed by our best
theory of gravity, General Relativity, suggests that unity in physics
will only be achieved if quantum theory can be founded on the concept of
{\emph{ history}} rather than that of {\emph{state}}. The same
suggestion emerges even more emphatically from the causal set programme,
whose characteristic kind of spatio-temporal discreteness militates
strongly against any dynamics resting on the idea of Hamiltonian evolution.
A major step toward a histories-based formulation of quantum mechanics
was taken by Dirac and Feynman, showing that the quantum-mechanical
propagator can be expressed as a {\emph{sum over histories}}
\cite{Dirac:1933,Feynman:1948,FeynmanHibbs},
but it remains a challenge to make histories the foundational basis of
quantum mechanics. One attempt to do this was made by J. Hartle who
set out new, histories-based axioms for
{\emph{Generalised Quantum Mechanics}} (GQM) which do not require the
existence of a Hilbert space of states \cite{Hartle1, Hartle2}.
Closely related in its technical
aspects --- whilst differing in interpretational aspiration --- is
{\emph{Quantum Measure Theory}} (QMT)
\cite{QuantumMeasure1, QuantumMeasure2, QuantMeasureInterp1, QuantMeasureInterp2}.
Thus far, both these approaches appear in the literature more as formal
axiomatic systems than as fully fledged mathematical physics,
although some concrete examples going beyond ordinary quantum mechanics
have been studied \cite{SorkinWalk}.
In this paper we take a step toward establishing QMT
and GQM more firmly on their foundations and
connecting them up with the more familiar formalism of state-vectors
and operators.
First we demonstrate in detail the Gel'fand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) type
construction given in \cite{SorkinWalk} of a
{\it History Hilbert space}
for any quantum measure system (to be defined).
It is technically helpful within quantum measure theory
that such a construction is available,
but the conceptual significance of this fact would be slight,
were it not that the constructed Hilbert space provably {\emph{is}} the
usual Hilbert space in the case of certain familiar quantum systems
(via an isomorphism that obtains formally in any unitary quantum theory
with pure initial state).
In this paper we exhibit non-relativistic particle quantum mechanics in
$d$ spatial dimensions as a quantum measure system, and we prove that
the Hilbert space constructed from the quantum measure is the usual
Hilbert space of (equivalence classes of) square integrable complex
functions on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, given certain conditions on the
propagator.
The class of systems for which these conditions can be
established is large and includes the free particle and the simple
harmonic oscillator.
Thus, one of the main ingredients of text-book Copenhagen Quantum
Mechanics is derivable from the starting point of histories.
\section{Quantum Measure Theory: a histories-based framework}
\label{HistoriesIntro}
We describe here the framework set out in \cite{QuantumMeasure1,
QuantumMeasure2, QuantMeasureInterp1, QuantMeasureInterp2}. In
QMT, a physical, quantum system is associated with
a \emph{sample space} $\Omega$ of possible \emph{histories},
the space over which the integration of the path integral takes place.
Each history $\gamma$ in the sample space represents as complete a
description of physical reality as is
classically
conceivable in the theory.
The kind of elements in $\Omega$ varies from theory to theory.
In $n$-particle quantum mechanics, a history is a set of $n$
trajectories. In a scalar field theory, a history is a real or complex
function on spacetime.
The business of discovering the appropriate sample space
for a particular theory is part of physics. Even in the seemingly
simple case of non-relativistic particle quantum mechanics, we do not
yet know what properties the trajectories in $\Omega$ should possess,
not to mention the knotty problems involved in defining $\Omega$ for
fermionic field theories for example. We will be able to sidestep
these issues in the current work.
\subsection{Event Algebra}
Once the sample space has been settled upon, any proposition about
physical reality is represented by a subset of $\Omega$. For example
in the case of the non-relativistic particle, if $R$ is a region of
space and $T$ a time, the proposition ``the particle is in $R$ at time
$T$'' corresponds to the set of all trajectories which pass through
$R$ at $T$. We follow the standard terminology of stochastic
processes and refer to such subsets of $\Omega$ as \emph{events}.
An \emph{event algebra} on a sample space $\Omega$ is a non-empty
collection, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, of subsets of $\Omega$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we have $\Omega\setminus \alpha \in
\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$.
\item For any $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we have $\alpha \cup \beta \in
\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$.
\end{enumerate}
An event algebra is then an algebra of sets
\cite{Halmos}. It
follows immediately that $\varnothing \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, $\Omega \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
($\varnothing$ is the empty set) and
$\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is closed under finite unions and intersections.
An event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is a Boolean algebra under intersection
(logical ``and''), union (logical ``or'') and complement (logical
``not'') with unit element $\Omega$ and
zero element
$\varnothing$. It is also a (unital) ring with identity element
$\Omega$, multiplication as intersection and addition as symmetric
difference (logical ``xor''):
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha \cdot \beta := \alpha \cap \beta$.
\item $\alpha + \beta := (\alpha \setminus \beta) \cup (\beta \setminus
\alpha).$
\end{enumerate}
This ring is Boolean since $\alpha \cdot \alpha =
\alpha$. It is also an algebra over $\mathbb{Z}_2$.
More discussion of the event algebra is given in
\cite{QuantMeasureInterp2}.
An example of an event algebra is the power set $2^\Omega:=\{ S : S
\subseteq \Omega\}$ of all subsets of $\Omega$.
For physical systems with an infinite sample space,
however,
the event algebra will be strictly contained in the power set of $\Omega$,
something which is familiar from classical measure theory\footnote{%
To contrast with \emph{quantum} measure theory, the usual textbook
measure theory (see Halmos, \cite{Halmos}) will be called
``classical''.}
where the collection of ``measurable sets'' is not the whole power set.
If $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is also closed under countable unions and intersections then
$\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is a $\sigma${\emph{-algebra}}.
\subsection{Decoherence Functional} \label{DecoherenceFunctional}
A \emph{decoherence functional} on an event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is a map $D
: \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \times \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \to \mathbb{C}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we have $D(\alpha,\beta) =
D(\beta,\alpha)^*$ (\emph{Hermiticity}).
\item For all $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ with $\beta \cap \gamma
= \varnothing$, we have $D(\alpha, \beta \cup \gamma) = D(\alpha,
\beta) + D(\alpha,\gamma)$ (\emph{Linearity}).
\item $D(\Omega, \Omega)=1$ (\emph{Normalisation}).
\item For any finite collection of events $\alpha_i \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
($i=1,\ldots,N$) the $N \times N$ matrix $D(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)$ is
positive semidefinite (\emph{Strong positivity}).
\end{enumerate}
A decoherence functional $D$ satisfying the weaker condition
$D(\alpha,\alpha) \geq 0$ for all $\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is called
\emph{positive}. Note that in Generalised Quantum Mechanics,
a decoherence functional is defined to be positive
rather than strongly positive \cite{Hartle1, Hartle2}.
A \emph{quantal measure} on an event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
is a map $\mu: \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \to \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we have $\mu(\alpha) \geq 0$
(\emph{Positivity}).
\item For all mutually disjoint $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we
have
\begin{equation*}
\fl \mu(\alpha \cup \beta \cup \gamma) - \mu(\alpha \cup \beta) -
\mu(\beta \cup \gamma) - \mu(\alpha \cup \gamma) +\mu(\alpha) +
\mu(\beta) + \mu(\gamma) = 0\,.
\end{equation*}
({\emph{Quantal Sum Rule}})
\item $\mu(\Omega)=1$ (\emph{Normalisation}).
\end{enumerate}
If $D : \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \times \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \to \mathbb{C}$ is a decoherence functional
then the map $\mu : \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \to \mathbb{R}$ defined by
$\mu(\alpha):=D(\alpha,\alpha)$ is a quantal measure.
A triple, $(\Omega, \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle, D)$, of sample space, event algebra and
decoherence functional will be called a {\emph{quantum measure system}}.
\subsection{A Hilbert Space Construction}
Given a quantum measure system, $(\Omega, \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle, D)$, we can construct a
Hilbert space: a complex vector space with (non-degenerate) Hermitian
inner product which is complete with respect to the induced norm.
This construction is given in \cite{SorkinWalk} and is
essentially that given by V.P. Belavkin in
\cite[Theorem 3, Part 1]{Belavkin} where the decoherence functional is
called a ``correlation kernel''.
The construction is akin to the GNS construction
of a Hilbert space from a $C^*$-algebra and is the same as the
construction appearing in
Kolmogorov's Dilation Theorem \cite[Theorem 2.2]{Dutkay}, \cite{EvansLewis}.
To start, we first construct the free vector space on $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ and use the
decoherence functional to define a degenerate inner product on it.
\subsubsection{Inner product space: $H_1$} \label{sec:h1}
To define the \emph{free vector space} on an event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ we
start with the set of all complex-valued functions on $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
which are non-zero only on a finite number of events. This set becomes
a vector space, $H_1$, if addition and scalar multiplication are
defined by:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $u, v \in H_1$ and $\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we have
$(u+v)(\alpha) := u(\alpha) + v(\alpha)$.
\item For all $u \in H_1$, $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ and $\alpha \in
\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, we have $(\lambda u)(\alpha):=\lambda u(\alpha)$.
\end{enumerate}
We now define an inner product space $(H_1,\IP_1)$ by defining a
degenerate inner product on $H_1$ using the decoherence functional
$D$. For $u,v \in H_1$ define: \begin{equation} \langle u, v \rangle_1 :=
\sum_{\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle}\sum_{\beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle} u(\alpha)^* D(\alpha,\beta)
v(\beta).\end{equation} This sum is well-defined because $u$ and $v$ are non-zero
for only a finite number of events. This satisfies the conditions
for an inner product. Note that the strong positivity of the
decoherence functional is essential for $\langle u, u \rangle_1 \geq 0$.
To see that the inner product is degenerate consider, for example, the
non-zero vector $u \in H_1$ defined by: \begin{equation} u(x) :=
\left\{\begin{array}{rl} 1 & \textrm{if } x = \alpha, \\ 1 &
\textrm{if } x = \beta, \\ -1 & \textrm{if } x = \alpha \cup \beta, \\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}\end{array} \right.\end{equation} for
two nonempty, disjoint events $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. By applying the
properties of the decoherence functional we see that $||u||_1 = 0$.
\subsubsection{Hilbert space: $H_2$}\label{sec:h2}
We now quotient and complete the inner product space $(H_1,\IP_1)$ to form a
Hilbert space $(H_2,\IP_2)$.
For two Cauchy sequences $\{u_n\},\{v_n\}$ in $H_1$ we define an
equivalence relation \begin{equation} \label{eq:EquivRelation1} \{u_n\} \sim_1
\{v_n\} \iff \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} ||u_n - v_n||_1 = 0.\end{equation} We
denote the $\sim_1$ equivalence class of a Cauchy sequence $\{u_n\}$
by $[u_n]_1$. The set of these equivalence classes form a Hilbert
space, $(H_2,\IP_2)$, if addition, scalar multiplication and the inner
product are defined by:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $[u_n]_1, [v_n]_1 \in H_1$, we have $[u_n]_1 +
[v_n]_1:=[u_n + v_n]_1.$
\item For all $[u_n]_1 \in H_1$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$, we have
$\lambda[u_n]_1 :=[ \lambda u_n]_1.$
\item For all $[u_n]_1, [v_n]_1 \in H_1$, we have \begin{equation}
\label{eq:HilbInnerProd2} \langle [u_n]_1, [v_n]_1 \rangle_2 :=
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \langle u_n, v_n \rangle_1\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
These are all well-defined, independent of which representative is
chosen from the equivalence classes.
The construction of a Hilbert space (here $(H_2,\IP_2)$) from an inner
product space (here $(H_1,\IP_1)$)
is a standard
operation described in many textbooks
(for example, \cite[Section 7]{Geroch}, \cite[p198]{Binmore}).
Whether or not $H_2$ is separable depends on the particular event
algebra and decoherence functional that are used in its
construction\footnote{The dimension of $H_1$ is equal to the
cardinality of $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ but the dimension of $H_2$, which is less than
that of $H_1$, depends on the $\sim_1$ equivalence relation (which in
turn depends on $D$).}. In Sections \ref{FiniteSampleSpace},
\ref{Particle} and \ref{ParticlePotential} we shall present systems
for which the constructed Hilbert space is isomorphic to a separable
Hilbert space (the standard Hilbert space for the system). In these
examples the constructed Hilbert space is therefore separable.
Note that we did not use the full structure of the quantum measure
system: only the event algebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ and the decoherence functional
$D$ were used and nowhere did the underlying sample space enter into
the game. This will be important in our discussion of particle
quantum mechanics where there is an event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ but we have no
precise definition, as yet, of the sample space.
We will refer to the Hilbert space, $H_2$, constructed from a quantum
measure system as the {\emph{History Hilbert space}}.
For quantum systems which have a standard, Copenhagen formulation in
terms of unitary evolution on a Hilbert space of states
and which can {\emph {also}} be cast
into the form of a quantum measure system, the question arises
as to the
relationship between the standard Hilbert space and the History
Hilbert space.
This is the question under study in this paper and
it will be shown that in general the answer depends on the
initial state and the Schr\"odinger dynamics for the system
since these are what define the decoherence functional.
However, we conjecture that {\emph{generically}}
where both Hilbert
spaces exist and the decoherence
functional encodes a pure initial state,
they are isomorphic. Moreover the isomorphism is
physically meaningful, so that one can conclude that the History
Hilbert space {\emph{is}} the standard Hilbert space of the system.
We will prove this conjecture for a variety of non-relativistic
particle systems and exhibit the isomorphism explicitly.
The systems considered include a particle with a
finite configuration space, a free non-relativistic particle in $d$ spatial
dimensions, and a non-relativistic particle in various backgrounds,
including a quadratic potential and an infinite potential barrier.
Before turning to these specific cases, we recall the following simple
lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:OneToOne} A linear map $f : H_A \to H_B$
from a Hilbert space $(H_A,\IP_A)$ to a Hilbert space $(H_B, \IP_B)$
that preserves the inner product, {\emph{i.e.}}
\begin{equation} \langle f(u), f(v) \rangle_B = \langle u, v \rangle_A \end{equation} for all
$u,v \in H_A$, is one-to-one.
\begin{proof}
For all $u,v \in H_A$ we have
\begin{equation} \fl f(v) = f(u) \iff 0 = ||f(u) -
f(v)||_B = ||f(u-v)||_B = ||u - v||_A \iff u = v \end{equation}
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\section{Finite Configuration Space} \label{FiniteSampleSpace}
We analyse the case of a unitary quantum system with finite
configuration space as a warm up for the system of main interest,
particle quantum mechanics.
Consider a system which has a finite configuration space of $n$
possible configurations at any time. We shall only consider the system's
configuration
at a finite number $N$ of fixed times
$t_1 = 0 < t_2 < \ldots < t_N = T$.
An example of such a system is a particle with $n$
possible positions at each time which evolves in $N-1$ discrete
time-steps from time $t=0$ to time $t=T$.
\subsection{Standard Hilbert space approach}
The Hilbert space for the system is $(\mathbb{C}^n,\IP)$
and states of the system
at a particular time are represented by vectors in $\mathbb{C}^n$. For
a state $\psi \in \mathbb{C}^n$ the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ component,
$\psi_i$, is the amplitude that the system is in configuration $i$.
For all $\psi, \phi \in \mathbb{C}^n$
the non-degenerate inner product is given by \begin{equation} \langle \psi,
\phi\rangle:= \sum_{i=1}^n \psi^*_i \phi_i. \end{equation}
There exists a time evolution operator, $U(t',t)$,
a unitary transformation
which evolves states at time $t$ to states at time $t'$
and which satisfies the folding property
\begin{equation}
U(t'',t')U(t',t) = U(t'', t)\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{A Quantum Measure System}
Each history, $\gamma$, of the system is represented by an $N$-tuple of integers
$\gamma = (\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_N)$
(with $1 \leq \gamma_a \leq n$ for all
$a=1,\ldots,N$) where each integer $\gamma_a$ denotes the configuration of
the system at time $t=t_a$. The system's sample space, $\Omega$, is
the (finite) collection of these $n^N$ possible histories. The
event algebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, is the power set of $\Omega$: $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle := 2^\Omega =
\{ S : S \subseteq \Omega\} $.
To define the decoherence functional we assume there is an initial
state $\psi \in \mathbb{C}^n$ of unit norm. This can be thought of
as a vector in $\mathbb{C}^n$ or simply as an $n$-tuple of amplitudes
weighting each initial configuration at time $t=0$.
The decoherence functional for singleton events is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber D(\{\gamma\}, \{\bar{\gamma}\}) &:= \psi(\gamma_1)^* U_{\gamma_2 \gamma_1}^* U_{\gamma_3\gamma_2}^*
\dots U_{\gamma_N\gamma_{N-1}}^*{~} \\ & \delta_{\gamma_N \bar{\gamma}_N}
U_{\bar{\gamma}_N\bar{\gamma}_{N-1}} \dots U_{\bar{\gamma}_2 \bar{\gamma}_1} \psi(\bar{\gamma}_1)
\label{dcfsingle.eq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma,\bar{\gamma}\in \Omega$, $\psi(\gamma_1)$ is the $\gamma_1$-th
component of $\psi$
and $U_{\gamma_2 \gamma_1}$ is short hand for
$U(t_2, t_1)_{\gamma_2 \gamma_1}$, the amplitude to go from
$\gamma_1$ at $t_1$ to $\gamma_2$ at $t_2$.
$D$ has ``Schwinger-Kel'dysh'' form, equalling the complex conjugated
amplitude of $\gamma$ times the amplitude of ${\bar{\gamma}}$ when
the two histories end at the same final position, and zero otherwise.
The decoherence functional of events $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
is then fixed by the bi-additivity property:
\begin{equation}
D(\alpha,\beta): = \sum_{\gamma\in \alpha} \sum_{\bar{\gamma}\in\beta}
D(\{\gamma\}, \{\bar{\gamma}\})\,.
\end{equation}
We define the {\emph{restricted evolution}}
of the initial state $\psi \in \mathbb{C}^n$
with respect to a history $\gamma$
to be the state $\psi_\gamma \in \mathbb{C}^n$
given by:
\begin{equation}
\psi_\gamma := P^{\gamma_N} U(t_N,t_{N-1}) P^{\gamma_{N-1}}\cdots
P^{\gamma_3}U(t_3,t_2) P^{\gamma_2} U(t_2,t_1) P^{\gamma_1}\psi
\end{equation}
where $P^i$ is the projection operator in $\mathbb{C}^n$ that projects
onto the state which is non-zero only on the $i$th configuration.
[Thus $\psi_\gamma$ is just the configuration $\gamma_N$ weighted by the
amplitude $U_{\gamma_N\gamma_{N-1}}\dots U_{\gamma_2 \gamma_1}\psi(\gamma_1)$.]
Restricted evolution of the initial state with respect to an event
$\alpha$ is then defined to be the state $\psi_\alpha \in \mathbb{C}^n$
\begin{equation}
\psi_\alpha := \sum_{\gamma \in \alpha} \psi_\gamma. \end{equation}
Note that $\psi_\gamma = \psi_{\{\gamma\}}$, so we can use
either notation when an event is a singleton.
It is easy to see that
the decoherence functional for two events $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is
equal to the inner product between the two restricted
evolution states, $\psi_\alpha$ and $\psi_\beta$:
\begin{equation}\label{dcf} D(\alpha,\beta):= \langle \psi_\alpha, \psi_\beta \rangle. \end{equation}
\subsection{Isomorphism}
We now look at conditions on the initial state and evolution of the
system that ensure the History Hilbert space $(H_2,\IP_2)$ is
isomorphic to $(\mathbb{C}^n, \IP)$.
For this system both the sample space and event algebra are
finite
so the inner product space $(H_1,\IP_1)$ is finite dimensional and
therefore complete but with a degenerate inner product. In this
case there is no need to consider Cauchy sequences of
elements of $H_1$. Instead, we define the equivalence relation
directly on $H_1$: $u\sim_1 v$ if $||u - v||_1 = 0$. And
$H_2$ is defined as $H_2 := H_1/\sim_1$ the
space of equivalence classes, $[u]_1$ under $\sim_1$.
For all $u, v \in H_1$, we have by (\ref{dcf})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FiniteInnerProdContinuity} \langle [u]_1,[v]_1
\rangle_2 := \langle u, v
\rangle_1.
\end{equation}
It will prove useful to define a map $f_0 : H_1 \to \mathbb{C}^n$
given by \begin{equation} f_0(u):= \sum_{\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle} u(\alpha) \psi_{\alpha},
\end{equation} for all $u \in H_1$. This sum is well-defined since $u(\alpha)$ is
non-zero for only a finite number of $\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. This $f_0$ is linear and,
for all $u, v \in H_1$, we have \begin{equation}
\label{eq:FiniteInnerprod} \langle f_0(u), f_0(v) \rangle = \langle u,
v \rangle_1, \end{equation} which ensures
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FiniteEquiv} [u ]_1 = [v]_1
\Rightarrow f_0(u) = f_0(v). \end{equation}
Using the map $f_0$ we define the candidate isomorphism $f : H_2 \to
\mathbb{C}^n$ by \begin{equation} \label{eq:FiniteFMap} f([u]_1) := f_0(u),\end{equation} for
all $[u]_1 \in H_2$. By \eref{eq:FiniteEquiv}, $f$ is well-defined,
independent of the equivalence class representative chosen.
The map $f$ is linear and \eref{eq:FiniteInnerProdContinuity} and
\eref{eq:FiniteInnerprod} ensure that for all $[u]_1, [v]_1 \in H_2$,
we have: \begin{equation} \label{eq:FiniteInnerProductPreserving}\langle f([u]_1),
f([v]_1) \rangle = \langle [u]_1, [v]_1 \rangle_2.\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:OneToOne}, since $f$ is linear and satisfies
\eref{eq:FiniteInnerProductPreserving}, it is one-to-one. If we can
find a condition on the initial state and dynamics that ensures the
map $f$ is onto then it is the isomorphism we seek.
\begin{theorem}[Onto] \label{the:FiniteOnto}
Let the evolution operators $U(t',t)$ and initial state $\psi \in
\mathbb{C}^n$ be such that, for each configuration $j=1,\ldots,n$ at
the final time, there exists a history ending at $j$,
$\gamma^j = (\gamma^j_1,\gamma^j_2,\ldots,\gamma^j_{N-1},j) \in \Omega$,
with non-zero amplitude. In other words, the $j$-th component of
the restricted evolution of the initial state with respect to
history $\gamma^j$ is non-zero: $(\psi_{\gamma^j})_j \neq 0$. Then the map $f$ is onto.
\begin{proof}
For each $j$ choose a history $\gamma^j \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ such that $(\psi_{\gamma^j})_j \neq
0$ (note that $\psi_{\gamma^j}$ is only non-zero in the $j$-th component). Let $\phi \in \mathbb{C}^n$ be a vector we wish to map to.
Define $u \in H_1$ by \begin{equation} u(x) := \left\{\begin{array}{rl}
\phi_j/(\psi_{\gamma^j})_j & \textrm{if } x = \{\gamma^j\} \textrm{ for }
j=1,\ldots,n, \\ 0 & \textrm{otherwise.}\end{array} \right.\end{equation} This is
a well-defined vector in $H_1$ and satisfies $f([u]_1) = \phi$. Hence
$f$ is onto.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
An example of a case in which $H_2$ is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^n$
is if the initial state has support only on a single
configuration, $k$, and the evolution is trivial, $U(t,t') = 1$.
Then the only configuration at the final time with nonzero
amplitude is $k$ and the History Hilbert space is one dimensional,
not $\mathbb{C}^n$. Another example is if the evolution is ``local'' on the
lattice, so that after the first time step, only $k$ and $k\pm 1$ say
have nonzero amplitude. Then the dimension of the History Hilbert space
will depend on the number of time steps and will grow with $N$ until it
reaches $n$ after which it will be constant.
\section{Particle in $d$ dimensions} \label{Particle}
We turn now to a less trivial system, that of
a non-relativistic particle moving in $d$ dimensions.
\subsection{Hilbert space approach}
We recall some basic technology in order to
fix our notation. The Hilbert space for the system
is $(L^2(\mathbb{R}^d),\IP)$. In order to define this,
we first define the inner product space
$(\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d),\IP_0)$, the space of square
integrable
functions $\psi : \mathbb{R}^d \to
\mathbb{C}$.
For all $\psi,\phi \in
\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ a degenerate inner product is given by
\begin{equation} \langle \psi,\phi\rangle_0 := \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}
\psi^*(\mathbf{x}) \phi(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}. \end{equation} To see that the
inner product is degenerate consider any vector $\psi \in
\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ which is non-zero only on a set of
measure zero. Although $\psi \neq 0$, we have $||\psi||_0
= 0$.
For two vectors $\psi, \phi \in \mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$
define the equivalence relation $\sim$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ParticleEquivDef}
\psi \sim \phi \iff ||\psi - \phi||_0 = 0.\end{equation}
The $\sim$ equivalence
class of $\psi \in \mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ will be denoted by
$[\psi]$. The set of all equivalence classes forms the Hilbert space
$(L^2(\mathbb{R}^d),\IP)$
where, for all $[\psi], [\phi] \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$, $\langle
[\psi],[\phi]\rangle := \langle \psi,\phi\rangle_0$.
State vectors for the particle at a fixed time are vectors
in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
\subsection{Quantum Measure System}
The sample space of the system, $\Omega$, is the set of all
continuous\footnote{We choose continuous maps for definiteness but
recognise that the correct sample space may
have more refined continuity conditions or even be something more
general. The results of our work will
remain applicable so long as the actual event algebra contains
a subalgebra isomorphic to the $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ we define here and
on which the measure is defined by the propagator
in the same --- standard --- way.}
maps $\gamma : [0,T] \to \mathbb{R}^d$. These maps represent the
trajectory of the particle from an initial time $t=0$ to a final
``truncation time'' $t=T$.
Introducing a truncation time $T$ seems necessary for the construction
undertaken below, which produces the quantal measure for the
corresponding subalgebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_T\subseteq\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. This limitation to a
subalgebra of the full event algebra is only apparent, however, because
$\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is the union of the $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_T$, and the measure of an event $A\in\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
does not depend on which subalgebra we refer it to. In section
\ref{InfTime} we explain this in detail for the case of unitary theories
such as we are concerned with in the present paper.
\subsubsection{Event algebra}
The event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ we now define is strictly contained in the power
set $2^\Omega$.
Let $N$ be any positive integer, $N \ge 2$.
Let $\mathbf{t} = (t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_N)$ be
any $N$-tuple of real numbers with $0 = t_1 < t_2 < \ldots < t_N = T$
and $\bm{\alpha} = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_N)$
any $N$-tuple of subsets of $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that,
for each $k=1,\ldots,N$,
either $\alpha_k$ or its complement $\alpha_k^c$ is a bounded Lebesgue measurable set.
A subset $\alpha \subseteq \Omega$ is called a
\emph{homogeneous event}\footnote%
{Alternative names include elementary event, regular event or cylinder set.}
\cite{Isham}
if there exists an integer $N$ and a pair
$(\textbf{t}, \bm{\alpha})$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:HomoDefn}
\alpha = \{ \gamma \in \Omega : \gamma(t_k) \in \alpha_k, k=1,\ldots,N \}.
\end{equation}
Each $\alpha_k$
can be thought of as a condition on the system, a restriction on
the position of the particle, at time $t_k$.
We represent a homogeneous event
by the pair $(\textbf{t},\bm{\alpha})$. This representation is
non-unique because, for example, the same
homogeneous event $\alpha$ is represented by the pairs
\begin{equation} \textbf{t} := (t_1,t_2,t_3), \quad \bm{\alpha}:=
(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3),\end{equation} and \begin{equation} \textbf{t}' :=
(t_1,t_2,t',t_3), \quad \bm{\alpha}' :=
(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\mathbb{R}^d, \alpha_3).\end{equation}
The event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is defined to be
the collection of all finite unions of
homogeneous events. Any event $\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
which is not a homogeneous event will be called \emph{inhomogeneous}.
We can better understand the structure of the event algebra if we
consider a few set operations in it.
Abusing notation slightly we'll represent a homogeneous event $\alpha$
(with representation $(\bm{t},\bm{\alpha})$) by its ordered collection
of sets:
$\alpha = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_N)$.
The complement of $\alpha$ is then a finite union of $2^N-1$ disjoint
homogeneous events.
For example for $\alpha = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \alpha^c &= (\alpha^c_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3) \cup (\alpha_1,\alpha^c_2,\alpha_3) \cup (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha^c_3)\\&
\nonumber \cup (\alpha^c_1,\alpha^c_2,\alpha_3) \cup (\alpha^c_1,\alpha_2,\alpha^c_3) \cup (\alpha_1,\alpha^c_2,\alpha^c_3) \cup (\alpha^c_1,\alpha^c_2,\alpha^c_3)\end{eqnarray}
where $^c$ denotes set-complement.
The intersection of two homogeneous events $\alpha = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_N), \beta = (\beta_1,\beta_2,\ldots,\beta_N)$
(which, by adding extra copies of $\mathbb{R}^d$ as needed, can be assumed to have the same time-sequence $\bm{t}$)
is the homogeneous event $\alpha \cap \beta = (\alpha_1 \cap \beta_1,\alpha_2\cap \beta_2,\ldots,\alpha_N\cap \beta_N)$.
These two properties say that the homogeneous events form a
\emph{semiring} and ensure that for two homogeneous events $\alpha$
and $\beta$ the event $\alpha \setminus \beta = \alpha \cap \beta^c$
is a finite union of disjoint homogeneous events.
This means that a finite union of homogeneous events can be re-expressed
as a finite union of \emph{disjoint} homogeneous events.
As an example consider the event
$\alpha = \alpha_H^1 \cup \alpha_H^2 \cup \alpha_H^3$
for three homogeneous events
$\alpha_H^A$ ($A=1,2,3$). We can define three disjoint events
$\bar{\alpha}^A$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:HomogeneousDisjoint1}
\bar{\alpha}^1 =
\alpha_H^1,\quad \bar{\alpha}^2:=\alpha_H^2 \setminus
\alpha_H^1,\quad \bar{\alpha}^3:=(\alpha_H^3 \setminus
\alpha_H^1) \cap (\alpha_H^3 \setminus \alpha_H^2).\end{equation}
Now, from the remarks above,
\begin{equation}
\alpha_H^2 \setminus \alpha_H^1 =
\bigcup_{i=1}^{N_1} \beta_1^i, \quad \alpha_H^3 \setminus \alpha_H^1
= \bigcup_{j=1}^{N_2} \beta_2^j, \quad
\alpha_H^3 \setminus \alpha_H^2 = \bigcup_{k=1}^{N_3} \beta_3^k,
\end{equation}
where $\beta^i_1, \beta^j_2, \beta^k_3$ are homogeneous events
such that $\beta_A^i \cap \beta_A^{i'} = \varnothing$ if $i \neq i'$
(for $A=1,2,3$ and $i,i'=1,\ldots,N_A$).
We therefore have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:HomogeneousDisjoint2}
\alpha &= \bar{\alpha}^1 \cup
\bar{\alpha}^2 \cup \bar{\alpha}^3 = \alpha_H^1
\cup \left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{N_1} \beta_1^i\right) \cup
\left(\left(\bigcup_{j=1}^{N_2} \beta_2^j \right) \cap
\left( \bigcup_{k=1}^{N_3} \beta_3^k \right)\right)\\ &\nonumber =
\alpha_H^1 \cup \left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{N_1}
\beta_1^i\right) \cup \left(\bigcup_{j=1}^{N_2} \bigcup_{k=1}^{N_3}
\beta_2^j \cap \beta_3^k \right)\end{eqnarray}
which expresses $\alpha$ as a finite union of \emph{mutually
disjoint} homogeneous events---namely $\alpha_H^1,
\beta_1^i$ ($i=1,\ldots,N_1$) and $\beta_2^j \cap \beta_3^k$
($j=1,\ldots,N_2, k=1,\ldots,N_3$). The procedure
followed in this example extends without difficulty to $M>3$
homogeneous events but with an associated
proliferation of notation.
(For representing such relationships, the Boolean-algebraic notation can
be quite expressive. For example, the essence of
\eref{eq:HomogeneousDisjoint1}-\eref{eq:HomogeneousDisjoint2}
is the disjoint decomposition, for any three events,
$\alpha\cup\beta\cup\gamma=\alpha+(1+\alpha)\beta+(1+\alpha)(1+\beta)\gamma$.
Notice here that $1+\alpha$ is the complement of $\alpha$, as is clearly
visible in the calculation,
$\alpha\cap(1+\alpha)\equiv\alpha(1+\alpha)=\alpha+\alpha^2=\alpha+\alpha=0$.)
The event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ defined here is an algebra but not a
$\sigma$-algebra. We allow only a finite number of times when defining
a homogeneous event which means $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is closed under finite
unions but not under countable unions. In
Section \ref{ParticleDecoherence}, a decoherence functional will be
defined on $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. It is not clear whether this definition can be
\emph{extended} to define a decoherence functional on the
full $\sigma$-algebra (of subsets of $\Omega$) generated by $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$.
For this
to be done it would require a ``fundamental theorem of quantum
measure theory'' analogous to the Carath\'{e}odory-Kolmogorov Extension Theorem
for classical measures (Theorem A, p. 54 of \cite{Halmos})
\subsubsection{Decoherence functional} \label{ParticleDecoherence}
Let $\psi \in \mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be the normalised initial
state, then the decoherence functional for singleton events is given
formally by
\begin{equation}
D(\{\gamma\}, \{\bar{\gamma}\}) := \,\, \psi(\gamma(0))^* e^{-i S[\gamma]}
\delta(\gamma(T)-\bar{\gamma}(T)) e^{iS[\bar{\gamma}]} \psi(\bar{\gamma}(0)) \,.
\end{equation}
By bi-additivity, the decoherence functional
for events $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
is then given by the double path integral:
\begin{equation} \label{dcf4qm}
D(\alpha, \beta) := \,\,
\int_{\gamma\in \alpha} [d\gamma]\int_{\bar{\gamma} \in \beta}[d\bar{\gamma}]
D(\{\gamma\}, \{\bar{\gamma}\}) \,.
\end{equation}
All these formulae are, as yet, only formal.
We do not
know rigorously
what $\Omega$ is,
whether the singleton subsets of $\Omega$ are measureable,
or how to define the integration-measure $[d\gamma]$.
Indeed, one might anticipate that, as with Wiener measure, neither
$e^{iS[\gamma]}$ nor $[d\gamma]$ can be defined separately, and only
their combination in (\ref{dcf4qm}) will exist mathematically.
Nonetheless, we can make sense of the decoherence functional
(\ref{dcf4qm}) on $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ because the form of the events --- unions of
homogeneous events --- allows us to equate the path integrals in
(\ref{dcf4qm}) to well-defined expressions involving the
\emph{propagator}.
The propagator is a function\footnote{The propagator may in general be
a distribution, as in the case of a simple harmonic oscillator example
in Section \ref{sec:ParticleExamples}.}
$K(\mathbf{x}',t'|\mathbf{x},t)$ that encodes the dynamics of the
particle. We assume that the dynamics of the system is unitary.
We define the restricted evolution of $\psi \in
\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ according to a homogeneous event $\alpha
\in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ (with representation $\mathbf{t} = (t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_N)$
and $\bm{\alpha} = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_N)$) to be
$\psi_\alpha$ given by
\begin{eqnarray} \psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x}_T,T) &:=
\chi_{\alpha_N}(\mathbf{x}_T) \int_{\alpha_{N-1}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!
d\mathbf{x}_{N-1} \int_{\alpha_{N-2}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\! d\mathbf{x}_{N-2}
\cdots \int_{\alpha_2}\!\!\!\! d\mathbf{x}_2 \int_{\alpha_1} \!\!\!\!
d\mathbf{x}_1 \nonumber\\&
\quad K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_{N-1},t_{N-1}) \cdots
K(\mathbf{x}_2,t_2|\mathbf{x}_1,0) \psi(\mathbf{x}_1)
\label{eq:RestrictedEvolHomo}, \end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation} \chi_{A} (x) := \left\{\begin{array}{l} 1 \textrm{ if } x
\in A, \\ \\ 0 \textrm{ if } x \notin A.\end{array} \right.\end{equation} is the
characteristic function of $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$.
The convergence of the integrals (and therefore the existence of
$\psi_\alpha$) in \eref{eq:RestrictedEvolHomo} depends on the
propagator for the system
and the type of $\alpha_k$ subsets allowed.
For the examples we shall consider\footnote{These examples include the free particle
and the simple harmonic oscillator.} in Section \ref{sec:ParticleExamples}
the integrals converge if all the
$\alpha_k$ subsets are bounded and, it turns out,
in the isomorphism proof in Section \ref{ParticleIsomorphism} we will only require such
events. In fact we will deal only with two-time homogeneous events
with bounded measurable sets at the initial and final times.
Nevertheless we must still define the decoherence functional on the
entire event algebra $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ and to do this we must define restricted
evolution according to a homogeneous event $\alpha$ when some of the
$\alpha_k$ subsets are
unbounded (which, for the event algebra we are considering, only happens
if the $\alpha_k$ are \emph{complements} of bounded measurable sets).
In general (and certainly for the examples we shall look at) the propagator is oscillatory in position
and if $\alpha_k$, say,
is unbounded
the $d\mathbf{x}_k$
integral in \eref{eq:RestrictedEvolHomo} does not converge absolutely.
We deal with this non-convergence in the standard way (see
{\emph{e.g.}}
\cite[footnote 13]{Feynman:1948})
by introducing a convergence factor.
For each
unbounded
$\alpha_k$ we
replace the
non-convergent
$d\mathbf{x}_k$ integral \begin{equation}
\label{eq:IntNoConvergenceFactor} \int_{\alpha_k}
K(\mathbf{x}_{k+1},t_{k+1}|\mathbf{x}_k,t_k)
K(\mathbf{x}_k,t_k|\mathbf{x}_{k-1},t_{k-1})d \mathbf{x}_k, \end{equation} in
\eref{eq:RestrictedEvolHomo} by \begin{equation} \label{eq:IntConvergenceFactor}
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \int_{\alpha_k}
K(\mathbf{x}_{k+1},t_{k+1}|\mathbf{x}_k,t_k)
K(\mathbf{x}_k,t_k|\mathbf{x}_{k-1},t_{k-1}) \exp\left( - \epsilon
\mathbf{x}_k^2 \right)d \mathbf{x}_k.\end{equation} For the propagators we
consider this integral converges and the $\epsilon \to 0^+$ limit
exists.
By using these convergence factors
we can define $\psi_\alpha$ for all homogeneous events $\alpha
\in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$.
For the propagators we will consider, the following composition
property holds: \begin{equation} \label{eq:ESCK} \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} K(\mathbf{x}_{k+1},t_{k+1}|\mathbf{x}_k,t_k)
K(\mathbf{x}_k,t_k|\mathbf{x}_{k-1},t_{k-1}) \exp\left( - \epsilon
\mathbf{x}_k^2 \right) d \mathbf{x}_{t_k} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \nonumber =
K(\mathbf{x}_{k+1},t_{k+1}|\mathbf{x}_{k-1},t_{k-1}). \end{equation} This
property is the analogue of the
Einstein-Smoluchowski-Chapman-Kolmogorov equation in
the theory of Brownian motion. This property is essential if
$\psi_\alpha$ is to depend only on the homogeneous event $\alpha$ and
not its representation in terms of the pair $(\textbf{t},
\bm{\alpha})$ and we assume it holds for all propagators henceforth.
Having defined restricted evolution according to a homogeneous event
we now define it for all events in $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. Let $\alpha$ be an
event given by \begin{equation} \alpha = \bigcup_{k=1}^M
\alpha_H^k, \end{equation} with the $\alpha_H^k$ ($k=1,\ldots,M$) a finite
collection of mutually disjoint homogeneous events. We define
$\psi_\alpha$ as the sum \begin{equation} \label{eq:RestrictedEvolInhomo}
\psi_{\alpha} := \sum_{k=1}^M \psi_{\alpha_H^k}. \end{equation} If the propagator
satisfies the composition property \eref{eq:ESCK} this doesn't depend
on the representation of $\alpha$ as a union of homogeneous events.
For two
events $\alpha, \beta \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
and an initial normalised vector $\psi \in
\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ one can show that
the decoherence functional (\ref{dcf4qm}) on
$\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle \times \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is equal to the inner product
\begin{equation} \label{eq:StandardDF} D(\alpha,\beta) :=
\langle \psi_\alpha, \psi_\beta\rangle_0 \,,
\end{equation}
by using the familiar expression for the propagator $K$ as
a path integral
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pathint}
K(\mathbf{x}_2,t_2|\mathbf{x}_1,t_1) = \int [d\gamma] e^{i S[\gamma]}
\end{equation}
where the integral is over all paths $\gamma$ which begin at $\mathbf{x}_1$
at $t_1$ and end at $\mathbf{x}_2$ at $t_2$.
\subsection{Isomorphism} \label{ParticleIsomorphism}
Henceforth we assume the initial
state $\psi \in \mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ has unit norm,
the decoherence functional for events in $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is given by
the propagator $K$ as described in
section \ref{ParticleDecoherence}, the
spaces $H_1$, $H_2$ are defined as in sections \ref{sec:h1} and \ref{sec:h2}.
We will find conditions on the initial state and
propagator that ensure the History Hilbert space $(H_2,\IP_2)$ is
isomorphic to $(L^2(\mathbb{R}^d), \IP)$.
It will prove useful to define a map $f_0 : H_1 \to L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ given by \begin{equation}
\label{eq:DefF0} f_0(u):= \sum_{\alpha \in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle} u(\alpha) \left[
\psi_\alpha \right], \end{equation} for all $u \in H_1$. The sum is well-defined
since $u(\alpha)$ is only non-zero for a finite number of events $\alpha
\in \Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. This map $f_0$ is linear and for all $u, v \in H_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ParticleF0InnerProduct} \langle f_0(u),f_0(v)\rangle =
\langle u, v \rangle_1. \end{equation}
Since the map $f_0$ is linear and preserves the inner products in
$H_1$ and $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ it maps a Cauchy sequence, $\{u_n\}$ of
elements of $H_1$ to a
Cauchy sequence in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Since $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is complete this sequence has a
limit and it is this limit we assign as the image of our candidate
isomorphism, $f : H_2 \to L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ defined by: \begin{equation} \label{eq:DefF} f([u_n]_1):=
\lim_{ n\to \infty} f_0(u_n). \end{equation}
The map $f$ is linear and well-defined, independent of which
representative, $\{u_n\}$ of the $[u_n]_1$ equivalence class is used
in the definition above.
Using \eref{eq:ParticleF0InnerProduct} and the continuity of the
$\IP$ inner product \cite[Lemma 3.2-2]{Kreyszig} we have \begin{equation} \nonumber
\langle f([u_n]_1), f([v_n]_1) \rangle:= \langle \lim_{n\to \infty}
f_0(u_n),\lim_{m\to \infty} f_0(v_m) \rangle \end{equation} \begin{equation}
\label{eq:ParticleFInnerProduct} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \langle f_0(u_n),
f_0(v_n) \rangle = \lim_{n\to\infty}\langle u_n , v_n \rangle_1 =:
\langle [u_n]_1, [v_n]_1 \rangle_2 .\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:OneToOne}, since $f$ is linear and satisfies
\eref{eq:ParticleFInnerProduct}, it is one-to-one. We can now
state our main theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Onto] \label{the:MainTheorem}
Let the propagator $K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$ be
continuous as a function of $(\mathbf{x}_T,\mathbf{x}_0) \in
\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ and such that
for each $\mathbf{x}_T$, $\exists \mathbf{x}_0$
with $K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$ non-zero.
Then the map $f$ defined by \eref{eq:DefF} is onto.
\end{theorem}
To prove Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem} we follow a strategy suggested
by the proof of Theorem 1: we want to show,
roughly, that every final position
can be reached by a history of nonzero amplitude. The implementation
of the strategy is more complicated than in the finite case and
will proceed by establishing a series of Lemmas.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Continuous} Let the
propagator $K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$
be continuous as a function of $(\mathbf{x}_T,\mathbf{x}_0)
\in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$. Let $\psi \in
\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be the initial state.
Let $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a compact measurable set
and $\alpha$ be the homogeneous event represented by
$\mathbf{t} = (0,T), \bm{\alpha}
= (A,\mathbb{R}^d)$. Then
\begin{equation} \psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x}_T,T):=
\int_A K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) \psi(\mathbf{x}_0)
d\mathbf{x}_0,
\end{equation}
is continuous as a function of $\mathbf{x}_T \in
\mathbb{R}^d$.
\begin{proof} Fix a position $\mathbf{x}_T \in \mathbb{R}^d$ at
the final time. Let $C$ be the closed unit ball
centred at $\mathbf{x}_T$. By
assumption, $K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$ is continuous (as a
function of $(\mathbf{x}_T,\mathbf{x}_0) \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$) so, by
the Heine-Cantor theorem, it is uniformly continuous (as a function of
$(\mathbf{x}_T,\mathbf{x}_0)$) on the compact set $C \times A \subset
\mathbb{R}^{2d}$. This means for any $\epsilon > 0$ there exists
$\delta > 0$ such that for $(\mathbf{x}_T,\mathbf{x}_0),
(\mathbf{x}_T',\mathbf{x}_0') \in C \times A$ we have \begin{equation}\fl
\sqrt{|\mathbf{x}_T-\mathbf{x}_T'|^2 + |\mathbf{x}_0-\mathbf{x}_0'|^2}
< \delta \Rightarrow \left| K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) -
K(\mathbf{x}'_T,T|\mathbf{x}'_0,0) \right| < \epsilon.\end{equation}
In particular if $\mathbf{x}_0 = \mathbf{x}_0'$ and
$|\mathbf{x}_T - \mathbf{x}_T'| < \delta < 1$ then
\begin{equation}
\Big|
K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) -
K(\mathbf{x}_T',T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)\Big| < \epsilon \quad \quad\forall \mathbf{x}_0 \in A\,.
\end{equation}
So for $|\mathbf{x}_T - \mathbf{x}_T'| < \delta < 1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\psi_\alpha&(\mathbf{x}_T,T) - \psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x}_T',T)|\\
&:= \left|
\int_A \Big( K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) -
K(\mathbf{x}'_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) \Big) \psi(\mathbf{x}_0)
d\mathbf{x}_0 \right|\\
&\leq \left(\int_A \Big|
K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) -
K(\mathbf{x}_T',T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)\Big|^2
d\mathbf{x}_0\right)^\frac{1}{2} \left(\int_A |\psi(\mathbf{x}_0)|^2
d\mathbf{x}_0\right)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& < \epsilon |A|
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used the Cauchy-Schwarz
inequality and the normalisation of
$\psi$ and $|A|$ is the Lebesgue measure of $A$.
$|A|$ is finite so, since
$\epsilon$ is arbitrary, $\psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x}_T,T)$ is continuous
at $\mathbf{x}_T$. This holds for any $\mathbf{x}_T \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:NonZero} Let the propagator
$K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$ be continuous as
a function of $(\mathbf{x}_T,\mathbf{x}_0)$ and be such that
for each $\mathbf{x}_T$, $\exists \mathbf{x}_0$ s.t.
$K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$ is non-zero.
Then for any
point $\mathbf{x}_T \in \mathbb{R}^d$ at the truncation time $t=T$
there exists a compact measurable set $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$
(depending on $\mathbf{x}_T$) such that the homogeneous event $\alpha$
represented by $\mathbf{t} = (0,T), \bm{\alpha} = (A,\mathbb{R}^d)$
satisfies \begin{equation} \label{eq:ParicleNonZero}
\psi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{x}_T,T):=\int_A K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)
\psi(\mathbf{x}_0) d\mathbf{x}_0 \neq 0.\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
The proof relies on Lebesgue's Differentiation Theorem
\cite[p100]{WheeZyg} which states that if $G : \mathbb{R}^d \to
\mathbb{C}$ is an integrable function then \begin{equation} \label{eq:LDTheorem}
G(\mathbf{x}) = \lim_{B \to \mathbf{x}} \frac{\int_B G(\mathbf{x}')
d\mathbf{x}'}{|B|},\end{equation} for almost all $\mathbf{x} \in
\mathbb{R}^d$. Here $B$ is an $d$-dimensional ball centred on
$\mathbf{x}$ which contracts to $\mathbf{x}$ in the limit
and $|B|$ is its Lebesgue measure.
Aiming for a contradiction we assume that \begin{equation}
\int_A
K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}',0) \psi(\mathbf{x}') d\mathbf{x}' =
0,\end{equation} for all compact measurable sets $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$.
Taking $A$ to be a sequence of closed balls contracting to an
arbitrary point $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ at the initial time
then \eref{eq:LDTheorem} gives \begin{equation} K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x},0)
\psi(\mathbf{x}) = \lim_{A \to \mathbf{x}} \frac{\int_{A}
K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}',0) \psi(\mathbf{x}')
d\mathbf{x}'}{|A|} = 0,\end{equation}
for almost all $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
This is a contradiction
since $K$ is continuous and
$\exists \mathbf{x}_0$ with $K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0) \ne0$
so there is
a compact set
containing $\mathbf{x}_0$ on which
$K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x},0) \ne0$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:FiniteProj} Let the propagator
$K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$
satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:NonZero}.
Then, for any point $\mathbf{x}_T \in \mathbb{R}^d$
at the truncation time there exists a homogeneous event $\alpha$
represented by $\mathbf{t} = (0,T), \bm{\alpha}
= (A,B)$ (with $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ a compact measurable set and
$B \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ an open ball centred on $\mathbf{x}_T$) and a
strictly positive real number $P$ such that $\psi_\alpha$ is uniformly
continuous in $B$ and $|\psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x},T)| > P$ for all
$\mathbf{x} \in B$.
\begin{proof}
By Lemmas \ref{lem:Continuous} and \ref{lem:NonZero}, there
exists a compact measurable set $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ such that,
for the homogeneous event $\beta$ represented by $\bm{\beta} =
(A,\mathbb{R}^d)$ the function $\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x},T)$ is
continuous for all $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and satisfies
$\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x}_T,T) \neq 0$.
This implies there exists $\delta > 0$ such that \begin{equation}
\label{eq:DeltaBall} | \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}_T | < \delta \Rightarrow
|\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x},T) - \psi_\beta(\mathbf{x}_T,T)| <
\frac{|\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x}_T,T)|}{2}. \end{equation} Let $B$ be the open ball
of radius $\delta$ centred on $\mathbf{x}_T$. Setting $P =
|\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x}_T,T)|/2 > 0$ we see that $\mathbf{x} \in B$
implies $|\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x},T)| > P > 0$.
Since $\psi_\beta(\mathbf{x},T)$ is continuous it is uniformly
continuous in any compact set and therefore any subset of a compact
set. It is thus uniformly continuous in $B$. For $\bm{\alpha} :=
(A,B)$ we then have $\psi_\alpha = \chi_B \psi_\beta$
($\chi_B$ is the characteristic function of $B$)
and the result
follows.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
The next lemma is the heart of the proof.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ParticleIntervals}
Let the propagator
$K(\mathbf{x}_T,T|\mathbf{x}_0,0)$
satisfy the conditions of Lemmas \ref{lem:Continuous} and \ref{lem:NonZero}.
Let $I$ be a compact $d$-interval with positive measure $|I|>0$ at the
truncation time. Then for any $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a vector $u
\in H_1$ such that
\begin{equation} || [\chi_I] - f_0(u) || < \epsilon\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
Let $\epsilon >0$.
For any $\mathbf{x} \in I$ there exists, by Lemma
\ref{lem:FiniteProj}, a homogeneous event $\alpha_\mathbf{x}$
represented by $\bm{\alpha_\mathbf{x}} = (A_\mathbf{x}, B_\mathbf{x})$
(with $B_\mathbf{x}$ an open ball centred on $\mathbf{x}$) and a real
number $P_\mathbf{x} > 0$ such that $\psi_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}$ is
uniformly continuous in $B_\mathbf{x}$ and
$|\psi_{\alpha_\mathbf{x}}(\mathbf{x}',T)| > P_\mathbf{x}$ for all
$\mathbf{x}' \in B$.
The collection of $B_\mathbf{x}$, taken for all $\mathbf{x} \in I$,
form an open cover of $I$, which, since $I$ is compact, admits a
finite subcover labelled by $\{\mathbf{x}_i \in I\, |\, i = 1 \dots
N\}$. Define $A_i := A_{\mathbf{x}_i}$,
$B_i := B_{\mathbf{x}_i}$, $\alpha_i:= \alpha_{\mathbf{x}_i}$
and $P_i := P_{\mathbf{x}_i}$.
Each $B_i$ will now be ``cut up'' into finitely many disjoint sets,
$D_{ij}$, over which the $\psi_{\alpha_i}$ functions vary by only
``small amounts''. The first step toward this is to form a finite
number of $N$ mutually disjoint sets $C_i \subseteq B_i$ given by \begin{equation}
C_1 := B_1 \cap I,\quad C_i := (B_i \cap I) \setminus
\bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} C_j \quad (i=2,\ldots,N),\end{equation} and such that \begin{equation} I =
\bigcup_{i=1}^N C_i. \end{equation}
Without loss of generality we assume the $C_i$ are non-empty.
Each function $\psi_{\alpha_i}$ is uniformly continuous in $C_i$ and
satisfies $|\psi_{\alpha_i}(\mathbf{x},T)| > P_i$ for all $\mathbf{x}
\in C_i$ for some strictly positive $P_i \in \mathbb{R}$.
Let $P > 0$ be the minimum value of the $P_i$ and let $\delta_i > 0$
($i=1,\ldots,N$) be chosen such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:FirstInequal}
|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}| < \delta_i \Rightarrow
|\psi_{\alpha_i}(\mathbf{x},T) - \psi_{\alpha_i}(\mathbf{y},T)| <
\frac{\epsilon P}{\sqrt{|I|}}, \end{equation} for all $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}
\in C_i$.
Letting $\delta > 0$ be the minimum of the $\delta_i$ now subdivide
each $C_i$ into a finite number, $M_i$, of non-empty disjoint sets
$D_{ij}$ ($i=1,\ldots,N; j=1,\ldots,M_i$) such that \begin{equation}
\bigcup_{j=1}^{M_i} D_{ij} = C_i \quad \textrm{and} \quad
\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y} \in D_{ij} \Rightarrow |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}| <
\delta. \end{equation}
If we arbitrarily choose points $\mathbf{x}_{ij} \in D_{ij}$ the
$D_{ij}$ sets are ``small enough'' that, by \eref{eq:FirstInequal},
$|\psi_{\alpha_i}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T) - \psi_{\alpha_i}(\mathbf{x},T)|
< \epsilon P/\sqrt{|I|}$ for all $\mathbf{x} \in D_{ij}$. Defining
homogeneous events $\alpha_{ij}$ to be represented by
$\bm{\alpha_{ij}}:=(A_i, D_{ij})$ therefore gives \begin{equation}
\label{eq:SecondInequal} \fl\left| 1 -
\frac{\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x},T)}{\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}
(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T)}\right|
= \frac{|\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T) -
\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x},T)|}{|\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T)|}
< \frac{1}{|\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T)|} \frac{\epsilon
P}{\sqrt{|I|}} < \frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{|I|}},\end{equation} for all
$\mathbf{x}\in D_{ij}$ where we note
$|\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij})| > P > 0$.
Now define a $H_1$ vector by
\begin{equation} \fl u(x) := \left\{\begin{array}{rl}
1/\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T) & \textrm{if } x =
\alpha_{ij} \textrm{ for } i=1,\ldots,N; j=1,\ldots,M_i \\ 0 & \textrm{otherwise.}\end{array} \right.\end{equation}
This is a well-defined vector in $H_1$ since there are only a finite
number of events $x=\alpha_{ij}$ on which $u(x)$ is non-zero. We now
compute
\begin{equation} || [\chi_I] - f_0(u)||^2 = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left|
\chi_I(\mathbf{x}) - \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{M_i}
\frac{\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x},T)}{\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T)}
\right|^2 d\mathbf{x}\end{equation} \begin{equation} \nonumber = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{M_i}
\int_{D_{ij}} \left| 1 -
\frac{\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x},T)}{\psi_{\alpha_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{ij},T)}
\right|^2 d\mathbf{x} < \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{M_i} \int_{D_{ij}}
\frac{\epsilon^2}{|I|} d\mathbf{x} = \epsilon^2,\end{equation} where we have
used \eref{eq:SecondInequal}, the disjointness of the $D_{ij}$ and
\begin{equation} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{M_i} \int_{D_{ij}} d\mathbf{x} =
|I|.\end{equation} We have thus constructed $u \in H_1$ such that \begin{equation}
||[\chi_{I}] - f_0(u) || < \epsilon. \end{equation}
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
We can now prove Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem}.
\begin{proof} (of Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem})
A \emph{step function} on $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a function $S :
\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{C}$ that is a finite linear
combination of characteristic functions of compact $d$-intervals.
Let $[\phi] \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be the element we wish to map to. We assume
$[\phi] \neq 0$ for otherwise the zero vector in $H_2$ would satisfy
$f(0) = [\phi]$. Let $\{[S_n]\}$ be a sequence of $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ vectors,
where the $S_n$ are step functions
that are not identically zero,
such that \begin{equation} \label{eq:OntoInequal} || [\phi] -
[S_n] || < \frac{1}{2 n}, \end{equation} for each positive integer $n$. Such a
sequence $\{[S_n]\}$ exists since the step functions are dense
in $\mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ \cite[p133]{WheeZyg}.
For each step function $S_n$ we can (non-uniquely) decompose it as \begin{equation}
S_n = \sum_{i=1}^{N_n} s_{n,i} {\chi}_{I_{n,i}},\end{equation} for a finite
collection of $N_n \geq 1$ non-zero complex numbers
$s_{n,i}$ and mutually disjoint compact $d$-intervals $I_{n,i}$.
Define $M_n > 0$ to be the maximum value of $|s_{n,i}|$
($i=1,\ldots,N_n$).
By Lemma \ref{lem:ParticleIntervals}, for each $n = 1,2,\ldots$ and
each $i=1,\ldots,N_n$ there exists a vector $u_{n,i} \in H_1$ such
that \begin{equation} || [\chi_{I_{n,i}}] - f_0(u_{n,i}) || < \frac{1}{2 n N_n
M_n}. \end{equation} Defining $u_n \in H_1$ by \begin{equation} u_n := \sum_{i=1}^{N_n}
s_{n,i} u_{n,i}, \end{equation} we see that \begin{equation} \fl ||[S_n] - f_0(u_n)|| \leq
\sum_{i=1}^{N_n} |s_{n,i}| || [\chi_{I_{n,i}}] - f_0(u_{n,i}) || <
\sum_{i=1}^{N_n} \frac{|s_{n,i}|}{2 n N_n M_n} < \sum_{i=1}^{N_n}
\frac{1}{2 n N_n} = \frac{1}{2 n}. \end{equation} This, together with
\eref{eq:OntoInequal}, implies \begin{equation} || [\phi] - f_0(u_n) || <
\frac{1}{n}, \end{equation} i.e. $f_0(u_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence converging to
$[\phi]$. Since $f_0$ preserves the inner product
this means $\{ u_n \}$ is a Cauchy sequence of $H_1$ elements such
that $f([u_n]_1) = [\phi]$. $[\phi] \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ was arbitrary
so the map $f$ is onto.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem} gives sufficient conditions
on the propagator for the History Hilbert space to be
isomorphic to $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ \emph{for any initial state}. If the
initial state itself satisfies certain conditions, then the
conditions on the propagator can be relaxed. For example,
if the initial state, $\psi$, is everywhere nonzero, then
even a trivial evolution with a delta-function propagator
will suffice to make the History Hilbert space
isomorphic to $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
\subsection{Examples}
\label{sec:ParticleExamples}
We now look at
examples for which the propagator is known explicitly. The expressions
for the propagators are taken from \cite{Handbook}.
For a free particle of mass $m$ in $d$ dimensions the Lagrangian is
\begin{equation} L = \frac{m}{2} \dot{\mathbf{x}}^2.\end{equation} The propagator is given by
\begin{equation} K(\mathbf{x}',t'|\mathbf{x},t) = \left( \frac{m}{2 \pi i \hbar
(t'-t)} \right)^{d/2} \exp\left[ \frac{im}{2 \hbar (t'-t)}
(\mathbf{x}'-\mathbf{x})^2 \right]. \end{equation} For a charged particle (with
mass $m$ and charge $e$) in a constant vector potential $\mathbf{A}$
the Lagrangian is \begin{equation} L = \frac{m}{2} \dot{\mathbf{x}}^2 + e\mathbf{A}
\cdot \dot{\mathbf{x}}. \end{equation} The propagator is given by \begin{equation}\fl
K(\mathbf{x}',t'|\mathbf{x},t) = \left( \frac{m}{2 \pi i \hbar (t'-t)}
\right)^{d/2} \exp\left[ \frac{im}{2 \hbar (t'-t)}
(\mathbf{x}'-\mathbf{x})^2 + \frac{i e \mathbf{A}}{\hbar} \cdot
(\mathbf{x}' - \mathbf{x})\right]. \end{equation} Both of these propagators
satisfy the conditions for Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem}.
Since the system with constant vector potential is gauge
equivalent to the free particle, the theorem is bound to
hold for both or neither.
A particle of mass $m$ in a simple harmonic
oscillator potential of period $2 \pi/\omega$ in one spatial
dimension has Lagrangian
\begin{equation} L = \frac{m}{2} \dot{x}^2 -
\frac{m\omega^2}{2} x^2\,. \end{equation}
Defining, $\Delta t := t' - t$, the
propagator is
\begin{equation} \fl K(x',t'|x,t) = \left( \frac{m\omega}{2 \pi i \hbar
\sin(\omega \Delta t)} \right)^{1/2} \exp\left[ -\frac{m\omega}{2 i
\hbar}\left[ (x'^2+x^2) \cot(\omega \Delta t) - 2 \frac{x
x'}{\sin(\omega \Delta t)} \right] \right], \end{equation}
if $\Delta t \neq M \pi / \omega$ for integer $M$.
If $\Delta t = M \pi/\omega$ for integer $M$ we have
\begin{equation} K(x',t'|x,t) = e^{(-i M \pi/2)}\delta(x' - (-1)^M x). \end{equation}
Clearly the propagator
fulfils the conditions for Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem} if the
truncation time $T$ is not equal to $M \pi/\omega$ for integer $M$.
More care is needed if the truncation time is an integer multiple of
$\pi/\omega$.
If $T = M \pi/\omega$ for integer $M$ then the
propagator does not fulfil the conditions for Theorem
\ref{the:MainTheorem}. In this case we cannot use only two-time events
to demonstrate the isomorphism. The Hilbert spaces are still
isomorphic, however, as can be seen by using three-time homogeneous
events $\alpha$ represented by $\bm{\alpha}=(\mathbb{R},\alpha_{t_2},\alpha_T)$ in which the set
at time $t_1=0$ is $\mathbb{R}$ and such that $T-t_2$ is not an
integer multiple of $\pi/\omega$. Evolving the initial state according
to these events is equivalent to unrestrictedly evolving the initial
state from $t_1=0$ to $t_2 > 0$. The state at time $t_2$ can then be
viewed as the ``initial state'' for two-time homogeneous events represented by
$(\alpha_{t_2},\alpha_T)$. The conditions for Theorem
\ref{the:MainTheorem} are met by $K(x_T,T|x_{t_2},t_2)$ so the theorem
can be applied and the isomorphism demonstrated. These ideas can
similarly be applied to the simple harmonic oscillator in $d$
dimensions.
\subsection{Particle with an infinite potential barrier} \label{ParticlePotential}
Consider a physical system of a non-relativistic particle in one
dimension restricted to the positive halfline $\mathbb{R}^+ = \{x \in
\mathbb{R} | x > 0 \}$ by an infinite potential barrier.
The Hilbert space for this system is $L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)$ which we
define as a vector subspace of $L^2(\mathbb{R})$:
\begin{equation} L^2(\mathbb{R}^+):= \{ [\psi] \in L^2(\mathbb{R}) : \psi(x) = 0
\textrm{ for } x \leq 0\}. \end{equation}
The sample space, $\Omega$, and event algebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, for this system
will be the same as for a particle in 1 dimension. The difference is
that, when defining the decoherence functional we now use an initial
vector $\psi \in \mathcal{L}^2(\mathbb{R})$ such that $\psi(x) = 0$
for $x \leq 0$ and a propagator defined by \cite[p40]{Schulman}: \begin{equation}
K(x',t'|x,t) = \chi_{\mathbb{R}^+}(x') \chi_{\mathbb{R}^+}(x)
\left(\frac{m}{2\pi i \hbar (t'-t)}\right)^{1/2} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \nonumber
\times \left[ \exp\left[\frac{im(x'-x)^2}{2\hbar(t'-t)}\right] -
\exp\left[\frac{i m(x' + x)^2}{2\hbar(t'-t)}\right] \right], \end{equation} where
$m$ is the mass of the particle.
This propagator does not satisfy the conditions of Theorem
\ref{the:MainTheorem}---it is continuous as a function of $(x,x') \in
\mathbb{R}^2$ but is zero for $x \leq 0$ or $x' \leq 0$. It is not
surprising therefore that the map $f : H_2 \to L^2(\mathbb{R})$ defined by \eref{eq:DefF} is not an isomorphism
with this event algebra and decoherence functional, namely because $f$ only gives vectors $[\psi] \in
L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)$ as expected.
It is possible to show, by using the same methods used in the
isomorphism proof for a particle in $d$ dimensions, that the
History Hilbert space for this event algebra and decoherence functional
is isomorphic to $L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)$.
\subsection{Infinite times} \label{InfTime}
In the preceding sections we assumed a finite time interval
both in the finite configuration space case and the quantum mechanics
case. We can extend the analysis to cover all times to the
future of the initial time,
$t\in [0, \infty)$.
We will describe how to do this
in the quantum mechanics case; the extension can be applied,
\emph{mutatis mutandis}, to the
finite configuration space case.
The sample space $\Omega$ is now the set of continuous real functions
on $[0,\infty)$. The homogeneous events, $\alpha$, are defined
as before as represented by a positive integer $N\ge 1$, an $N$-tuple of
times $\mathbf{t}= (t_1=0, t_2, \dots t_N)$ and an $N$-tuple of
measurable subsets of
$\mathbb{R}^d$, $\mathbf{\alpha} = (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots, \alpha_N)$
such that either $\alpha_k$ or $\alpha_k^c$ is bounded.
Now, however,
there is no truncation time and therefore no restriction on the times $t_k$, they can be
arbitrarily large.
The event algebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$, is the set of finite unions of the homogeneous
events. Since there is no common truncation time $T$, the restricted evolution
of the initial state with respect to a
homogeneous event, as defined by \ref{eq:RestrictedEvolHomo},
results in a state defined at a time, $t_N$, that depends on the
event. Such states cannot be added together to define the
restricted evolution
of the initial state with respect to a event which is a
union of disjoint homogeneous events which have different
last times. Instead, we evolve the restricted state back to the
initial time $t=0$, {\emph{i.e.}} we define
\begin{equation}
\psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x}_0, 0) := \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \!\!\!\! d\mathbf{x}_N K(\mathbf{x}_0, 0|
\mathbf{x}_N, t_N) \psi_\alpha(\mathbf{x}_N, t_N)
\end{equation}
for each homogeneous event $\alpha$.
We can now work at the initial time. The restricted state
at $t=0$ of
an inhomogeneous event is the sum of the restricted states at $t=0$
of its constituent
disjoint homogeneous events (as in \eref{eq:RestrictedEvolInhomo}).
The decoherence functional is
defined as the inner product of the restricted states
at $t=0$.
The event algebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_\infty$, in the infinite time case
contains a subalgebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_\infty|_T$, which is canonically
isomorphic
to the event algebra, $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_T$ with a truncation time
because each history with a truncation time corresponds to an
event in the infinite time case: the event is the set
of infinite time histories which match the truncated
history. The decoherence functionals on $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_\infty|_T$ and $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_T$ agree
because the unitary evolution back to the initial time
preserves the inner product. Theorem \ref{the:MainTheorem}
therefore also applies to the semi-infinite time case: if the History Hilbert
space is isomorphic to $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with a truncation time, it is isomorphic
without. In the former case it is convenient to construct the
History Hilbert space at the truncation time as we did
and in the latter it
is convenient to consider the History Hilbert space associated with the
initial time, but for the unitary systems we are considering this
is not a real distinction, being akin to working in
the Schr\"odinger or Heisenberg Picture.
\subsection{Mixed states}
The conjecture made at the end of section 2 was that where both standard
and History Hilbert spaces exist, generically they are isomorphic if the
decoherence functional encodes a pure initial state.
If in contrast the initial state is a statistical mixture then the
decoherence functional is a convex combination of
decoherence functionals, and then the History Hilbert space can be
bigger than the standard Hilbert space.
Indeed, we make note of the following expectations for the case of a
finite configuration space.
If the initial state is a density matrix of rank $r_i$
then the History Hilbert space is generically
the direct sum of $r_i$ copies of the standard
Hilbert space $\mathbb{C}^n$.
Even more generally,
if there is also a final density matrix of rank $r_f$
then the History Hilbert space is
the direct sum of $r_i$ copies of $\mathbb{C}^{r_f}$.
\cite{MarieDavid}
\section{Discussion} \label{Conclusions}
\defH{H}
If histories-based formulations of quantum mechanics are nearer to the
truth than state- and operator-based formulations, and in particular if
something like Quantum Measure Theory is the right framework for a
theory of quantum gravity, then there is no particular reason why one
should expect Hilbert spaces to be part of physics at a fundamental
level.
Indeed, in histories formulations which assume only plain,
``weak'' positivity
(and in which, therefore, no Hilbert space arises),
certain kinds of devices can in principle exist
that are not possible within ordinary quantum mechanics,
and this could be regarded as desirable.
For example non-signaling correlations of the ``PR box'' type become
possible \cite{jointDCF}.
Nor does reference to a Hilbert space seem to be needed for
interpretive reasons. On the contrary, attempts to overcome the
``operationalist'' bias of the so called Copenhagen interpretation
tend to lead in the opposite direction, away from state-vectors and
toward histories and the associated events \cite{QuantumMeasure2}.
Thus, it seems hard to argue on principle that a Hilbert space is needed.
On the other hand,
there do exist good reasons to regard strong positivity
as more natural than weak positivity.
First, it is mathematically much simpler than weak positivity, whence
more amenable to being verified and worked with \cite{SorkinWalk}.
(Not that its definition is any simpler, but that it comprises, apparently, far
fewer independent conditions.)
Second, strong positivity is preserved under composition of subsystems,
whereas the obvious ``product measure'' of two weakly positive
quantal measures is not in general positive at all.
And third --- at a technical level ---
the histories hilbert space to which
strong positivity leads has already proven to be
useful in certain applications
\cite{jointDCF,q-covers},
while there are also indications that the map taking events
$\alpha\in\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ to vectors in $H$
could be of aid in the effort to extend the decoherence functional
from $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ to a larger fragment of the $\sigma$-algebra it generates.
It thus seems appropriate to add strong positivity to the axioms
defining a decoherence functional
(as we have done in this paper),
and from a strongly positive decoherence functional a
histories hilbert space $H$
automatically arises.
Once we have it, we can ask whether the histories hilbert space helps us
to make contact with the quantal formalism of standard textbooks. This
is something that any proposed formulation has to be able to do, and it
is the principal question animating the present paper. The
positive answer we have obtained is that for the systems we have
studied, the histories hilbert spaces that pertain to them can be
directly identified with the corresponding state-spaces of the
ordinary quantum description. (The two are ``naturally isomorphic''.)
Thereby an important part of the mathematical apparatus of ordinary
quantum mechanics is recovered quite simply.
This result can be seen as an advance for both Generalised Quantum
Mechanics and Quantum Measure Theory
because the basic underlying structures
--- histories and decoherence functionals ---
are common to both approaches.
(Strong positivity has not normally been assumed in Generalised Quantum
Mechanics, but there is no reason why it could not be.)
Beyond state-vectors, the other main ingredients of the standard quantum
machinery are the operators representing position, momentum, field
values, ``observables'', and the like. How might they be derived from
histories?
In the specialized context of unitary, Hamiltonian evolution and the
Schr{\"o}dinger equation,
time-ordered operators can be obtained from functions (``functionals'')
on the sample space $\Omega$ (see \cite{Feynman:1948}),
but whether such a relationship exists in the same generality as the
histories hilbert space itself (that is for any quantum measure theory)
remains to be seen.
An interesting generalization where one does seem able to recover field
operators from the decoherence functional is that of quantum field
theory on a causal set \cite{steven}.
The context of this paper has been that of non-relativistic quantum
mechanics, yet people have not yet completely laid
the rigorous mathematical foundations of a
histories framework for this theory.
Nevertheless
the decoherence functional limited to $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle\times\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$
is known
(we haven't yet defined calculus but we can calculate
the volume of a pyramid, see footnote 10, page 371 of
\cite{Feynman:1948}),
and this sufficed to demonstrate our main result, that the
History Hilbert space $H$ is the
standard Hilbert space.
A key question for the future
that will also be of interpretational significance
is
what the sample
space of histories is.
Is it the set of all continuous trajectories and if so,
exactly how continuous are they?
This is closely related to the
question, can the decoherence functional --- and hence the
quantal measure --- be extended to a larger collection of sets
than $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$? Is that larger collection the whole $\sigma$-algebra
generated by $\Buchstabe{A}} \def\IP{\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ or something smaller?
These questions have been explored by Geroch \cite{GerochPathIntegrals}.
To the extent that they find satisfactory answers,
we will be able to say
that Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Measure Theory is as well-defined
mathematically as the Wiener process.
Be that as it may,
neither Brownian motion nor the quantum mechanics of
nonrelativistic point-particles can lay claim to fundamental status in
present-day physics.
Relativistic quantum field theory comes closer,
but in that context, neither formulation ---
neither path-integrals/histories nor state-vectors-cum-operators ---
enjoys a mathematically rigorous existence.
Instead we have the divergences and other pathologies whose resolution
is commonly anticipated from the side of quantum gravity.
If this expectation is borne out,
the decoherence functional of quantum gravity might actually be
easier to place on a sound mathematical footing than that of the
Hydrogen atom,
because in place of a path-integral over an infinite dimensional
function-space,
we will have something more finitary in nature,
like a summation over a discrete space of histories.\footnote%
{One can already observe such a trend in the theory formulated in
\cite{steven} of a free scalar field on a causal set $C$ corresponding
to a bounded spacetime region. The decoherence functional of the
theory can be computed and is again given by a double integral
of the type of (\ref{dcf4qm}).
Now however, the domain of integration is just $\mathbb{R}^n$
rather than some infinite-dimensional path-space.
Moreover, the integrand contains,
besides
the expected oscillating phases, damping terms
that
lessen by half
the need for integrating-factors like those in
\eref{eq:IntConvergenceFactor}.}
In that case the trek back to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics will be
longer, but we expect that the
histories hilbert space defined above will still be an important milestone
along the way.
\ack
The authors would like to thank Chris Isham for helpful criticisms on
the first draft of this paper. We also thank Raquel S. Garcia for
discussions during the early stages of this
work. SJ is supported by
a STFC studentship. FD acknowledges support from ENRAGE, a Marie Curie Research Training Network contract MRTN-CT-2004-005616
and the Royal Society IJP 2006/R2.
FD and SJ thank Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics for
hospitality during the writing of this paper.
Research at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is
supported in part by the Government of Canada through NSERC
and by the Province of Ontario through MRI.
\section*{References}
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Denis-Charles Cisinski for several conversations
and suggestions which led to some of the arguments in sections
\ref{sect-2} and \ref{sect-3}, Marc Levine
for pointing out several errors in a previous version of this note and
Fr{\'e}d{\'e}ric D{\'e}glise for suggesting this problem.
|
\section{Introduction}
Interacting electrons in one-dimensional (1D) metals constitute
a highly collective state of matter: the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) state.
\cite{Tomonaga,Luttinger,Voit_1995}
The collective nature of the TLL states is what distinguishes them from their higher-dimensional counterparts.
Interacting electrons in two or three dimensions form a Fermi liquid,
wherein the only effects of interaction are the modification of their effective mass
and the possibility of being scattered.
In one dimension, however, even the slightest correlation between electron motions has a dramatic effect,
leading to distinctive features that cannot be explained by the Fermi liquid theory.
To date, physical consequences of the TLL states have been experimentally
observed in various systems, including
carbon nanotubes,\cite{Bockrath_1999,Yao_1999,Bachtold_2001,Ishii_2003,Tombros_2006}
semiconducting quantum wires,\cite{Auslaender_2002,Tserkovnyak_2002_2003,Auslaender_2003,Steinberg_2008,Jompol_2009}
quasi-1D organic conductors,\cite{Schwartz_1998,Claessen_2002,Sing_2003}
quantum Hall edge states,\cite{Chang_1996}
and other materials having highly anisotropic conductivity.
\cite{CKim_1996,Segovia_1999,Slot_2004,Aleshin_2004,Hager_2005,Venkataraman_2006,BJKim_2006,Yuen_2009}
From the theoretical viewpoint, a more general TLL theory with a nonlinear dispersion
\cite{Imambekov_2009}
as well as a novel wave-packed dynamics through Y-shaped TLL junctions\cite{Tokuno_2008}
have been recently suggested.
A hallmark of TLL states is a pseudogap in the one-particle density of states $\nu(\varepsilon)$
at the Fermi energy $\varepsilon_F$.
Injection of an additional electron in the TLL ground state disrupts the pre-existing correlation,
thus requiring excitation of an infinite number of collective modes.
This results in a power-law singularity of the form $\nu(\varepsilon) \propto |\varepsilon-\varepsilon_F|^{\alpha}$,
where $\alpha(>0)$ is called the TLL exponent.
The same power-law arises in the case of a differential tunneling
current \cite{Bockrath_1999}
$dI/dV \propto |V|^{\alpha}$ at high bias voltages $(eV \gg k_B T)$
and a temperature-dependent conductance
$G(T) \propto T^{\alpha}$ at low voltages $(eV \ll k_B T)$,
although $\alpha$ may change due to environment effects.\cite{Bubanja_2009}
These power-law behaviors are in strong contrast with the behavior of Fermi liquids;
in the case of Fermi liquids, $\nu(\varepsilon)$ close to $\varepsilon_F$ and $dI/dV$ become constant.
The TLL exponent $\alpha$ is nonuniversal; it is dependent on the interaction strength,\cite{Voit_1995}
the geometric shape of the system,\cite{Shima_2009}
and the position of tunneling.\cite{Fabrizio_1995}
In fact, different values of $\alpha$
were obtained in carbon nanotube experiments
when each electron tunneled into the end or bulk of the system.\cite{Bockrath_1999,Yao_1999,Postma_2000}
A further non-trivial shift in $\alpha$ was suggested in multiwalled nanotubes,
where $\alpha$ varies in a continuous manner under the application of a high transverse magnetic field.\cite{Bellucci_2006}
Continuous variation in $\alpha$ was also found
in a nuclear magnetic resonance study of CuBr$_4$(C$_5$H$_{12}$N)$_2$
crystals;\cite{Klanjsek_2008}
in this case, an external magnetic field acted as the chemical potential.
Such field-induced variations in $\alpha$
can be exploited for achieving artificial control of transport properties in quasi-1D conductors,
which would play a fundamental role in the development of next-generation quantum devices.
In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework for TLL exponent manipulation
based on electric field modulation.
An analytical expression of the exponent $\alpha$
for quasi-1D conductors subjected to a stepwise periodic potential
is established in terms of the potential amplitude and period.
Under feasible physical conditions, $\alpha$ increases significantly with an increase in the potential amplitude; this indicates that it is possible to tune the quantum transport properties of quasi-1D systems by manipulating $\alpha$.
For a concise description,
we focus our attention on 1D spinless fermion systems,
considering that the effects of spin degree of freedom
requires no substantial revision of the present conclusion.
This issue will be revisited in Sec.~IV.
\section{One-particle states in 1D periodic systems}
\subsection{Eigenenergy analysis}
We consider a quasi-1D electron system having a thin cylindrical shape
with length $L$, which is subjected to a periodic external potential field.
The cylinder radius $d$ is so small $(d\ll L)$ that
all electrons
reside in the lowest subband, $\chi$, of the transverse motion.
Single-particle wavefunctions thus have the form
\begin{equation}
\Psi(z, \bm{r}_{\perp})
= \chi(\bm{r}_{\perp}) \psi(z),
\label{eq_psi}
\end{equation}
where the two-dimensional vector $\bm{r}_{\perp} = (x,y)$ spans the circular cross section.
The axial component $\psi(z)$ obeys the Schr\"odinger equation
with effective mass $m^*$,
\begin{equation}
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^*} \frac{d^2 \psi}{d z^2} + u(z) \psi(z) = \varepsilon \psi(z),
\label{eq_01}
\end{equation}
where $u$ is a stepwise periodic potential given by
\begin{equation}
u(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
0, & (0\le z <a) \\
u_0>0, & (-b \le z<0)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_02}
\end{equation}
and $u(z) = u(z+a+b)$.
The periodicity of $u(z)$ implies that
the eigenstates of Eq.~(\ref{eq_01}) are represented by the Bloch function
\begin{equation}
\psi(z) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \phi_k(z) e^{ikz}, \;\;\; \phi_k(z+a+b) = \phi_k(z),
\label{eq_002b}
\end{equation}
where $\int_0^L |\psi(z)|^2 dz = 1$ and $\int_0^{a+b} |\phi(z)|^2 dz = 1$ with $L=N(a+b)$.
Hence, all eigenstates are labeled by the index $k$.
It is noteworthy that the periodic potentials similar to the above
can be realized by introducing geometric curvature
(instead of field modulation) to quati-1D systems,
and such the curved systems may show non-trivial
quantum transport.\cite{Ono,Taira}
The dispersion relation of the system given by Eq.~(\ref{eq_01})
is (see Appendix A)
\begin{equation}
f(\varepsilon) = \cos \left[ k (a+b)\right].
\label{eq_05}
\end{equation}
Here, the function $f(\varepsilon)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\varepsilon)
&=& \frac12\left( \frac{\eta_1}{\eta_0} - \frac{\eta_0}{\eta_1} \right)
\sin \left( \zeta_a \eta_0 \right)
\sinh \left( \zeta_b \eta_1 \right) \nonumber \\ [2mm]
& &+
\cos \left( \zeta_a \eta_0 \right)
\cosh \left( \zeta_b \eta_1 \right),
\label{eq_06x}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta_0 = \sqrt{\varepsilon}$, $\eta_1 = \sqrt{u_0 - \varepsilon}$,
$\zeta_a^2 = 2m^* a^2/\hbar^2$, and $\zeta_b^2 = 2m^* b^2/\hbar^2$.
According to Eq. (\ref{eq_05}), $f(\varepsilon)$ must fall in the range $-1$ to $1$
for $\varepsilon$ to be physically relevant;
{\it i.e.}, only $\varepsilon$'s that satisfy the condition
$|f(\varepsilon)|\le 1$ are allowed to be the eigenenergies of the system.
Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq_05})
reduces to the trivial relation $\varepsilon = \hbar^2 k^2/(2m^*)$
when $u_0 = 0$, since Eq.~(\ref{eq_06x}) becomes
$f(\varepsilon, u_0=0) = \cos[(\zeta_a+\zeta_b)\sqrt{\varepsilon}]$.
Throughout this paper, we use units of the effective Bohr radius $a_{\rm B} = \hbar^2 \epsilon/(m^* e^2)$
for length and units of the effective Rydberg ${\rm Ry} = e^2/(\epsilon a_{\rm B})$ for energy,
where $\epsilon$ is the dielectric constant of the wire.
For GaAs-based quantum wires, for instance,
we have $a_{\rm B} \sim 10$ nm and ${\rm Ry} \sim 50$ meV.\cite{Adachi_1985}
\begin{figure}[ttt]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(a) Variation of the curve $f(\varepsilon)$ with an increase in the potential amplitude from
$u_0 = 0.2$ (solid) to $0.5$ (dashed), $1.0$ (dashed-dotted), and
$2.0$ (dotted) in units of
${\rm Ry} \equiv e^2/(\epsilon a_{\rm B})$ wherein $a_{\rm B} = \hbar^2 \epsilon/(m^* e^2)$.
The parameters $a=5.0$ and $b=1.0$ in units of $a_{\rm B}$ are fixed.
(b) Slow decay of $\varepsilon_F$ with increasing $u_0$;
see text for the definition of $\varepsilon_F$.
}
\label{fig_01}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig_01}(a) shows the plot of $f(\varepsilon)$ corresponding to the lowest energy band of the allowed $\varepsilon$.
The potential amplitude $u_0$ ranges from 0.2 to 2.0,
and fixed parameters $a=5.0$ and $b=1.0$ are used.
With increasing $u_0$,
the band width shrinks monotonically and the ground-state energy $\varepsilon_{\rm grd}$
({\it i.e.}, the specific $\varepsilon$ that gives $f(\varepsilon) = 1$ in the plot)
shifts to the right.
Thereafter, we set the Fermi energy $\varepsilon_F$ (measured from $\varepsilon_{\rm grd}$) such that
the electron density $n$ satisfies $n a_{\rm B} = 0.3$,
which gave $r_s \equiv (2 n a_{\rm B})^{-1} = 1.67$.
This value is much lower than the critical value of $r_s$, {\it viz.,} $r_s = 36$,
at which the Wigner crystal transition takes place\cite{Tanatar_1989};
it is also lower than $r_s \sim 2.2$, above which
the $4 k_F$ correlation in the charge density distribution
was suggested.\cite{Shulenburger_2008}
Since $n=(2/\pi) \int_0^{k_F} dk$, we can evaluate $\varepsilon_F$ for a given $u_0$
from the relation $f(\varepsilon_F) = \cos [\frac{\pi}{2}n(a+b)]$; see Eq.~(\ref{eq_05}).
Figure \ref{fig_01}(b) presents the $u_0$-dependencies of
$\varepsilon_F$.
It decays with increasing $u_0$ but remains of the order of $10^{-2}$ Ry
for all $u_0$ under consideration.
\subsection{Field-induced shift in Fermi velocity}
The group velocity $v_g(\varepsilon) \equiv \hbar^{-1} \partial \varepsilon/\partial k$ of the system
is evaluated by differentiating both sides of Eq.~(\ref{eq_05}) with respect to $k$.
The result is
\begin{equation}
v_g(\varepsilon) = - \frac{a+b}{\hbar}\frac{\sqrt{1-f(\varepsilon)^2}}{\partial f/\partial \varepsilon},
\label{eq_008}
\end{equation}
The explicit form of $\partial f/\partial \varepsilon$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{eq_a012}) in Appendix A.
$v_g$ vanishes when $\varepsilon$ satisfies $f(\varepsilon) = \pm 1$,
{\it i.e.}, at the lower and upper band edges;
between the two edges, $v_g$ takes the maximum value.
The only exception occurs in the limit of $u_0 = 0$,
in which $v_g(\varepsilon) = \sqrt{2\varepsilon/m^*}$ increases monotonically with $\varepsilon$.
\begin{figure}[ttt]
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(a) Profiles of the group velocity $v_g(\varepsilon)$
in units of $v_0 \equiv {\rm Ry} a_{\rm B}/\hbar$.
Each curve corresponds to the value of $u_0$ in the same manner as Fig.~\ref{fig_01}.
A concave curve connecting the two end points
is the trajectory of the Fermi velocity
$v_F \equiv v_g(\varepsilon=\varepsilon_F)$
obtained through the $u_0$ variation.
(b) The Fermi velocity $v_F$ as a function of $u_0$.}
\label{fig_02}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig_02}(a) shows the $\varepsilon$-dependence of $v_g$
in units of $v_0 \equiv {\rm Ry} a_{\rm B}/\hbar$.
$u_0$ varies from 0.2 to 2.0 in the same manner as in Fig.~\ref{fig_01}.
With increasing $u_0$, the maximum value of $v_g$ decreases and the peak position
shifts to a lower $\varepsilon$.
A concave curve connecting the two end points
is the trajectory of the Fermi velocity
$v_F \equiv v_g(\varepsilon=\varepsilon_F)$
obtained through the $u_0$ variation.
The value of $v_F$ decreases monotonically as $u_0$ increases,
and it then converges to the origin in the limit of $u_0 \to \infty$.
Figure \ref{fig_02}(b) shows the plot of $v_F$ vs. $u_0$.
Note that $v_F/v_0 \sim 0.1$ corresponds to $v_F \sim 10^5$ m/s
if we employ the material constants of GaAs.\cite{Adachi_1985}
\section{Bosonization of 1D periodic systems}
\subsection{TLL exponent in 1D periodic system}
Here we discuss the effect of field modulation on the TLL states.
An important indicator of TLL state realization is
a power-law singularity of the one-particle density of states $\nu(\varepsilon)$
near $\varepsilon_F$ represented by \cite{Voit_1995}
\begin{equation}
\nu(\varepsilon)\propto |\varepsilon - \varepsilon_F|^{\alpha},
\quad \alpha = \frac12 \left( {\cal K}+ \frac{1}{{\cal K}} \right) -1.
\label{eq_025}
\end{equation}
Here, $\alpha$ is the TLL exponent,
and the parameter ${\cal K}$ is defined as (see Appendix B)
\begin{equation}
{\cal K} =
\left[ \frac{2 \pi \hbar v_F + (g_4 - g_2 + g_1)}{2\pi \hbar v_F + (g_4 + g_2 - g_1)} \right]^{1/2},
\label{eq_030}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
g_4 &=& L \tilde{V} (k_F, k_F;\; q_z=0), \label{eq_g4} \\
g_2 &=& L \tilde{V} (k_F, -k_F;\; q_z= 0), \label{eq_g2} \\
g_1 &=& \frac{L}{2} \left[ V(k_F, -k_F; \; q_z = -2k_F) \right. \nonumber \\
& & \;\; \left. + V(-k_F, k_F; \; q_z = 2 k_F) \right] \label{eq_g1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V} (k_1, k_2, q_z) =
\left. \left\langle k_1+ q_z; \; k_2 - q_z \right. \right|
\hat{V}
\left. \left| k_2; \; k_1 \right. \right\rangle.
\label{eq_element}
\end{equation}
The right side of (\ref{eq_element}) is the matrix element of the Coulomb interaction between two-electron states
$\langle \bm{r}_j | k_j \rangle \equiv \Psi(\bm{r}_j)$
given by Eq.~(\ref{eq_psi}),
where $q_z$ describes the momentum transfer in the axial $(z)$ direction.
It should be noted that in formula (\ref{eq_030}),
we can prove that $g_4 = g_2$ as a consequence of the symmetric property
$\phi_k(z) = \phi_{-k}^*(z)$
of the function $\phi_k(z)$ introduced in Eq.~(\ref{eq_002b}).
See Eq.~(\ref{eq_002xx}) for the proof.
\subsection{Fourier representation of Coulomb interaction}
Computation of the TLL exponent $\alpha$ requires
evaluations of $\tilde{V} (k_1, k_2, q_z)$ at the specific values
of $k_1, k_2, q_z$ given above.
The explicit form of $\tilde{V} (k_1, k_2, q_z)$ is obtained by assuming the screened Coulomb potential
\begin{equation}
\langle \bm{r}_i, \bm{r}_j | \hat{V} | \bm{r}_j, \bm{r}_i \rangle
=
V(\bm{r}_{ij})
\; = \;
c_{\epsilon} \frac{e^{-\kappa |\bm{r}_{ij}|}}{|\bm{r}_{ij}|},
\label{eq_vr}
\end{equation}
where $c_{\epsilon} = {\rm e}^2/(4\pi \epsilon)$ and
$\kappa$ is the inverse of the screening length.
Equation (\ref{eq_vr}) has an alternative expression, given as
\begin{equation}
V(\bm{r}_{ij})
=
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int d\bm{q} \frac{4\pi c_{\epsilon}}{|\bm{q}|^2 + \kappa^2}
e^{i \bm{q}\cdot \bm{r}_{ij}}.
\label{eq_022b}
\end{equation}
From Eqs.~(\ref{eq_element}) and (\ref{eq_022b}), we obtain
(see also Eq.~(\ref{eq_appb12}))
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!& &\tilde{V}(k_1, k_2, q_z)
=
\frac{\lambda}{L} \int \frac{dq_z'}{2\pi} \int \frac{d\bm{q}_{\perp}'}{(2\pi)^2} \nonumber \\
\!\!\! & & \times
\frac{4\pi c_{\epsilon} |F(\bm{q}_{\perp}')|^2}{(q_z')^2 + |\bm{q}_{\perp}'|^2 + \kappa^2}
G(q_z, q_z', k_1) G_U(q_z, q_z', k_2),
\label{eq_056}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda=a+b$, $\bm{q}_{\perp} =(q_x,q_y)$ is
the transverse component of the three-dimensional
wavevector $\bm{q}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\! F(\bm{q}_{\perp}')
\!\! &=& \!\!\!
\int \!\! d\bm{r}_{\perp} |\chi(\bm{r}_{\perp})|^2 e^{-i \bm{q}_{\perp}' \cdot \bm{r}_{\perp}}, \\
\!\!\!\!\! G(q_z, q_z', k_1)
\!\! &=& \!\!\!
\int \!\! dz_1 \phi_{k_1 + q_z}^*(z_1) \phi_{k_1}(z_1) e^{-i (q_z-q_z') z_1}, \\
\!\!\!\!\! G_U(q_z, q_z', k_2)
\!\! &=& \!\!\!
\int_U \!\! dz_2 \phi_{k_2 - q_z}^*(z_2) \phi_{k_2}(z_2) e^{i (q_z-q_z') z_2}.\label{eq_027}
\end{eqnarray}
The subscript $U$ in $G_U$ and $\int_U$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_027}) indicates
integration within the unit cell domain $z_2\in [0,\lambda]$.
It is natural to assume that $\chi(\bm{r}_{\perp})$ has a Gaussian form such as\cite{Taira}
\begin{equation}
\chi(\bm{r}_{\perp}) = \left( \frac{2}{\pi d^2} \right)^{1/2}
\exp \left(- \frac{|\bm{r}_{\perp}|^2}{d^2} \right),
\label{eq_025b}
\end{equation}
which gives $F(\bm{q}_{\perp}') = \exp\left(-|\bm{q}_{\perp}'|^2 d^2/2\right)$.
As a result, the integral term with respect to $\bm{q}_{\perp}'$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_056})
is rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\! & &\int d\bm{q}_{\perp}'
\frac{ e^{-|\bm{q}_{\perp}'|^2 d^2/2}}{(q_z')^2 + |\bm{q}_{\perp}'|^2 + \kappa^2}
=
\int_0^{\infty} dt \frac{\pi e^{-t}}{t + \left( {q_z'}^2 + \kappa^2 \right) d^2} \nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!\! & &=
-\pi e^{\left( {q_z'}^2 + \kappa^2 \right) d^2 } \;
{\rm Ei} \left[- \left( {q_z'}^2 + \kappa^2 \right) d^2 \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\rm Ei}(x)$ is the exponential-integral function
defined by ${\rm Ei}(x) = - \int_{-x}^{\infty} t^{-1} e^{-t} dt$.
Finally, we obtain the explicit form
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{V}(k_1, k_2, q_z)
&=&
- \frac{c_{\epsilon} \lambda}{4\pi L}
\int dq_z' G(q_z, q_z', k_1) G_U(q_z, q_z', k_2) \nonumber \\
&\times&
e^{\left( {q_z'}^2 + \kappa^2 \right) d^2 } \;
{\rm Ei} \left[- \left( {q_z'}^2 + \kappa^2 \right) d^2 \right],
\label{eq_002xx}
\end{eqnarray}
by which we can compute $g_4$, $g_2$, $g_1$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq_g4})-(\ref{eq_g1})
for a given $k_F$.
\section{Results and discussions}
\begin{figure}[ttt]
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(a)
The TLL exponent $\alpha$ as a function of the field modulation amplitude $u_0$.
The cylinder radius $d$ of the quasi-1D system is taken to be
$d=0.1$ (dashed), $d=0.3$ (dashed-dotted) and $d=1.0$ (solid)
in units of $a_{\rm B}$.
The pamameters $a=5.0$, $b=1.0$, $\kappa = 10^{-4}$ are fixed for all curves.
(b) $u_0$-dependences of $g_4(=g_2)$ (thick curves)
and $g_1$ (thin) under the numerical conditions same as in (a).}
\label{fig_03}
\end{figure}
We demonstrate below that the value of $\alpha$ can be tunable
artificially by imposing an appropriate magnitude of the periodic external field.
Figure \ref{fig_03}(a) shows the field-induced change in the TLL exponent $\alpha$
for different values of the cylinder radius:
$d=0.1$ (dashed), $d=0.3$ (dashed-dotted) and $d=1.0$ (solid)
in units of $a_{\rm B}$.
We fixed the pamameters $a=5.0$, $b=1.0$,
and $\kappa a_{\rm B} = 10^{-4}$ so as to satisfy the condition
$\kappa \ll k_F$ in accord to the bosonization procedure.\cite{Voit_1995}
The most important observation in Fig.~\ref{fig_03}(a) is
the monotonic increase in $\alpha$ with increasing $u_0$.
In particular, the data of $\alpha$ for $d=1.0$ exhibits
a pronounced enhancement.
Such the $u_0$-driven shift in $\alpha$
is caused by a simple mechanism based on
the behaviors of constituents $v_F$, $g_4(=g_2)$ and $g_1$
contained in formula (\ref{eq_030}) of ${\cal K}$.
First, it follows from Fig.~\ref{fig_03}(b) that
$g_4$ and $g_1$ are almost independent of the change in $u_0$
and satisfy the inequality $g_4 > g_1$.
Hence, a decrease in $v_F$ causes a decrease in ${\cal K}$ defined by
Eq.~(\ref{eq_030}).
Second, the above inequality implies ${\cal K} < 1$,
and thus the decrease in ${\cal K}$ results in an increase in $\alpha$
as understood from Eq.~(\ref{eq_025}).
As a consequence, $\alpha$ can be raised by enhancing the field modulation amplitude $u_0$.
For $u_0\gg 10.0$, $\alpha$ converges to a limiting value determined by
$\alpha=({\cal K} + {\cal K}^{-1})/2 - 1$ and ${\cal K}=[g_1/(2g_4-g_1)]^{1/2}$,
since $v_F$ vanishes asymptotically.
The upper limit of $\alpha$ is dependent of the geometric parameters
$d$, $a$, $b$;
therefore, it is crucial to set appropriate values of the three parameters
in order to obtain optimal controllability of the exponent $\alpha$.
It should be remarked that we have discussed spinless fermion systems;
they are realized in spin-polarized ultracold fermionic
gases\cite{Gunter_2005}
and in spin-$1/2$ antiferromagnetic ladders,\cite{Chitra_1997,Giamarchi_1999,Hikihara_2001}
whereas many quasi-1D systems involve the effects of the spin degrees of freedom.
When we take into account the spin degrees of freedom,
Eqs.~(\ref{eq_025}) and (\ref{eq_030}) can be rewritten
because of the presence of SU(2) symmetry
as\cite{Voit_1995}
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha &=& \frac{1}{4} \left( {\cal K}_\rho + \frac{1}{{\cal K}_\rho} \right) - \frac{1}{2}, \\
{\cal K}_\rho &=&
\left[
\frac
{2 \pi \hbar v_F +
\left(g_{4 \|} + g_{4 \perp} - g_{2 \|} - g_{2 \perp} + g_{1 \|}\right)}
{2 \pi \hbar v_F +
\left(g_{4 \|} + g_{4 \perp} + g_{2 \|} + g_{2 \perp} - g_{1 \|}\right)}
\right]^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $g_{i \|}$ and $g_{i \perp}$ ($i=1,2,4$) express
the matrix elements of interaction between electrons with
parallel spin and those with antiparallel spin, respectively.
In the usual Coulomb interaction, the
matrix elements do not depend on the spin degree of freedom; consequently,
$g_{i \|} = g_{i \perp}$ is expected.
Therefore, we anticipate that the sizeable shift in $\alpha$ demonstrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig_03} should be qualitatively correct even if we take into account the spin degree of freedom.
Details including the actual calculation will be shown elsewhere.
\section{Summary}
We have theoretically shown that the TLL exponent $\alpha$
can be artificially controlled by applying a perodic
external electric field to the system.
The bosonization procedure has been used to obtain
the analytic expression of the exponent $\alpha$
as a function of the amplitude $u_0$ and period $\lambda$ of
the external field modulation $u(z)$.
The result indicates that $\alpha$ increases significantly with
the potential amplitude $u_0$, whose magnitude is within the realm
of the existing experiments.
The significant variation in $\alpha$ is attributed to
the field-induced shift in the Fermi velocity $v_F$ of the single-particle state.
The present results indicate that the quantum transport properties
of quasi-1D systems can be tuned by manipulating $\alpha$.
Experimental confirmation will provide a novel approach to manipulating 1D quantum systems.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to K.~Yakubo, S.~Iwabuchi, J.~Onoe, T.~Ito, and Y.~Toda
for their helpful comments prior to commencement of this study.
HS is thankful for the financial support from the Kazima Foundation
and for the assistance provided by M.~Arroyo at the UPC facility.
This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research from MEXT, Japan,
and Nara Women's University Intramural Grant for Project Research.
Numerical simulations were carried out in part using
the facilities of the Supercomputer Center, ISSP, University of Tokyo.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The highest energy particle interactions which can be studied in the
laboratory are being provided
by $p\bar p$ collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron and $pp$ collisions at the
CERN Large Handron Collider (LHC). In order to compare hadron collider
data with theoretical predictions at a sufficiently precise level,
NLO QCD corrections are needed for many signal and background processes.
A sizable fraction of these proceedings is devoted to this topic.
The purpose of the present contribution is to provide an overview of NLO QCD
calculations which have been implemented in the publicly available
VBFNLO~\footnote{The source code for the VBFNLO programs is available at
http://www-itp.particle.uni-karlsruhe.de/vbfnlo/} program
package~\cite{Arnold:2008rz} or which have recently been performed in the
VBFNLO framework. In addition, we discuss NLO QCD
corrections to $WW\gamma$ production~\cite{Bozzi:2009ig}
in Section~\ref{sec:VVgamma} and to
$W\gamma j$ production~\cite{Campanario:2009um} in Section~\ref{sec:WgammaJet}.
\section{Overview of VBFNLO Processes}
\label{sec:processes}
The VBFNLO package provides parton level Monte Carlos for the calculation
of hadron collider cross sections and distributions with NLO QCD accuracy.
The cancellation of collinear and soft divergences between virtual
contributions and real emission corrections is achieved with the
dipole subtraction method of Catani and Seymour~\cite{Catani:1996vz}.
The calculation of matrix elements is based on the helicity amplitude
formalism of Ref.~\cite{Hagiwara:1985yu}, while dedicated routines
using Passarino-Veltman and/or Denner-Dittmaier
recursion~\cite{Passarino:1978jh} are providing numerical
tensor reduction and the calculation of the finite parts of virtual amplitudes.
VBFNLO originates from vector boson fusion (VBF) processes which can be
pictured as quark-(anti)quark scattering via $t$-channel electroweak
boson exchange, with the emission of additional weak bosons or a Higgs
boson off the quark- or electroweak boson lines. All processes, which are
discussed below,
neglect identical fermion effects. For VBF processes such as
$q\bar Q \to q\bar Q H$ this implies that $s$-channel diagrams
such as $u\bar u\to ZH\to u\bar u H$ are considered to be separate processes
which are not provided by VBFNLO. Indeed, in the phase space regions where VBF
processes can be isolated at the LHC, these $s$-channel contributions are
usually small and their interference with the VBF diagrams is truly
negligible (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Bredenstein:2008tm}).
The following VBF processes at NLO QCD are implemented in the 2008
release of VBFNLO~\cite{Arnold:2008rz}:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bf Hjj$ production with and without decay of the Higgs
boson~\cite{Figy:2003nv}. Options for Higgs decay modes include
$H\to \tau^+\tau^-$, $H\to W^+W^-\to l^+\nu l^-\bar\nu$,
$H\to ZZ\to 4$~leptons, $H\to\gamma\gamma$, or
$H\to b\bar b $. Also, anomalous $HVV$ couplings are
supported~\cite{Hankele:2006ma}.
\item $\bf Hjjj$ production with and without decay of the Higgs
boson~\cite{Figy:2007kv}. Options for Higgs decay modes are the same as
for $Hjj$ production. The $H+3$-jet calculation does not contain
the full NLO QCD corrections but neglects certain $t$-channel color exchange
contributions which are subleading in $1/N$ and which have been shown to
be very small for VBF kinematics.
\item $\bf W^\pm jj$ production with subsequent leptonic $W$
decay~\cite{Oleari:2003tc}.
\item $\bf Zjj$ production with subsequent leptonic $Z$
decay~\cite{Oleari:2003tc}.
\item $\bf W^+W^- jj$ production with subsequent leptonic $W$ decay
and full off-shell effects~\cite{Jager:2006zc}. Anomalous trilinear and
quartic couplings between Higgs boson and weak bosons are implemented.
\item $\bf ZZ jj$ production with subsequent leptonic $Z$ decay
and full off-shell effects~\cite{Jager:2006cp}.
\item $\bf W^\pm Z jj$ production with subsequent leptonic weak boson decay
and full off-shell effects~\cite{Bozzi:2007ur}.
\end{itemize}
For the last three processes ($VVjj$ production in VBF) extra vector
resonances in $VV$ scattering are implemented within
the context of warped Higgsless models~\cite{Englert:2008wp}.
Beyond the VBF processes listed above, the calculation of
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bf W^+W^+jj$ and $\bf W^-W^-jj$
production in VBF with leptonic decay of the $W$s
and full off-shell effects~\cite{Jager:2009xx}
\end{itemize}
has recently been completed and will be made publicly available in a
future VBFNLO release.
The next large class of processes concerns double and triple electroweak
boson production with NLO QCD accuracy. At tree level, the underlying reactions
are of the type $q\bar q \to VV$ or $q\bar q \to VVV$. In all cases,
leptonic decays of the electroweak bosons to lepton pairs and off-shell
effects are included in
the calculations. The processes implemented in the 2008 release are
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bf W^+W^-$ production. This process has been verified against
MCFM~\cite{Campbell:1999ah}.
\item $\bf W^+W^-Z$ production, including the $H\to WW$
resonance~\cite{Hankele:2007sb}.
\item $\bf W^\pm ZZ$ production, including the $H\to ZZ$
resonance~\cite{Campanario:2008yg}.
\item $\bf W^\pm W^\mp W^\pm$ production, including the $H\to WW$
resonances~\cite{Campanario:2008yg}.
\end{itemize}
Total NLO cross sections for the last three processes ($VVV$ production) have
been successfully compared against the results of Ref.~\cite{Binoth:2008kt}
which, however, are only available without leptonic decay of the weak
bosons and which do not include Higgs resonance contributions.
Two extensions of the triple weak boson production processes have recently
been completed within the VBFNLO framework. These are
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bf W^+W^-\gamma$ and $\bf ZZ\gamma$ production with subsequent
$W$ and $Z$ leptonic decay~\cite{Bozzi:2009ig} and
\item $\bf W^\pm\gamma j$ production with $W\to l\nu$
decay~\cite{Campanario:2009um}.
\end{itemize}
They will be discussed in more detail below.
\section{$WW\gamma$ Production}
\label{sec:VVgamma}
\begin{figure}[th]
\label{fig:wwafeyn}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{WWAfeyn.eps}
\caption{Examples of the three topologies of Feynman diagrams
contributing to $pp\to W^+W^-\gamma+X$.}
\end{figure}
The three classes of Feynman graphs contributing to $WW\gamma$ production
at tree level are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wwafeyn}. As in all VBFNLO
processes, the decay of the $W$s to charged leptons is included, i.e. the
QCD corrections are calculated for the full process
$pp,\; p\bar p\to\nu_1 l_1^+\bar\nu_2 l_2^-\gamma~+X$, including
final state photon radiation off the charged leptons or other off-shell
contributions.
Virtual QCD corrections can be considered separately for each of the
tree level graphs. Corrections to the vertex topology (I) factorize in
terms of the corresponding Born amplitude, and this includes the soft and
collinear divergences which appear as $1/\epsilon^2$ and $1/\epsilon$ poles
in dimensional regularization. The cancellation of these poles against the
real emission cross sections, where the divergent phase space integral
is proportional to the full Born amplitude squared, implies that the
infrared divergent parts of the QCD loop corrections to topologies (II)
and (III) also factorize in terms of their respective Born amplitude.
The full virtual contributions are thus given by
\begin{equation}
M_V = \widetilde{M}_V + \ \frac{\alpha_S}{4 \pi} \ C_F \ \left( \frac{4
\pi \mu^2}{Q^2} \right)^\epsilon \ \Gamma{(1 + \epsilon)} \ \left[
-\frac{2}{\epsilon^2} - \frac{3}{\epsilon} - 8 + \frac{4 \ \pi^2}{3}
\right] \ M_B, \label{eq:MV}
\end{equation}
where $M_B$ is the Born amplitude and $Q$ is the partonic center-of-mass
energy, i.e. the invariant mass of the final state $WW\gamma$ system,
$m_{WW\gamma}$. The term $\widetilde{M}_V$ consists of the finite parts of
the virtual
corrections to 2 and 3 weak boson amplitudes and can be calculated
numerically in $d=4$ dimensions.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale = 0.95]{ScaleWWA.eps}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.95]{ScaleWWAco.eps}
\caption[]{\label{fig:scale_wwa}
{\it Left:} {Scale dependence of the total LHC cross section for
$p p \to W^+W^-\gamma+X \to \ell^+ \ell^- \gamma +\sla{p}_T+X$ at LO and
NLO within the cuts of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cuts}) and (\ref{eq:isol}).
The factorization and renormalization scales are together or
independently varied in the range from $0.1\mu_0$ to $10\mu_0$,
with $\mu_0=m_{WW\gamma}$.}
{\it Right:} { Same as in the left panel but for the different NLO
contributions at $\mu_F=\mu_R=\xi\mu_0$.}}
\end{figure}
For our numerical results we impose a set of minimal cuts on leptons, photon
and jets, namely
\begin{equation}
p_{T_{\gamma(\ell)}} > 20 \ \mathrm{GeV} \qquad
|y_{\gamma(\ell)}| < 2.5 \qquad
R_{\ell\gamma} > 0.4 \qquad
R_{j \ell} > 0.4 \qquad
R_{ j \gamma} > 0.7
\label{eq:cuts}
\end{equation}
where, in our simulations, a jet is defined as a parton of
transverse momentum $p_{Tj}>20$~GeV.
For photon isolation, we implement the procedure
defined in \cite{Frixione:1998jh}: if $i$ is a parton with transverse energy
$E_{T_i}$ and a separation $R_{i\gamma}$ with a photon of transverse momentum
$p_{T_\gamma}$, then for
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_i \, E_{T_i} \, \theta (\delta - R_{i\gamma}) \, \leq \, p_{T_\gamma} \,
\frac{1-\cos\delta}{1-\cos\delta_0} \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
(\mathrm{for\,\, all} \,\,\,\,\,\delta\leq\delta_0) \label{eq:isol}
\end{equation}
the event is accepted. Here $\delta_0$ is a fixed separation that we
set equal to 0.7.
The integrated cross section within these cuts and its scale
variation around $\mu_0=m_{WW\gamma}$ is depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:scale_wwa}. The scale variation is modest both
at LO and at NLO. The LO factorization scale variation seriously
underestimates the NLO corrections, which amount to a $K$-factor of
about 1.7 at the LHC. At NLO, the factorization scale dependence
is substantially reduced when compared to LO. The modest renormalization
scale dependence can be associated to mainly the real emission
contributions.
\section{$W\gamma j$ Production}
\label{sec:WgammaJet}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale = 0.85]{plot_ral.eps}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.85]{plot_ptj.eps}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Differential distribution of the photon-lepton separation
$R_{\ell \gamma}$ and the maximum jet transverse momentum at LO
(dashed) and at NLO (solid). The lower panels show the differential
$K$-factor. The dotted lines correspond
to the $K$-factor of the integrated cross section, $K=1.41$.
\label{fig:waj}
}
\end{figure}
In Ref.~\cite{Campanario:2009um} the NLO QCD corrections to
$pp,\, p\bar p \to W^\pm\gamma j+X$ cross sections
have been calculated, again including
final state photon radiation off the $W$ decay products and finite width
effects. When varying the factorization and renormalization scales by a
factor of 2 around fixed values of $\mu_0=100$~GeV one finds modest
scale variations which decrease from about 11\% at LO to 7\% at NLO.
$K$-factors are around 1.4 at the LHC, but they do vary over phase
space. Two examples for this variation are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:waj}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
For a variety of production processes of electroweak bosons, NLO QCD
corrections have been calculated and implemented in the VBFNLO program
package. QCD corrections are found to be fairly small for VBF cross
sections.
For triple electroweak boson production, however, QCD corrections increase
LO estimates substantially, by $K$-factors up to 1.8 for integrated cross
sections, and even larger values are observed in certain distributions.
The size of QCD corrections for $W\gamma j$ production falls between
these two extremes. It is clear, however, that NLO QCD corrections
should be considered for a precise comparison of data to SM predictions
for all these processes.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The description of the process
of charmonium production in interactions of photons and hadrons is a challenge to theory,
since it involves both the production of the heavy quark system and the formation of the bound state.
Charmonium production in electron\footnote{In this paper "electron" is used to denote both electron and positron.}-proton collisions at HERA is dominated by photon-gluon fusion:
a photon emitted from the incoming electron interacts with a gluon from
the proton to produce a $c \bar c$ pair that evolves into a charmonium state.
In the colour singlet model, only those states with the same quantum numbers as the
resulting charmonium contribute to the formation of a bound \ensuremath{c\bar{c}}\xspace state.
This is achieved by radiating a hard gluon in a perturbative process.
In the factorisation ansatz of non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics, also colour octet \ensuremath{c\bar{c}}\xspace states
contribute to the charmonium production cross section via soft gluon radiation.
Previous measurements in electroproduction ($ep$) and photoproduction ($\gamma p$) at HERA~\cite{Aid:1996dn,Adloff:1999zs,Adloff:2002ex,Adloff:2002ey,Breitweg:1997we,Chekanov:2002at,ZEUS05} are not described by predictions in the colour singlet model to leading order.
In contrast, the calculation of photoproduction cross sections to next-to-leading order (NLO)~\cite{Kraemer} showed a reasonable description of the photoproduction cross sections.
The calculation proved that the corrections with respect to leading order results are very large,
increasing towards large transverse momentum of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson.
The same calculation, repeated recently with an up-to-date set of theoretical parameters~\cite{Maltoni}, results in a prediction which is about a factor of three below the measured cross sections,
indicating that corrections beyond NLO are needed and/or that contributions
from colour octet states may be sizable.
In this paper a measurement is presented of inelastic \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson production at HERA.
The measurement uses a larger data sample than previous results~\cite{Aid:1996dn,Adloff:1999zs,Adloff:2002ex,Adloff:2002ey} and benefits from improved systematics.
The data sets were collected in the years 2004 to 2007 with the H1 detector.
The \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson candidates are identified by the leptonic decay into two
muons or electrons.
The cross sections are measured for both electroproduction and photoproduction.
For the photoproduction sample \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson polarisation variables are determined.
The data samples are restricted to the region of phase space where contributions from
diffractive charmonium production are suppressed.
\section{Theoretical Models}
\label{theory}
In order to describe inelastic charmonium production in the framework of
perturbative QCD different models have been proposed, such as the colour-eva\-po\-ration model~\cite{Halzen:1977rs,Eboli:1998xx}, the colour-singlet model
(CSM)~\cite{CSM_Chang,Berger:1980ni,Baier:1981uk,Baier:1981zz,Baier:1983va}, the factorisation ansatz in non-relativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD)~\cite{Caswell:1985ui,Thacker:1990bm,Bodwin:1994jh} and soft
colour interactions~\cite{Edin:1997zb}.
In this paper the most recent calculations using the CSM or NRQCD are compared to the data.
In the CSM, only charm quark pairs in a colour singlet state with the same quantum numbers as the resulting charmonium contribute to the formation of a bound \ensuremath{c\bar{c}}\xspace state.
This is achieved by radiating a hard gluon in the perturbative process.
The factorisation ansatz in NRQCD includes also colour octet $c\bar{c}$ states
in the charmonium production cross section.
The size of these colour octet contributions, described by long distance
matrix elements (LDME), is defined by additional free parameters which
were determined in fits to the Tevatron data~\cite{Braaten:1999qk}.
The NRQCD factorisation approach contains also the colour singlet model
which is recovered in the limit in which the colour-octet LDME tend to zero.
The following calculations are compared to the measurements presented in this paper:
\begin{itemize}
\item A calculation of \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson photoproduction via a colour singlet mechanism \cite{Maltoni}
provides predictions for both cross sections and helicity distributions to next-to-leading order.
The uncertainty of this calculation is estimated by variations of the charm quark mass
and the factorisation and renormalisation scales.
\item A calculation at NLO for photoproduction cross sections includes the full framework
of NRQCD~\cite{Kniehl}.
The uncertainty of this calculation is dominated by the limited knowledge of
the LDMEs.
\item CSM predictions in the \ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation approach are employed as implemented in the MC generator {\sc Cascade}\xspace \cite{Jung:2000hk}.
Higher order parton emissions based on the CCFM evolution equations~\cite{ccfm} are matched to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ matrix elements in which the incoming parton can be off-shell.
The uncertainty on the calculation is estimated by varying the renormalisation scale by a factor of two.
In addition polarisation variables in the \ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation approach are calculated analytically~\cite{Baranov}.
\end{itemize}
Parameters and variations used in the theoretical calculations are given in table~\ref{tab:theoryparam}.
\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ l p{8cm}}
\toprule
CSM (NLO), P.~Artoisenet et al.~\cite{Maltoni} & \\
\midrule
PDF & CTEQ6M~\cite{CTEQ6M}\\
renormalisation and factorisation scale & $\mu_0 = 4 m_c$\\
scale variation & $0.5 \mu_0 < \mu_\mr{f}$, $\mu_\mr{r} < 2 \mu_0$ and $0.5 < \mu_\mr{r}/\mu_\mr{f} < 2$\\
CS LDME & $\left<\mathcal{O}\left[\underline{1},^3S_1\right]\right> = \unit[1.16]{GeV^3}$\\
$m_c$ & $1.4 < m_c < \unit[1.6]{GeV}$\\
$\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & $0.118$ (+ running at 2 loops)\\
\midrule
NRQCD (NLO), M.~Butensch\"on et al.~\cite{Kniehl} & \\
\midrule
PDF & CTEQ6M~\cite{CTEQ6M}\\
renormalisation and factorisation scale & $\mu_0 = \sqrt{4m_c^2 + \ensuremath{{P^2_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace}$\\
NRQCD scale & $\mu_\Lambda = \mr{m_c}$\\
$m_c$ & $m_\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace / 2 \approx \unit[1.55]{GeV}$\\
$\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & $0.1176 \pm 0.002$\\
\midrule
CSM (\ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation), {\sc Cascade}\xspace~\cite{Jung:2000hk} & \\
\midrule
PDF & CCFM set A0~\cite{SetA0}\\
& (\lq set A0$^\pm$\rq\xspace for $\mu_r$ uncertainties)\\
renormalisation scale & $\mu_0 = \sqrt{m_\psi^2 + \ensuremath{{P^2_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace}$\\
renormalisation scale variation & $0.5 \mu_0 < \mu_\mr{r} < 2 \mu_0$\\
factorisation scale & $\sqrt{\hat{s} + Q^2_\perp}$\\
$m_c$ & $\unit[1.5]{GeV}$\\
$\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{(3)}$ & $\unit[200]{MeV}$\\
\midrule
CSM (\ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation), S.~Baranov~\cite{Baranov} & \\
\midrule
PDF & CCFM set A0~\cite{SetA0}\\
renormalisation and factorisation scale & $\mu_0 = \sqrt{m_\psi^2 + \ensuremath{{P^2_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace}$\\
$m_c$ & $\unit[1.5]{GeV}$\\
$\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{(3)}$ & $\unit[200]{MeV}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Summary of the parameters employed in the CSM and NRQCD calculations
used to compare to the measurements in this paper. In this table PDF means
parton distribution function of the proton, $\hat{s}$ denotes the invariant mass square of the hard subprocess and $Q_\perp$ the initial transverse momentum of the partonic system ($\gamma$g).}
\label{tab:theoryparam}
\end{table}
\section{H1 Detector}
\label{sec:h1}
The H1 detector is described in detail elsewhere~\cite{Abt:1997xv}. Here only
the components essential to the present analysis are briefly described.
A right handed Cartesian coordinate system is used with the origin at the nominal primary $ep$ interaction vertex.
The proton beam direction defines the $z$ axis. The polar angles $\theta$ and transverse momenta $P_T$ of all particles
are defined with respect to this axis. The azimuthal angle $\phi$ defines the particle direction in the transverse plane. The pseudorapidity is defined as $\eta=-\ln {\tan {\frac{\theta}{2}}}$.
Charged particles emerging from the $ep$ interaction region
are measured by the central tracking detector (CTD) in the pseudo-rapidity
range $|\eta| < 1.74$.
The CTD consists of two large cylindrical central jet drift chambers (CJC) which
are interleaved by a $z$-chamber and arranged concentrically
around the beam-line in a magnetic field of $1.16~\mathrm{T}$.
The CTD provides triggering information based on track segments from the CJC~\cite{FTT, FTT2},
and on the \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace-position of the vertex from the 5-layer multi-wire proportional chamber~\cite{CIP} which
is situated inside the inner CJC.
To provide the best possible spatial track reconstruction, CTD tracks are linked to
hits in the vertex detector, the central silicon tracker CST~\cite{CST}.
The CST is installed close to the interaction point, surrounding the beam pipe in the
pseudo-rapidity range $|\eta| < 1.3$ and consists of two layers of double sided silicon
strip sensors.
Charged and neutral particles are measured in the liquid argon calorimeter (LAr)~\cite{LAr} which surrounds the tracking chambers and covers the range
$-1.5 < \eta < 3.4$ and a lead/scintillating-fibre calorimeter SpaCal~\cite{Nicholls:1996di},
covering the backward region $-4.0 < \eta < -1.4$.
The calorimeters are surrounded by the solenoidal
magnet and the iron return yoke. The yoke is instrumented with
16 layers of limited streamer tubes, forming the central muon detector (CMD)
in the range $-2.5 < \eta < 3.4$.
The luminosity determination is based on the measurement of the
Bethe-Heitler process $ep \to ep\gamma$, where the photon is detected
in a calorimeter located downstream of the interaction
point in the electron beam direction at $z=-\unit[104]{m}$.
\section{Data Analysis}
\label{sec:anal}
The kinematics of inelastic charmonium production at HERA are
described using the following variables: the square of the $ep$ centre
of mass energy $s = (p+k)^2$, where $p$ and $k$ denote the four vectors of electron and proton respectively;
the negative squared four momentum transfer $\ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace = -q^2$, where $q$ is the
four vector of the virtual photon; and the mass of the hadronic final state $\ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace = \sqrt{(p+q)^2}$.
\ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace is related to the scaled energy transfer $y = (p\cdot q) / (p \cdot k)$ via $\ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace^2 = ys-\ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace$.
In addition, the elasticity of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson production process is defined as
$\ensuremath{{z}}\xspace = (p_\psi\cdot p)/(q\cdot p)$, where $p_\psi$ is the four momentum of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson.
The elasticity denotes the fractional energy of the photon
transferred to the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson in the proton rest system.
Events are selected separately in the photoproduction and electroproduction regimes.
Photoproduction events are selected
by requiring that no isolated high energy electromagnetic cluster,
consistent with a signal from a scattered electron, is detected in
the calorimeters. This limits the virtuality to values of
$\ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace \lesssim \unit[2.5]{GeV^2}$, resulting in a mean value of $\langle \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace\rangle \approx \unit[0.085]{GeV^2}$.
Conversely, for the electroproduction sample,
a scattered electron with energy of more than $\unit[10]{GeV}$
is required to be
reconstructed in the backward calorimeter (SpaCal), corresponding to a range
in photon virtuality $3.6 < \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace < \unit[100]{GeV^2}$.
In this analysis the photon virtuality \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace is reconstructed from the
scattered electron energy $E_e'$ and polar angle $\Theta_e'$ as $\ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace=4E_eE_e'\cos^2(\Theta_e'/2)$, where $E_e$ denotes the energy of the beam electron.
The variable $y$ is reconstructed using
the relation $y=\sum_h (E-p_z)/2E_e$ for photoproduction~\cite{jb}
and $y=\sum_h (E-p_z)/\sum (E-p_z)$ for electroproduction~\cite{esigma}.
The sums in the numerator include all particles of the hadronic final state without the scattered electron, which is only included in the sum of the denominator for electroproduction.
The elasticity \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace is then obtained from
$z = (E-p_z)_{\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace}/\sum_h (E-p_z)$, where $(E-p_z)_{\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace}$ is calculated from the decay particles of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson.
The kinematics of the final state particles are obtained from charged particle
tracks reconstructed in the CTD and energy depositions in the LAr and
SpaCal calorimeters~\cite{hadrooII,peez}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\unitlength1cm
\begin{picture}(16.,4.6)
\put( 0.,0.2){\includegraphics*[width=5.cm]{d09-225f1a.eps}}
\put( 5.5,0.2){\includegraphics*[width=5.cm]{d09-225f1b.eps}}
\put(11.,0.2){\includegraphics*[width=5.cm]{d09-225f1c.eps}}
\put(1.,4.2){a)}
\put(6.5,4.2){b)}
\put(12.,4.2){c)}
\end{picture}
\caption{Invariant mass spectra of two oppositely charged leptons after all selection
cuts for a) the photoproduction ($\gamma p$) sample and b,c) the
electroproduction ($ep$) samples as listed in table~\ref{tab:selection}.
The lines show the results of fits to signals and backgrounds.}
\label{fig:ctrl:mass}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ rccc }
\toprule
& Photoproduction & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Electroproduction} \\
& $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ & $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ & $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow e^+e^-$ \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{kinematic range} \\
\midrule
& $ \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace< \unit[2.5]{GeV^2}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$3.6 < \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace < \unit[100]{GeV^2}$} \\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{$ \unit[60]{GeV} < \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace < \unit[240]{GeV}$} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace > \unit[1]{GeV}$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\ensuremath{{P^{*}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace > \unit[1]{GeV}$} \\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{$0.3 < \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace < 0.9$} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{event selection} \\
\midrule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\ensuremath{{P_{T,\ell}}}\xspace >\unit[800]{MeV}$} \\
& $20^{\circ} < \ensuremath{{\Theta_{\mu}}}\xspace < 160^{\circ}$ & $20^{\circ} < \ensuremath{{\Theta_{\mu}}}\xspace < 160^{\circ}$ & $20^{\circ} < \ensuremath{{\Theta_{\mr{e}}}}\xspace < 150^{\circ}$ \\
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\mathrm{N_{Trk}} \geq 5$ ~~(in the range $20^\circ < \ensuremath{\Theta}\xspace < 160^\circ$)} \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{event samples} \\
\midrule
$N_{\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace}$ & $2320 \pm 54$ & $501\pm34$ & $290\pm24$ \\
$\mathcal{L}_\mr{int}$ & $\unit[165]{pb^{-1}}$ & $\unit[315]{pb^{-1}}$ & $\unit[315]{pb^{-1}}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{List of selection cuts and event yields for each of the three data samples.}
\label{tab:selection}
\end{table}
The \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson candidates are reconstructed through their decays
into two oppositely charged muons or electrons. These decay leptons
are reconstructed as charged particles in the CTD with a transverse momentum of at least $\unit[800]{MeV}$.
Muon candidates are identified as minimum ionising particles in the
LAr calorimeter or through track segments in the CMD ($20^\circ < \ensuremath{{\Theta_{\mu}}}\xspace < 160^\circ$)~\cite{msteder}.
Electron candidates are identified through their energy deposit
in the central calorimeter ($20^\circ < \ensuremath{{\Theta_{\mr{e}}}}\xspace < 150^\circ$)~\cite{msauter}.
For trigger reasons the photoproduction sample of \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson events is
restricted to decays into $\mu^+\mu^-$, while the electroproduction sample includes
both leptonic decay channels.
The photoproduction sample was recorded in the years 2006 and 2007 and
corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal{L} = \unit[165]{pb^{-1}}$, while the electroproduction sample was recorded in the years 2004 to 2007 and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal{L} = \unit[315]{pb^{-1}}$.
The measurement is performed in the kinematic range
$60 < \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace < \unit[240]{GeV}$, $0.3 < \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace < 0.9$ and $\ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}(P^{*} _{T,\iPsi})}}\xspace > \unit[1]{GeV}$.
In photoproduction the transverse momentum \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace is measured in the lab frame, while in electroproduction the transverse momentum \ensuremath{{P^{*}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace is calculated in the $\gamma^
*p$ rest frame.
To suppress contributions from diffractive
production of \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons, selected events are required to contain at least
five reconstructed tracks in the central region of the detector
($20^\circ < \ensuremath{\Theta}\xspace < 160^\circ$).
The reconstruction efficiency accounts for this experimental cut and the measured cross sections are corrected for this track multiplicity cut.
Figure~\ref{fig:ctrl:mass} shows the invariant mass spectra of the leptons in the selected event samples.
The number of signal events, $N_\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace$, is obtained in all bins of the cross section measurements from a fit to the mass distributions in the interval $2 < \ensuremath{{m_{\ell\ell}}}\xspace < 6$ GeV.
For the decay into muons the signal peak is described using a modified Gaussian~\cite{ZEUS05}.
In the case of a decay into two electrons an exponential is added to the lower mass region of the signal Gaussian in order to account for the radiative tail~\cite{msteder}.
For the differential cross section measurements, the width and asymmetry term of
the mass peak in each bin are fixed to the values obtained from the full samples.
For both decay channels, the background is parametrised by a polynomial of third order.
At $m_{\ell\ell} \approx \unit[3.7]{GeV}$, the nominal mass of \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons, an additional Gaussian with fixed position and width is allowed in all analysis bins.
The selection criteria and the obtained event samples are summarised in table~\ref{tab:selection}.
\section{Monte Carlo Simulations}
\label{sec:mc}
Cross sections and polarisation parameters are derived by correcting the measured number of events
and angular distributions for detector effects, such as detector
resolutions and inefficiencies.
Several Monte Carlo generator programs are used to determine
the corrections.
All samples are passed through a detailed simulation
of the H1 detector response based on the GEANT program~\cite{geant} and through the
same reconstruction and analysis algorithms as used for the data.
Signal events are generated using the Monte
Carlo generator {\sc Cascade}\xspace \cite{Jung:2000hk}.
Elastic and proton-dissociative production of \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons is simulated using
{\sc DIFFVM}\xspace~\cite{diffvm} with parameters tuned to describe the results of previous H1 measurements~\cite{psi2s97,psi2s02}.
The Monte Carlo generator {\sc Pythia}\xspace~\cite{pythia} is used for the description of
the contribution from $b$ hadron decays as described in section~\ref{sec:bg}.
All generators use the JETSET part of the {\sc Pythia}\xspace program~\cite{pythia}
to simulate the hadronisation and decay processes.
Signal events as simulated with the Monte Carlo generator {\sc Cascade}\xspace are compared with the
data after final selection in figures~\ref{fig:ctrl:muon} and \ref{fig:ctrl:dis}.
All data distributions in these figures are corrected for contributions from non-resonant
background events using a sideband method described in~\cite{msteder}.
Corrections as a function of \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace in bins of the elasticity \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace
are applied to the {\sc Cascade}\xspace Monte Carlo simulation in order to describe the data.
Details of the procedure are described in~\cite{msteder}.
In figure~\ref{fig:ctrl:muon} distributions for the photoproduction sample are compared to {\sc Cascade}\xspace Monte Carlo predictions before and after correction for the observables \ensuremath{{P_{T,\mu}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{{\Theta_{\mu}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\Theta_{\iPsi}}\xspace, \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace.
Similarly, in figure~\ref{fig:ctrl:dis}, the summed distributions for the two
electroproduction samples ($\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ and $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow e^+e^-$) are shown for the observables \ensuremath{{P^{*}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\Theta_{\iPsi}}\xspace,
\ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace, $\Sigma P_{T,\rm charged}$, \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace. Here, $\Sigma P_{T,\rm charged}$
is the scalar sum over the transverse momenta of all measured charged particles except for
the scattered electron and the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson decay leptons.
The corrected {\sc Cascade}\xspace simulation gives a good description of all aspects of the data and
is used to correct the data for losses due to limited acceptance and efficiency
of the detector.
\section{Backgrounds}
\label{sec:bg}
Remaining backgrounds to prompt \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson production in the selected sample originate
from feed-down processes, i.e.\,\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace mesons produced in decays of diffractively or
inelastically produced \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons and $\chi_c$ mesons or of $b$ hadrons.
Inelastic production of \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons with a subsequent decay into \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace mesons is expected
to contribute about $15-\unit[20]{\%}$ to the selected \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson samples~\cite{ZEUSPsi2S, Kraemer}. Since the production processes are the same, the inelastic \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons show similar dependences on the kinematic variables.
Diffractive production of \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons contributes at large values of \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace by decays into a \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson and two charged pions.
These events typically contain three or four reconstructed
charged tracks in the central detector ($20^\circ < \ensuremath{\Theta}\xspace < 160^\circ$).
In figure~\ref{fig:ctrl:bgandcuts}a) the distribution of the charged track
multiplicity measured in the central detector is shown for the photoproduction
sample selected using all selection criteria given in table~\ref{tab:selection} except for the track multiplicity cut, which is relaxed to $\mathrm{N_{Trk}} \geq 3$.
The data are described by the sum
of the {\sc Cascade}\xspace simulation and the prediction for diffractive \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace production,
as simulated using the {\sc DIFFVM}\xspace Monte Carlo generator.
In the final selection remaining contributions from diffractive \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace meson production amount
to about 1.3\% in the total sample and to about 5\% in the highest elasticity bin, $0.75 < \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace < 0.9$.
The fraction of events arising from $b$ hadrons decaying into $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace+X$ is
estimated using the {\sc Pythia}\xspace simulation. The {\sc Pythia}\xspace prediction is scaled by
a factor of 2, based on results from previous measurements of beauty
production at HERA~\cite{btomujj,btojj}.
This scaled prediction by {\sc Pythia}\xspace amounts to 5\% in the total sample and
about 20\% in the lowest \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace bin. It is confirmed within uncertainties by the following
determination using data.
The fraction of events in the photoproduction sample containing $b$ hadrons
is estimated using the impact parameter of the decay muons to exploit the
lifetime signature of $b$ hadrons.
The impact parameter, $\delta$, of
the decay muon tracks is defined as the distance of closest approach
in the transverse plane to the reconstructed
primary vertex. The sign of the impact parameter is defined as positive if the
angle between the decay muon and the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson momentum direction is less than
$\unit[90]{^\circ}$, and is defined as negative otherwise.
A signed significance $\mathcal{S} = \delta/\sigma(\delta)$ is reconstructed by weighting the reconstructed signed impact parameter with its uncertainty~\cite{CSTresol}.
Figure \ref{fig:ctrl:bgandcuts}b) shows the distribution of the signed
significance for events in the interval $0.3 < \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace < 0.4$.
The histogram is filled with the signed significance of the decay muons
for all events where both muon tracks have at least one hit in the CST.
The fraction of events coming from the decay of $b$ hadrons
is obtained from a fit of the significance distribution of {\sc Cascade}\xspace
(simulating prompt \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson production) plus {\sc Pythia}\xspace
(simulating \ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace events with subsequent decays into \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace + $X$) to that of the data.
The fit results are dominated by the region of small signed significances, $\mathcal{S} < 3$, due to large statistical uncertainties at larger values of $\mathcal{S}$.
The distribution of the data is corrected for non-resonant contributions using the side bands~\cite{msteder}.
The relative contribution from $b$ hadrons as resulting from the fits are
shown in figure \ref{fig:ctrl:bgandcuts}c) for three bins of \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace.
The scaled predictions from {\sc Pythia}\xspace are found to be in good agreement with the
measured fractions, indicating that the background from $b$ hadrons is under control.
The contribution from $\chi_c$ production and decay was studied~\cite{Adloff:2002ex}
and found negligibly small in the present kinematic region, $0.3 < \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace < 0.9$.
\section{Systematic Uncertainties}
\label{sec:syserr}
\begin{table}[tb] \centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Source & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Uncertainty [$\%$]}\\
\midrule
& Photoproduction & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Electroproduction} \\
& $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ & $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ & $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow e^+e^-$ \\
\midrule
Decay leptons reconstruction & $1$ & $1$ & $2$ \\
Decay leptons identification & $3$ & $3$ & $3$ \\
Number of signal events & $2$ & $2$ & $4$ \\
Trigger & $3$ & $2$ & $2$ \\
Scattered electron energy scale & --- & $2$ & $2$ \\
Hadronic final state energy scale & $4$ & $3$ & $3$ \\
Integrated luminosity & $4$ & $3.2$ & $3.2$ \\
Model uncertainties & $5$ & $5$ & $5$ \\
Decay branching ratio & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
\midrule
Sum & $9.0$ & $8.2$ & $9.1$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Systematic uncertainties of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson production cross section.
The total systematic uncertainty is the sum of the contributions
added in quadrature.}
\label{tab:sys}
\end{table}
The sources of systematic uncertainties of the cross section measurement are listed in table~\ref{tab:sys} and are detailed in the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The uncertainty on the cross section due to the track and vertex reconstruction efficiency has been
determined to be $\unit[1]{\%}$ for $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu\mu$ and $\unit[2]{\%}$ for $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow ee$.
\item
The efficiency for the identification of the leptons is determined using a high statistics sample of events of elastically produced \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace mesons~\cite{msteder}.
The detector simulation is reweighted to match the efficiency measured in the data as necessary.
Remaining differences are smaller than $\unit[3]{\%}$ everywhere and are taken as systematic uncertainty.
\item
The systematic uncertainty on the determination of the number of
signal events, obtained by a fit to the mass distributions in every analysis bin, is determined by a variation of the extraction method.
Comparing the number of signal events for binned and unbinned
log-likelihood fits yields a systematic uncertainty of $\unit[0.5]{\%}$.
In addition, the result from the fit to background and signal is compared
to the number of signal events above the fitted background function
in the mass window between $2.95$ and $\unit[3.2]{GeV}$.
An uncertainty of $\unit[2]{\%}$ for the decay into muons and $\unit[4]{\%}$ for the electrons is found.
The uncertainty for the electron is larger due to an additional uncertainty originating from the description of the radiative tail.
\item
The trigger efficiencies are determined using independent trigger channels.
For the electroproduction sample the trigger efficiency is measured to be $\unit[(97 \pm 2)]{\%}$.
In the photoproduction sample the trigger efficiency depends mainly on the identification of the decay muons in the central muon system.
The efficiency amounts to about $\unit[70]{\%}$ with a systematic uncertainty of $\unit[3]{\%}$.
A detailed description of the determination of the trigger efficiencies can be found in~\cite{msteder}.
\item For the electroproduction sample the measurement of the scattered
electron energy is known with a scale uncertainty of $\unit[1]{\%}$. The uncertainty of the scattering angle is 1 mrad.
Both uncertainties combined lead to an uncertainty of the cross section
measurement of $\unit[2]{\%}$ on average.
\item
The hadronic energy scale uncertainty is $\unit[4]{\%}$ in the LAr and $\unit[7]{\%}$ in the SpaCal.
This leads to an uncertainty on the cross sections measurement of $\unit[3]{\%}$ for the electroproduction sample and $\unit[4]{\%}$ for the photoproduction sample.
\item
The integrated luminosity is known to a precision of $\unit[3.2]{\%}$ for the electroproduction sample and $\unit[4.0]{\%}$ for the photoproduction sample.
\item
The dependence of the result on model assumptions made in the {\sc Cascade}\xspace
Monte Carlo simulation were investigated and found to amount to $\unit[5]{\%}$ in total.
The model uncertainty arising from the knowledge of the decay angular
distributions, explained in section~\ref{sec:angles}, is determined
by variation of the parameter $\alpha$ in the simulation by $\pm 0.3$.
This variation results in a change of the cross section of up to $\unit[4]{\%}$.
The systematic uncertainty originating from the uncertainty of the slope of the \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace(\ensuremath{{P^{*}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace) distribution
in the simulation is determined by a variation of this distribution as described in~\cite{msteder}.
This variation results in a change of the cross section of up to $\unit[4]{\%}$.
\item
The branching ratios of the leptonic decay channels of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson are known with an accuracy of $\unit[1]{\%}$ \cite{PDG}.
\end{itemize}
The total systematic uncertainty is obtained by adding all the above contributions
in quadrature.
A total systematic uncertainty of $\unit[9]{\%}$ is determined for the photoproduction sample.
For the combined electroproduction cross section the total systematic uncertainty is $\unit[8.5]{\%}$
The same uncertainties are attributed to all bins of the cross section measurement.
For the measurement of the helicity distributions only the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties
are taken into account.
They amount to about $\unit[3.5]{\%}$ and are negligible compared to the statistical uncertainties.
\section{Cross Section Measurements}
\label{sec:xsec}
The cross section measurement is performed in the kinematic range $60 < \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace < \unit[240]{GeV}$, $0.3 < \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace < 0.9$ and $\ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}(P^{*} _{T,\iPsi})}}\xspace > \unit[1]{GeV}$. The photon virtuality \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace is limited in the electroproduction analysis to $3.6 < \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace < \unit[100]{GeV^2}$ and for the photoproduction sample to $\ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace < \unit[2.5]{GeV^2}$.
For the measurement of differential cross sections the number of signal
events in each bin is corrected for detector inefficiencies and acceptance
and normalised to integrated luminosity and branching ratio.
They are not corrected for QED radiative effects.
The electroproduction cross sections, measured from $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow \mu\mu$ and $\ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace \rightarrow ee$, are combined~\cite{msteder}.
The differential cross sections are bin-centre corrected using MC simulations.
In order to avoid model dependencies, the measured cross sections are not corrected for contributions from backgrounds as described in section~\ref{sec:bg}.
All measured cross sections are listed in tables~\ref{tab:xsecs:gammap:pt2} -- \ref{tab:xsecs:dis:Z_PtStar} together with statistical and systematic uncertainties.
For the photoproduction sample the measured $ep$ cross sections are transformed to $\gamma p$
cross sections using the photon flux factors presented in
table~\ref{tab:fluxes}, calculated in the Weizs\"acker Williams approximation~\cite{WWA}.
The differential \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson photoproduction cross section is measured as function
of the elasticity \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace and the squared transverse momentum \ensuremath{{P^2_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace
of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson. The total $\gamma p$ cross section is measured in bins of the
photon proton centre of mass energy \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace.
The results are displayed in figure~\ref{fig:res:gp:xsecs:1d} and
show a reasonable agreement with
the prediction from the {\sc Cascade}\xspace MC generator.
A variation of the renormalisation scale by a factor of two ($0.5 \mu_0 < \mu_\mr{r} < 2 \mu_0$) has little effect as shown by the band in the figures.
In addition to the {\sc Cascade}\xspace prediction, the remaining contributions from
diffractive \ensuremath{{\psi(2S)}}\xspace mesons and from $b$ hadrons are shown.
The distributions in \ensuremath{{P^2_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace are further investigated by
dividing the sample into bins of \ensuremath{{P^2_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace, respectively as shown in figure~\ref{fig:res:gp:xsecs:2d}.
The \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace distribution tends to flatten off towards larger
values of \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace presented in figure~\ref{fig:res:gp:xsecs:2d}a).
It can be seen that differences between the data and the {\sc Cascade}\xspace prediction are localised at low elasticities and low transverse momenta of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace mesons, where {\sc Cascade}\xspace overshoots the data, and at large elasticities and large transverse momenta, where {\sc Cascade}\xspace is below the data.
Taking into account that the measured cross section in the lowest elasticity bin
includes a significant fraction of about $\unit[20]{\%}$ of events originating
from $b$ hadron decays, the difference to the {\sc Cascade}\xspace prediction is even more
significant.
Results for electroproduction are shown in figure~\ref{fig:dis:xsecs2} and figure~\ref{fig:res:xsecsptz}.
Differential $ep$ cross sections are measured as functions of the photon virtuality \ensuremath{{Q^{2}}}\xspace, the squared transverse momentum of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson in the photon proton rest frame \ensuremath{{P^{*2}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace, the energy \ensuremath{{W_{\gamma p}}}\xspace and the elasticity \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace.
Figure~\ref{fig:res:xsecsptz} shows differential cross sections as a function of the elasticity \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace in bins of \ensuremath{{P^{*}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace and as a function of \ensuremath{{P^{*2}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace in bins of \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace.
A comparison of the electroproduction data with predictions from the Monte
Carlo generator {\sc Cascade}\xspace reveals in general a reasonable agreement with the data.
Differences in shape can be seen in the differential cross section as a function of \ensuremath{{P^{*2}_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace.
For photoproduction, several theory calculations to next-to-leading order have
been performed and are compared with the data in figure~\ref{fig:res:gp:xsecs:1d:CSMNLO}.
A calculation in the CSM at NLO~\cite{Kraemer}
was repeated using up-to-date sets of scale parameters~\cite{Maltoni, Kniehl},
yielding predictions as shown in figure~\ref{fig:res:gp:xsecs:1d:CSMNLO}a)-b).
The shapes of the data are reasonably described, whereas the normalisation of the prediction
is about a factor three below the data, with large uncertainties,
indicating that corrections beyond next-to-leading order are necessary in order to describe the data.
Estimates of the NNLO contribution for charmonium production at the Tevatron~\cite{maltoni1,maltoni2} indicate that these contributions can be large indeed.
The calculation to next-to-leading order has been extended to include
colour octet contributions resulting in a larger cross section~\cite{Kniehl}.
A comparison of this prediction with the data is shown in figure~\ref{fig:res:gp:xsecs:1d:CSMNLO}c)-d).
The dominant uncertainty arises from the difference in the predicted cross section when using LO colour octet LDMEs or higher order improved LDMEs~\cite{Kniehl}.
The NRQCD prediction fails however in describing the shape of the differential cross section as a function of the elasticity \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace,
even within the presently large uncertainties of the calculation.
\section{Polarisation Measurement}
\label{sec:angles}
The measurement of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson helicity distributions provides an independent method to distinguish between different production mechanisms.
The measurement is performed for the photoproduction data sample.
The \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson polarisation is measured by analysing the decay angle
distributions of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson, and their dependence on \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace, in
two complementary
frames~\cite{polarization}: the helicity frame and the Collins-Soper frame.
In the helicity frame the polarisation axis $z$ in the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson rest frame
is defined by the flight direction of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson in the $\gamma p$
rest frame, whereas the polarisation in the Collins-Soper frame is
measured with respect to the bisector of proton ($-\vec{p_p}$) and
photon ($\vec{p_\gamma}$) in the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson rest frame \cite{beneke}.
Subsequently, the frame-dependent polarisation axis is taken as $z$
axis of a right handed coordinate system, where the $x$ and $z$ axis
lie in a plane spanned by the photon and proton directions.
The $y$ axis is perpendicular to this plane and is the same in both reference frames.
The polar ($\Theta^*$) and azimuthal ($\phi^*$) angles of the positive decay muons are used.
The parametrisation of the measured decay angle
distributions as function of \ensuremath{\cos(\Theta^{*})}\xspace and \ensuremath{{\phi^{*}}}\xspace is given by~\cite{beneke}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mr{d}\sigma}{\mr{d}\cos{\Theta^*}}&\propto&1+\alpha\cos^2{\Theta^*}\, ;
\label{eq:theta}\\[.3em]
\frac{\mr{d}\sigma}{\mr{d}\phi^*}&\propto&1+\frac{\alpha}{3}+\frac{\nu}{3}\,\cos{2\phi^*}.
\label{eq:phi}
\end{eqnarray}
The polarisation variables $\alpha$ and $\nu$ can be related to elements of the spin density matrix for the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson. Moreover, $\alpha = +1$ and $-1$ corresponds to fully transverse and longitudinal polarisation of the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson, respectively.
A $\chi^2$ fit is performed in each bin of the polarisation measurement,
comparing data to Monte Carlo samples on reconstruction level probing values for $\alpha$ and $\nu$ between $-1$ and $+1$.
Systematic uncertainties on this measurement are negligible compared to rather large statistical uncertainties.
The results for $\alpha$ and $\nu$ as a function of \ensuremath{{P_{T,\iPsi}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{z}}\xspace are presented for the helicity frame in figure~\ref{fig:gp:Polarisation} and in figure~\ref{fig:gp:Polarisation:CS} for the Collins-Soper frame.
The values for the polarisation parameters in both frames are listed in
table~\ref{tab:pol:heli}.
Within uncertainties the \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace mesons produced inelastically at HERA are unpolarised.
The measurements are compared to predictions using
a \ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation ansatz~\cite{Baranov} and to calculations in the CSM in collinear
factorisation at leading order~\cite{Baranov} and next-to-leading order~\cite{Maltoni}.
The predictions in the \ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation ansatz describe the data.
The NLO calculations show a similar
trend within large uncertainties.
In contrast, the leading order CSM calculation predicts larger values for the polarisation variables than the measured ones for many bins and is disfavoured by the measurement.
A similar measurement was published by the ZEUS collaboration in a different kinematic range~\cite{ZEUS_Pol}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
A measurement of inelastic \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace meson production is performed.
Differential cross sections with improved statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented for both electroproduction
and photoproduction. Polarisation parameters for the photoproduction of \ensuremath{{J/\psi}}\xspace mesons are measured in
two different reference frames, the helicity frame and the Collins-Soper frame.
The data are compared to a number of recent theory predictions.
It is found that predictions based on \ensuremath{{k_{T}}}\xspace factorisation in the colour singlet model are able to describe the cross sections and the helicity distributions well.
Calculations based on collinear factorisation in the colour singlet model at next-to-leading order
produce a reasonable description of the shape of the measured cross sections, but are lower in normalisation.
They give an acceptable description of the polarisation parameter measurements
within the large uncertainties.
The failure to describe the cross section measurements and the strong sensitivity to scale variations indicate that calculations beyond next-to-leading order are necessary.
Moreover contributions from colour octet states may be significant.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to the HERA machine group whose outstanding
efforts have made this experiment possible.
We thank the engineers and technicians for their work in constructing and
maintaining the H1 detector, our funding agencies for
financial support, the DESY technical staff for continual assistance
and the DESY directorate for support and for the
hospitality which they extend to the non-DESY
members of the collaboration.
We would like to thank
Pierre Artoisenet, Sergey Baranov, Mathias Butensch\"on, Bernd Kniehl, Michael Kr\"amer and Fabio Maltoni
for providing theory calculations for this paper as well as for helpful discussions.
\clearpage
|
\section{\label{}}
\section{Introduction}
Since the discovery of high-transition temperature ($T_c$) superconductivity in LaFeAsO$_{1-x}$F$_x$ at $T_c$ = 26 K\cite{Kamihara}, iron pnictides have become one of the most fascinating research areas in condensed-matter physics. The electron-doping suppresses structural and magnetic phase transitions in undoped ReFeAsO and superconductivity appears near the border of magnetism \cite{Kamihara} as seen in the high-$T_c$ cuprates. After the discovery of superconductivity in ReFeAsO, the high-$T_c$ superconductivity has also been found in a ThCr$_2$Si$_2$-type structure, BaFe$_2$As$_2$ by replacing Ba by K as hole doping\cite{Rotter}. One of the most remarkable features in these iron-pnictide superconductors is their superconducting gap structure. Previous nuclear-magnetic resonance (NMR) and nuclear-quadrupole resonance (NQR) measurements on ReFeAsOF and Ba$_{0.7}$K$_{0.3}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ consistently found multiple gap superconductivity\cite{MatanoPr,KawasakiLa,MatanoBa122}. These observations were also confirmed by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. \cite{Ding} The multiple gap feature is believed to be relevant to their multiple electronic band structure.\cite{Singh}
On the other hand, the mechanism of the Cooper pair formation in iron pnictide is still unclear. Since the superconductivity in iron-pnictides is induced by chemical doping, systematic investigation of the relationship between electron correlations and superconductivity has been difficult.
Recent discoveries of pressure-induced superconductivity in RFe$_2$As$_2$ (R = Ca, Sr, and Ba) provide a new route to investigate superconductivity in iron pnictide\cite{Lonzarich,Canfield,Thompson,Kotegawa}. In RFe$_2$As$_2$, the parent compounds also show structural transition from a tetragonal (tetra.) to orthorhombic (orth.) structure with antiferromagnetic order\cite{KitagawaBa,KitagawaSr,CurroCa}. In BaFe$_2$As$_2$ and SrFe$_2$As$_2$, the structural phase transition and antiferromagnetic orders are both suppressed by pressure, and superconductivity was found around the critical pressure, $P_c$ = 40 - 60 kbar, with $T_c$ $\sim$ 30 K.\cite{Lonzarich,Kotegawa} On the other hand, pressure-induced superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ has been observed with lower $P_c$ $\sim$ 5 kbar and lower $T_c(P)$ $\sim$ 10K.\cite{Canfield,Thompson} The most strikingly different feature in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ is the occurrence of another structural transition under pressure. Above $P$ $\sim$ 5 kbar, normal state tetra. phase changes to a collapsed tetragonal (c-tetra.) phase with drastic reduction in both the unit cell volume (5\%) and the $c/a$ ratio (11\%).\cite{Kreyssig,Goldman} Notably, when tetra. phase collapses, superconductivity disappears.\cite{Yu} Since these structural phase transitions are sensitive to external pressure, the detailed information about pressure-induced superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ is still unknown.
In this paper, we report results of zero-field (ZF) NMR and NQR study in CaFe$_2$As$_2$. At $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar, pressure-induced superconductivity in the tetra. phase is confirmed by ac-susceptibility and nuclear-spin lattice relaxation time ($T_1$) measurements. The temperature dependences of 1/$T_1$ show no coherence peak just below $T_c(P)$. Below $T_c(P)$, the temperature dependences of $1/T_1$ indicate the unconventional nature of pressure-induced superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$. The systematic measurements indicate electron correlations play a vital role in inducing unconventional superconductivity in this compound.
\section{Experimental procedures}
The single crystals of CaFe$_2$As$_2$ are grown by a self-flux method and crushed into coarse powder for $^{75}$As ($I$ = 3/2, $\gamma$ = 7.292 MHz/T) ZF-NMR/NQR measurements under pressure.
The pressure was applied by utilizing a NiCrAl/BeCu piston-cylinder type cell filled with Daphne 7373 as the pressure-transmitting medium\cite{Murata}. The pressure at low temperatures was determined from the pressure dependence of the $T_{c}$ values of Sn metal measured by a conventional four-terminal method. The temperature dependence of ac-susceptibility is measured using an $in$-$situ$ NMR/NQR coil. The ZF-NMR/NQR spectra were taken by changing rf frequency and recording the spin echo intensity step by step. The value of $T_1$ was extracted by fitting the nuclear magnetization obtained by recording the spin echo intensity after the saturation pulse.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig1.eps
\caption{\label{fig:t1t} Schematic phase diagram for structural phase transitions of CaFe$_2$As$_2$ under pressure (see text). }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure 1 shows the schematic phase diagram of CaFe$_2$As$_2$ under pressure taken from the literature\cite{Kreyssig,Goldman,Yu,Baek}. Dashed lines indicate the first-order structural phase transitions, respectively. Arrows indicate the pressure at which the present experiments have been performed.
\section{Pressure dependence of zero-field NMR and NQR spectra}
\begin{figure}[!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig2.eps
\caption{\label{fig:t1t} (Color online) (a) Pressure dependence of $^{75}$As-NMR/NQR spectra for CaFe$_2$As$_2$ measured at $T$ = 5 K and $H$ = 0. Solid arrows indicate the $^{75}$As ZF-NMR spectrum which comes from the orth. phase below $T_N$. Dotted and dashed arrows indicate NQR spectra at the tetra. and c-tetra. phases, respectively. Typical data sets of nuclear recovery curves measured at (b) orth. phase (ZF-NMR), (c) tetra. phase (NQR), and (d) c-tetra. phase (NQR), respectively. Solid curves are theoretical fittings to obtain $T_1$. (see text) }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figures 2 (a) shows the pressure dependence of ZF-NMR and NQR spectrum measured at $T$ = 5 K and $P$ = 0, 4.7, and 10.8 kbar, respectively. At $P$ = 0, three $^{75}$As-NMR lines are observed due to the internal magnetic field ($H_{int}$) induced by the Fe ordered moment below $T_N$, which comes from the orth. phase. Actually, as seen in Figs. 2 (b), the nuclear magnetization recovery curve measured at 19 MHz is well fitted by the theoretical curve for NMR ($-1/2\leftrightarrow +1/2$ transition) which is given by 1-$M(t)$/$M_0$ = 0.1$\exp$(-$t/T_1$)+0.9$\exp$(-6$t/T_1$), where $M_0$ and $M(t)$ are the nuclear magnetization at the thermal equilibrium and at a time $t$ after saturating pulse, respectively. Assuming that both $H_{int}$ at the As site and $\nu_Q$ for the As nuclei are along the $c$-axis direction, $H_{int}$ = 2.6 T and $\nu_Q$ = 12 MHz are obtained. Here, nuclear spin Hamiltonian is given as $\mathcal{H}_{AFM}=-\gamma\hbar\vec{I}\cdot\vec{H}_{int} + (h \nu_{Q}/6)[3{I_z}^2-I(I+1)]$. These parameters are in good agreement with previous As-NMR experiments on single crystalline CaFe$_2$As$_2$\cite{CurroCa}.
While the ground state of CaFe$_2$As$_2$ at ambient pressure is in a single orth. phase, a phase separation is observed under pressure due to the first-order transition\cite{CurroCa,Goldman} and pressure distribution\cite{Yu}. As seen in Figs.2(a), at $P$ = 4.7 kbar, a phase separation between orth. and tetra. phases is observed as the ground state. The peak around 18 MHz is due to the central transition ($-1/2\leftrightarrow +1/2$ transition) for ZF-NMR of the orth. phase as observed at $P$ = 0. However, the satellite peaks which are clearly observed at ambient pressure, due to nuclear quadrupole interaction is not observed, indicating an increase of $\nu_Q$ for the orth. phase under pressure. On the other hand, another peak appears around 24 MHz. Since the nuclear magnetization recovery curve measured at 24 MHz is well fitted by the nuclear magnetization recovery curve for $^{75}$As-NQR ($\pm 1/2\leftrightarrow \pm 3/2$ transition) given by the single exponential 1-$M(t)$/$M_0$ = $\exp$(-3$t/T_1$), as seen in Figs. 2 (c), we assigned this peak as coming from the tetra. phase which survives due to a pressure distribution. We have also confirmed this assignment by measuring As-NMR spectrum at $P$ = 5.0 kbar (not shown). Notably, it has been reported that the structural transition from tetra. to orth. under pressure is accompanied by a phase separation in a certain temperature range until a single otrh. phase is established as the magnetic ground state\cite{Goldman,Baek}. Since the present experiment is performed using coarse powdered single crystals, the local pressure distribution may cause the tetra. phase to coexist with the orth. phase even at the ground state.
As pressure reaches $P$ = 10.8 kbar another structural transition from tetra. to c-tetra. occurs\cite{Kreyssig,Goldman}, the NMR signal around 18 MHz and the NQR signal from tetra. around 25 MHz are still observed. In addition, a new peak appears around 30.4 MHz. As seen in Figs.2(d), since the nuclear magnetization recovery curve at 30.4 MHz indicates this new peak is also from NQR, we assigned that this peak as coming from the c-tetra. phase. Due to a pressure distribution, phase separation among orth., tetra., and c-tetra. is realized at $P$ = 10.8 kbar. Notably, an As-NQR frequency $\nu_Q$ probes the electric-field gradient (EFG) generated by the charge distribution surrounding the As site. The larger $\nu_Q$ for c-tetra. than tetra. phase is reasonable since the unit cell volume collapses in c-tetra. However, these pressure and structural dependences of $\nu_Q$ do not scale with the known unit cell volume for each phases\cite{Kreyssig}. This may be because the local charge distribution around the As site also contributes to EFG in addition to the lattice contribution. Since the NMR/NQR peaks are clearly separated even at $P$ = 10.8 kbar and the recovery curves measured at each phases are of a single $T_1$ component, we suggest that these phase separations under pressure are induced by a local pressure distribution and not by the sample inhomogeneity. Such a pressure distribution allowed us to investigate the pressure dependence of the electronic properties in each phase of CaFe$_2$As$_2$.
From the NMR/NQR spectra, the volume fraction of orth.:tetra.=54\%:46\% and orth.:tetra.:c-tetra.=45\%:18\%:37\% are estimated for $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar, respectively. It is clear that the effect of pressure distribution on the evolution of the ground states in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ is larger than a previous NMR study under pressure using a large single crystal\cite{Baek}.
\section{Pressure-induced superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$}
Figure 3 shows temperature dependence of ac-susceptibility measured using the $in$-$situ$ NMR/NQR coil. The pressure-induced superconducting transitions at $T_c(P)$ = 3.9 and 4.1 K at $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar are clearly observed. Although the $T_c(P)$s are relatively lower, the superconducting transitions are much sharper than previous reports\cite{Baek,Hanoh}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig3.eps
\caption{\label{fig:t1t} (Color online) Temperature dependence of ac-susceptibility measured using $in$-$situ$ NMR/NQR coil at $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar. Arrows indicate $T_c(P)$. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Evolution of electronic property in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ under pressure}
To investigate the evolution of the electronic properties in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ under pressure, we measured the $^{75}$As nuclear spin lattice relaxation time ($T_1$) at each phase. Figs. 4 shows the temperature dependence of $1/T_1$ divided by temperature ($1/T_1T$) well below the structural transitions. In the orth. phases all of the data show a $1/T_1T$ = constant behavior, which is characteristic of a Fermi-liquid state. These results are consistent with previous NMR results on (Ba, Sr)Fe$_2$As$_2$\cite{KitagawaBa,KitagawaSr}, indicating that a small Fermi surface remains below antiferromagnetic order. Due to the large $H_{int}$ $\sim$ 2.5T in the orth. phase, the coexistence of antiferromagnetism and superconductivity, which has frequently been observed in heavy-fermion compounds\cite{Kitaoka}, could not be confirmed.
As discussed later, pressure-induced superconductivity is clearly observed as a reduction of $1/T_1T$ for the tetra. phases at which the onset of diamagnetism is observed at $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar, respectively.
In the normal state in the tetra. phases, $1/T_1T$ increases with decreasing temperature, which indicates that the antiferromagnetic correlation develops down to $T_c(P)$. To analyze the temperature dependence of $1/T_1T$ above $T_c(P)$, we employed the model for a weakly antiferromagnetically correlated metal, 1/$T_1T$ = const. + $C/(T+\theta)$ \cite{Moriya}. Here, the first term describes the contribution from the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level, and the second term describes the contribution from the antiferromagnetic wave vector $Q$. As shown by the solid curves in Fig. 4, the temperature dependences of 1/$T_1T$ for tetra. phases are well fitted by this model; 1/$T_1T$ = 0.48 + $4.4/(T+\theta)$ with $\theta$ = 5.4$\pm$2.3 K for $P$ = 4.7 kbar and 1/$T_1T$ = 0.57 + $5.2/(T+\theta)$ with $\theta$ = 6.0$\pm$1.1 K for $P$ = 10.8 kbar, respectively. Surprisingly, the values of $\theta$, which is a measure of the distance to an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point (QCP), are not only one order of magnitude smaller than $\theta$ = 39 K observed in LaFeAsO$_{0.92}$F$_{0.08}$ ($T_c$ = 23 K)\cite{KawasakiLa}, but also comparable to that observed in unconventional superconductors in strongly correlated electron systems\cite{ZhengIr,KawasakiCeRhIrIn5,Kusano}. This indicates that superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ is induced near an antiferromagnetic QCP. Since the value of $\theta$ is insensitive to pressure, the present results indicate that the quantum criticality in the tetra. phase is robust against pressure. This may be the reason why a robust superconducting dome was observed under pressure\cite{Canfield,Thompson}. Such a situation is somewhat different from heavy fermion superconductivity around QCP, at which both $T_c$ and electron correlations are enhanced.\cite{KawasakiCeRhIrIn5}
On the other hand, both the DOS at the Fermi level and the value of C in the antiferromagnetic correlation slightly increase with increasing pressure. The small increase of $T_c$, from 3.9 K at 4.7 kbar to 4.1 K at 10.8 kbar, may be due to this small increase of both the DOS at the Fermi level and the antiferromagnetic correlations. To describe the detailed relationship between QCP and superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$, further systematic measurements under pressure are in progress.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig4.eps
\caption{\label{fig:t1t} (Color online) Temperature dependence of $1/T_1T$ below $T$ = 40 K in each phase at (a) $P$ = 0 and 4.7 kbar and (b) 10.8 kbar. Solid arrows indicate $T_c(P)$. Dotted lines indicates the relation of $1/T_1T$ = constant. The solid curves indicate relation, 1/$T_1T$ = const. + $C/(T+\theta)$. (see text) }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The most important result is the difference of $1/T_1T$ between the tetra. and c-tetra. phases at $P$ = 10.8 kbar. As seen in Figs. 4(b), $1/T_1T$ = constant behavior is established even below $T_c$, indicating that the electron correlation and also superconductivity disappear in the c-tetra. phase. Importantly, recent electronic band structure calculations for CaFe$_2$As$_2$ have shown that the tetra. phase has the multiple band structure seen in other iron-pnictides\cite{Ding}, whereas the multiband nature along the $\Gamma$-M direction vanishes when it collapses.\cite{LonzarichBandcalc,Yildirim} It is thus suggested that the candidate for the antiferromagnetic wave vector $Q$ observed in the tetra. phases and the driving force of the Cooper pair formation in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ is the interband correlations, which has been suggested as the origin for the spin-density-wave order in the LaFeAsOF superconductor.\cite{Ma}
\section{Novel superconductivity in CaFe$_2$As$_2$}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5.eps
\caption{\label{fig:t1t} (Color online) Plot of $T_1(T)$$^{-1}$/$T_1(T_c)$$^{-1}$ versus $T/T_c$$(P)$ for $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar. The solid curve is a two-gap fit assuming a $d$-wave symmetry with parameters, $\Delta_1(0) = 3.9 k_{B}T_{c}$, $\Delta_2(0) = 1.7 k_{B}T_{c}$, and $\alpha = 0.65$ (see text). The dotted and dashed lines indicate the relations of $1/T_1$ $\propto$ $T$ and $1/T_1$ $\propto$ $T^3$, respectively. Inset shows plot of ($T_1T(T)$)$^{-1}$/($T_1T(T_c)$)$^{-1}$ versus $T/T_c$$(P)$ for 10.8 kbar. Solid line is eye-guide.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To focus on the superconducting gap structure for CaFe$_2$As$_2$, the plots of $T_1(T)$$^{-1}$/$T_1(T_c)$$^{-1}$ versus $T/T_c$$(P)$ are shown in Fig. 5. Here, the relaxation rate below $T_{c}$ ($1/T_{1s}$) can be expressed as, $\frac{T_{1N}}{T_{1s}}= \frac{2}{k_BT} \int \int N_s(E)N_s(E')f(E) \left[1-f(E') \right] \delta(E-E')dEdE'$. Where $Ns=\frac{E}{\sqrt{E^2- \Delta^2}}$ is the DOS in the superconducting state, and $f(E)$ is the Fermi distribution function. The coherence peak just below $T_c(P)$ is absent at both pressures. At $P$ = 4.7 kbar, $1/T_1$ decreases moderately and is saturated approaching $T$ = 0. This means that there is a residual density of states in the superconducting gap. Since the present experiments are performed in zero magnetic field, it is clear evidence for the occurrence of gapless superconductivity.
On the other hand, at $P$ = 10.8 kbar, $1/T_1$ continues to decrease steeply below $T_c$, as observed in other iron pnictide superconductors\cite{MatanoPr,KawasakiLa,MatanoBa122,Nakai,Mukuda,Grafe,KotegawaFeSe,Fukazawa,Kobayashi}. Notably, as clearly seen in the inset to Fig.5, $1/T_1T$ below $T_c$ has a hump structure around $T$ $\sim$ 0.5 $T_c$, which is a signature for multiple gap superconductivity, as observed in other pnictide superconductors\cite{MatanoPr,KawasakiLa,MatanoBa122}. By assuming two gaps of $d$-wave symmetry $\Delta(\phi) = \Delta_0 \cos(2\phi)$ with a mean-field temperature dependence with $\Delta(\phi)=\alpha \Delta_1+ (1-\alpha) \Delta_2$ and $\alpha = \frac{N_{s,1}}{N_{s,1}+N_{s,2}}$, we find that the $\Delta_1(0) = 3.9 k_{B}T_{c}$, $\Delta_2(0) = 1.7 k_{B}T_{c}$ and $\alpha = 0.65$ can fit the data reasonably well, as shown by the solid curve in Fig.5. These values of superconducting gaps and $\alpha$ are comparable to other iron pnictide superconductors\cite{MatanoPr,KawasakiLa,MatanoBa122}.
How can we understand this difference of the superconducting gap structure between $P$ = 4.7 and 10.8 kbar?
One possible scenario is the mechanism predicted in heavy fermion superconductivity around the antiferromagnetic QCP at which the gapless superconductivity has been observed\cite{YuKawasaki,Kawasaki115,Yamaguchi}. When the system locates at the vicinity of the antiferromagnetic QCP, odd-frequency $p$-wave spin singlet superconductivity (pSS) prevails over the $d$-wave singlet superconductivity (dSS)\cite{Fuseya}. Notably, for the pSS state, it is suggested that there is no gap in the quasiparticle spectrum anywhere on the Fermi surface due to its odd frequency, thus, gapless superconductivity is realized\cite{Fuseya}. In the present case, the values of $\theta$, which is the measure of closeness to the QCP are very small and comparable to the value of heavy fermion compounds around QCP.\cite{ZhengIr,KawasakiCeRhIrIn5} In this model, gapless pSS and dSS compete near a QCP.\cite{Fuseya} In addition, it would be difficult to realize gapless pSS when it competes against full-gap superconductivity, such as $\pm$$s$-wave pairing\cite{Fuseya2}. Thus, $d$-wave pairing is favored as the competing order against gapless pSS near a QCP\cite{Fuseya2}. In fact, it has been predicted that $d$-wave superconductivity can also be the candidate for iron-pnictide superconductivity, although $\pm$$s$-wave pairing has been suggested in other iron pnictide superconductors\cite{Kuroki}. The present results suggest that the pressure-induced superconductivity near a QCP in CaFe$_2$As$_2$ is a good candidate to investigate a variety of superconductivities in iron pnictides.
\section{Concluding remarks}
In conclusion, we report zero-field NMR/NQR experiments on the iron-pnictide pressure-induced superconductor CaFe$_2$As$_2$. Systematic measurements have revealed the evolution of the ground states under pressure and the electron correlations play a vital role in the formation of Cooper pairs in this compound. It is suggested that the electron correlation is induced by an interband correlation originating from its multiple bands structure. We found that gapless superconductivity is realized in the close vicinity of the antiferromagnetic quantum critical point. We believe that it is due to its closeness to a quantum critical point. The present results suggest a close relationship between antiferromagnetism and superconductivity in iron pnictides.\\
\section*{Acknowledgement}
S. K. thanks Yuki Fuseya for useful discussion and comments. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas "Heavy Electrons" (No. 21102514) of The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan.
|
\section{Introduction}
Dwarf galaxies are fundamental ingredients for the assembly of luminous structures in our Universe. They may be the smallest baryonic counterparts of dark matter subhalo building blocks in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, and appear to be the most dark matter dominated objects in the Universe \citep[see e.g.][]{gilmore07}. Although their role is still under debate, it is certain that they are the most numerous type of galaxies, and an increasing number of them are being newly discovered with the current state-of-the-art surveys \citep[see e.g.][]{belokurov06, zucker06a, zucker06b, zucker07}. It is thus interesting to study their physical properties in order to gain a deeper understanding of how galaxies evolve, and of the main processes that drive this evolution.
Dwarf galaxies in groups have been looked at in detail in the last decade \citep[e.g.,][]{trentham02, kara04, kara05, grebel07, sharina08, weisz08, bouchard08, dalcanton09, koleva09}. The main purpose of most of these studies was to catalogue and characterize new objects in nearby groups and to look for possible environmental effects on galaxy evolution (see \citealt{grebel00} for details). The largest amount of information is, of course, coming from our own Local Group, for which very deep observations permit us to have a broad and detailed view of the physical properties of dwarf galaxies, and to investigate how they form and evolve in this type of environment \citep{grebel97, mateo98, vandenb99, tolstoy09}.
In Local Group dwarf galaxies, all of the morphological types contain old populations, even though their fractions differ (e.g. \citealt{grebel97}; \citealt{mateo98}; \citealt{grebel03}; \citealt{tolstoy09}). The old populations ($\gtrsim 10$ Gyr) in the classical dwarf spheroidal companions of the Milky Way seem to share a common age within the accuracy of photometric age-dating techniques \citep{grebel04}. The main difference between early--type (spheroidal and elliptical) dwarfs and late--type (irregular) dwarfs is that only the latter contain large amounts of neutral gas and formed stars throughout their whole history. Moreover, dwarf galaxies both in the Local Group and in other groups follow the general morphology--density relation that holds in dense environments (e.g. \citealt{einasto74}; \citealt{dressler80}; \citealt{kara02}). This means that early--type dwarfs are normally found within $\sim300$ kpc from the center of the dominant galaxies in the group, while late--type dwarfs are more widely distributed.
The chemical composition of stars in early--type dwarfs (i.e., faint dwarf spheroidals and dwarf ellipticals, the latter showing higher central surface brightnesses and more elongated shapes) has been well studied with detailed spectroscopic and kinematic data. All these dwarfs are metal--poor and show wide metallicity spreads \citep[e.g.,][]{shetrone01, sara02, tolstoy04, battaglia06, helmi06, koch06, bosler07, koch07a, koch07b, gullieu09}. Their metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) often show a slow increase toward higher metallicities and then a steeper decline \citep[see][]{koch07a}, but there are many individual differences reflecting a wide range of complex star formation histories (e.g., \citealt{grebel97}; \citealt{tolstoy09}). Occasionally there is evidence for the presence of intermediate--age and even younger populations (e.g., in the dwarf spheroidals Fornax and Carina). Detailed models of chemical evolution have been developed and applied to dwarf spheroidals of our Local Group (e.g., \citealt{lanfranchi04}; \citealt{marcolini06}; \citealt{marcolini08}; \citealt{revaz09}), and they are able to reproduce the shape of the observed MDFs. The above mentioned asymmetry of the MDFs with a steeper fall-off on the metal--rich side may be explained by an evolution that is regulated by supernova explosions and stellar winds (e.g., \citealt{dekel86}; \citealt{lanfranchi04}).
Previous studies have also looked at possibly distinct stellar spatial distributions of different stellar populations in early--type dwarf galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{stetson98, hurleyk99}. The first systematic study of a large sample of dwarfs was carried out by \citet{harbeck01}, who investigated the presence of morphological gradients based on horizontal branch and RGB stars for a sample of 9 galaxies. They showed that if gradients are present they are always such that the more metal--rich and/or younger populations are more centrally concentrated. Later on, spectroscopic studies were able to also confirm chemically, and in some cases also kinematically, distinct subpopulations for various dwarfs, like Fornax, Sculptor and Sextans (e.g., \citealt{tolstoy04}). However, there are also cases for which such distinct populations were not found, but only weak metallicity gradients as a function of radius were present \citep[e.g.,][]{harbeck01, koch06, koch07a, koch07b}.
It is then interesting to extend our knowledge to dwarf galaxies in other groups, in order to be able to draw general conclusions about dwarf galaxy properties in different environments. Do loose, filamentary structures (like the Canes Venatici cloud or the Sculptor group, see \citealt{kara03_can, kara03_sc}) have similar properties in their galaxy populations as the denser, more evolved groups we know (the Local Group itself, or the Centaurus A group, e.g., \citealt{kara02}), or are there striking differences in the way they spend their lives? Future studies should be able to answer this and many further questions by looking closely at nearby groups, and comparing them to what we already know about our own.
The currently available telescopes and instruments do not only permit us to substantially improve the census of galaxies in nearby groups, but also to derive their detailed photometric properties, providing new insights into a range of physical properties for these objects. In particular, the deep high resolution images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) are now providing optically resolved stellar populations in dwarfs within $\sim10$ Mpc from the Local Group. Even though the limiting absolute magnitude dramatically decreases with their distance, we still can observe these galaxies down to comparable sensitivity levels as we used to see much closer dwarf galaxies in our own Local Group, as recently as only a decade ago \citep[e.g.,][]{dohm97}.
The Centaurus A group is located in the southern hemisphere, at an average Galactic latitude of $b\sim20^{\circ}$. Despite this low latitude, most of its members are not highly contaminated by Galactic foreground extinction \citep[see, e.g.,][]{schlegel98}, making it a very popular target of research. It is one of the groups that are closest to our own, with a mean Galactocentric distance of $\sim3.8$ Mpc \citep{hui93, kara02, kara07, harrisg09} and with a variety of morphological types among its member galaxies. The group is dominated by the giant radio-loud elliptical galaxy Centaurus A (NGC5128), which shows a very perturbed morphology and which has probably undergone several mergers in its recent past \citep[e.g.,][]{meier89, mirabel99, kara05}. Within the Centaurus A group, there is a subgroup centered on the spiral galaxy M83 (NGC5236), even though it is not clear whether this subgroup is approaching or receding from Centaurus A \citep[e.g.][]{kara07}. The search and study of dwarf members in this group have been pursued at different wavelenghts for more than a decade \citep{cote97, kara98, banks99, cote00, jerjen00b, jerjen00a, kara02, kara04, kara05, rejkuba06, bouchard07, grossi07, kara07, lee07, bouchard08, cote09}. Now there are more than 50 confirmed dwarf galaxies known in the Centaurus A group, of which about $3/5$ are early--type dwarfs. When looking at the luminosity function of the entire group, we note that there are more luminous early--type dwarfs than in our own Local Group or in the Sculptor group, as expected for a more evolved group \citep{jerjen00b}. However, many more faint early-type dwarfs could possibly be found if more sensitive surveys were available. In particular, we know now that the Local Group contains about 20 dwarfs with $M_B>-10$, while only 4 such faint objects have been detected so far in the Centaurus A group, due to its distance.
Some of the galaxies presented here have already been investigated in previous studies (e.g. \citealt{cote97}; \citealt{jerjen00b}; \citealt{bouchard07}; \citealt{bouchard08}; \citealt{cote09}), in some cases even with the same dataset considered in our work (\citealt{kara07}; \citealt{makarova08}; \citealt{sharina08}). However, most of these studies concentrated on large samples of objects, not investigating their physical properties individually. \citet{bouchard07} find that in the Centaurus A group there is an apparent gap in HI masses: the detected galaxies have gas masses of about $10^{7}$M$_{\odot}$, or they are not detected at all (which permits them to put an upper limit of $\sim10^{6}$M$_{\odot}$). \citet{bouchard07} conclude that the Centaurus A group environment must favour an efficient gas stripping from its dwarf companions. However, they also point out that due to the limits of the HI survey, it is currently not possible to detect so called mixed--type dwarfs in the Centaurus A group (with no ongoing star formation but presence of neutral gas). Thus, knowledge of only the stellar content of early--type dwarfs does not tell us with certainty whether they are ``contaminated'' by a residual presence of gas. \citet{bouchard08} further collected literature data for dwarfs in the Centaurus A and Sculptor groups and analysed them together with new observations. Again, there is no significant presence of ongoing star formation for early--type galaxies. \citet{bouchard08} investigate the dependence of several physical properties (optical luminosity, neutral gas and H$\alpha$ content) on environment. Similarly to the Local Group, they are able to confirm that: galaxies in denser regions of these groups have, in general, lower values of HI; the star formation in these objects is lower; and they probably formed their stellar content earlier, with respect to galaxies in low density regions. However, these correlations with environment do not rule out the simultaneous impact of internal processes that act to shape their evolution. The papers that used the same dataset as in our study were mostly considering distances \citep{kara07} or scaling relations \citep{sharina08} for an extensive sample of, respectively, dwarfs in the Centaurus A group, and dwarfs in nearby groups and in the field. In our work we want to look more in detail at the metallicity and population gradients of early--type dwarfs in the Centaurus A group.
This paper is the first in a series in which we concentrate on the resolved stellar populations of dwarf galaxies in the Centaurus A group, seen through the Hubble Space Telescope. We derive their physical properties (metallicities, star formation rates, stellar spatial distributions) and try to find links with the environment they reside in, in order to put constraints on their evolution. While this paper focusses on the early-type dwarfs, we will return to the late type dwarf irregular dwarfs in two forthcoming papers (Crnojevi\'{c}, Grebel \& Cole, in prep.).
The paper is organized as follows: we describe the data in \S \ref{data}, and we present the derived results in \S \ref{cmd_sec} (color-magnitude diagrams), \S \ref{mdf_sec} and \S \ref{serrors} (metallicity distribution functions and discussion of their uncertainties, respectively), \S \ref{ssd_sec} (metallicity and population gradients). The discussion is then carried out in \S \ref{discuss}, and our conclusions are drawn in \S \ref{conclus}.
\section{Data and photometry} \label{data}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Fundamental properties of the studied sample of galaxies}
\label{infogen}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Galaxy&RA&DEC&$T$&$I_{TRGB}$&$D$&$A_{I}$&$M_{B}$&$M_{V}$&$\Theta$\\
&(J2000)&(J2000)&&&(Mpc)&&&\\
\hline
\object{KK189}&$13\,12\,45.0$&$-41\,49\,55$&$-3$&$24.40\pm0.07$&$4.42\pm0.33$&$0.22$&$-10.52$&$-11.99$&$2.0$\\
\object{ESO269-66, KK190}&$13\,13\,09.2$&$-44\,53\,24$&$-5$&$24.04\pm0.04$&$3.82\pm0.26$&$0.18$&$-13.85$&$-13.89$&$1.7$\\
\object{KK197}&$13\,22\,01.8$&$-42\,32\,08$&$-3$&$24.19\pm0.04$&$3.87\pm0.27$&$0.30$&$-12.76$&$-13.04$&$3.0$\\
\object{KKs55}&$13\,22\,12.4$&$-42\,43\,51$&$-3$&$24.21\pm0.03$&$3.94\pm0.27$&$0.28$&$-9.91$&$-11.17$&$3.1$\\
\object{KKs57}&$13\,41\,38.1$&$-42\,34\,55$&$-3$&$24.10\pm0.05$&$3.93\pm0.28$&$0.18$&$-10.07$&$-10.73$&$1.8$\\
\object{CenN}&$13\,48\,09.2$&$-47\,33\,54$&$-3$&$24.10\pm0.04$&$3.77\pm0.26$&$0.27$&$-10.89$&$-11.15$&$0.9$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[Notes.] Units of right ascension are hours, minutes and seconds, and units of declination are degrees, arcminutes and arcseconds. The references for the reported values are \citet{kara05} and \citet{kara07}, and \citet{georgiev08} for the absolute $V$ magnitude.
\end{list}
\end{table*}
We use archival data obtained with the Wide Field Channel (WFC) of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Observations with this instrument are available for 21 dwarfs in the CenA group (programmes GO-9771 and GO-10235). Each galaxy has a 1200 seconds exposure in the $F606W$ filter and a 900 seconds exposure in the $F814W$ filter. We do not consider observations carried out with the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), since its field of view is smaller, since three of its chips have lower resolution, and since it is less sensitive than the ACS. Earlier studies of dwarfs in the Centaurus A group based on WFPC2 data were published by, e.g., \citet{kara02, kara03, rejkuba06}. In this paper we present the results for 6 early--type dwarf galaxy companions of the peculiar elliptical Centaurus A. A further sample of 11 late--type dwarfs (6 companions of Centaurus A and 5 of the giant spiral galaxy M83, respectively) will be studied in two forthcoming papers of this series.
We performed stellar photometry using the ACS module of the DOLPHOT package \citep{dolphin02}, as described in detail in, for instance, \citet{dalcanton09}. The parameters chosen for the photometry follow the prescriptions of the DOLPHOT User's Guide\footnote{http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/dolphot/.}. The stars that we then want to retain from the original photometry have to simultaneously satisfy the required cuts for different quality parameters in both wavelengths. These limits are the following: each object must be classified as a good star (meaning a not too extended or too sharp object, quantified by an ``object type'' that has to be $\leq2$) and has to be recovered extremely well in the image (each star has an assigned ``error flag'' for that, which we require to be 0 in order to avoid saturation or photometry extending out of the chip), its signal to noise ratio has to be at least 5, the sharpness parameter has to be $\vert sharp \vert \le0.3$, the crowding parameter is set to a value lower than 0.5 (in mag, which quantifies how much brighter the star would be if isolated when measured), and finally the $\chi$ has to be $\le2.5$. This selection choice leaves us with fairly clean color-magnitude diagrams. For the following study, we use the $V$ and $I$-bands, converted by the DOLPHOT program from the instrumental magnitudes with the prescriptions of \citet{sirianni05}.
Extensive artificial star tests were then run with the same package to estimate the photometric uncertainties and to assess the effects of incompleteness effects. For each galaxy, we add to the images $\sim5$ times the number of observed stars (after quality cuts). The artificial stars are added and measured one at a time by the DOLPHOT routine, in order to avoid artificial crowding. They are distributed evenly across the field of view of ACS, and have a magnitude range that goes from the brightest observed stars' magnitude to $\sim1$ mag fainter than the faintest ones (to account for fainter stars possibly upscattered in the color-magnitude diagram by noise). The color range is the same as for the observed stars. After running again the photometry with the artificial stars, we apply the same quality cuts as before. We then derive completeness curves both as a function of magnitude as well as a function of radius, in order to correct star number counts (see Sect. \ref{ssd_sec}). The limiting magnitude, taken at a $50\%$ completeness level, is at $\sim27.3$ ($\sim26.8$) mag in the $V$-band for the least (most) crowded objects of our sample, and at $\sim26.4$ ($\sim26.0$) mag in the $I$-band. The mentioned galaxies are KKS55 and ESO269-66, respectively, (as can be seen from the density maps reported in Sect. \ref{ssd_sec}), with peak stellar densities of $\sim39$ and $\sim124$ stars per $0.01$ kpc$^{2}$. At a completeness level of $50\%$, the $1 \sigma$ extremes of the photometric errors amount to $\leq0.23$ mag ($\leq0.16$ mag) in $I$-band magnitude and $\leq0.30$ mag ($\leq0.21$ mag) in color, for these two galaxies. The mean photometric errors ($\pm1 \sigma$) for each galaxy are indicated by representative errorbars in the color-magnitude diagrams shown in Sect. \ref{cmd_sec}.
The main properties of the galaxies studied here are listed in Table \ref{infogen} as follows: column (1): name of the galaxy, (2-3): equatorial coordinates (J2000), (4): morphological type, (5): $I$-band magnitude at the tip of the red giant branch (from \citealt{kara07}), (6): distance of the galaxy derived by \citet{kara07} with the tip of the red giant branch method, (7): foreground extinction in the $I$-band from \citet{schlegel98}, (8): absolute $B$ magnitude from \citet{kara05}, (9): absolute $V$ magnitude from \citet{georgiev08}, and (10): tidal index, taken from \citet{kara07}.
\section{Color Magnitude Diagrams} \label{cmd_sec}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{cmd_pap_plain_corr_red.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Color magnitude diagrams of the six early--type dwarf galaxies studied in this paper, ordered by absolute $V$ magnitude of the galaxies. The main feature visible in all of the CMDs is a prominent RGB, while luminous AGB stars are less numerous (see text for an estimate for each galaxy). Representative errorbars derived from artificial star experiments are shown on the left side of the diagrams. At an $I$-band magnitude of $25.5$, the $1 \sigma$ photometric errors are of approximately $\sim0.1$ mag in magnitude and $\sim0.15$ mag in color (see text for details).}}
\label{cmds}
\end{figure*}
The color--magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of the six galaxies are shown in Fig. \ref{cmds}, ordered by increasing absolute $V$ magnitude of the galaxies. The CMDs all show prominent red giant branches (RGBs). RGB stars may encompass stars with a wide range of ages, starting with stars as young as $1-2$ Gyr. Populations with ages of a few Gyr (``intermediate--age stars'', $1-9$ Gyr) can be recognized by a number of additional features including more luminous main sequence turnoffs, red clump and vertical red clump stars, and luminous asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars with luminosities greater than the tip of the RGB (TRGB). Unfortunately, the HST data are not sufficiently deep to reach the main sequence turnoffs or the red clump stars of the intermediate--age populations, as these are below our detection limit of $\sim27$ $I$-band apparent magnitude (the red clump would be expected to have a magnitude of $\sim28$ in the same band). However, we can infer the presence or absence of intermediate--age populations from the presence or absence of luminous AGB stars. Even younger stars ($<1$ Gyr) are definitely not present in these galaxies, as there are no objects found in the region blueward of the RGB (i.e., upper main sequence, or massive blue and red He-burning stars). A quantitative evaluation of the amount of intermediate--age stars, and how it affects our results, will be presented in Sect. \ref{ssd_sec}. Similar evidence for intermediate--age components has also been found in some of the dwarf spheroidals and dwarf ellipticals of the Local Group, like for instance Leo I, Leo II, Fornax, Carina, NGC147 and NGC185 (e.g., \citealt{han97}).
In the CMDs of Fig. \ref{cmds}, we also show representative photometric errors derived from artificial star tests. The ($1 \sigma$) error is $\sim0.1$ mag in magnitude and $\sim0.15$ mag in color at an $I$-band magnitude of, respectively: $25.60$ for KKS57, $25.55$ for KKS55, $25.50$ for CenN, $25.55$ for KK189, $25.45$ for KK197 and $25.30$ for ESO269-66. The RGB is thus partly broadened by photometric errors in the observed CMDs. However, the broadening does not come entirely from the errors, and thus is also associated with the physical properties of the galaxies. In particular, the color spread across the RGB could either be due to age or metallicity. There is a well known degeneracy in this evolutionary stage, such that stars that are younger and more metal--rich may be found in the same RGB region as stars that are older and more metal--poor. Ideally, for a ``simple'' stellar population a spread in age would produce a narrower RGB at the same metallicity than would a spread in metallicity at a constant age (see, for example, \citealt{vandenberg06}). Owing to the relatively small number of luminous AGB stars above the TRGB, we may assume that the majority of the RGB stars belong to old populations ($10$ Gyr or older). Because of this, and also because early--type dwarfs in the Local Group all display metallicity spreads, we assume that the color spread across the RGB is predominantly caused by a metallicity range within these galaxies. Our goal is then to derive photometric metallicity distribution functions from the CMDs.
We want to stress that a spread in metallicity would imply the presence of an age spread as well (of the order of $\sim1-2$ Gyr), such that the first generation of stars born in the galaxy would have time to evolve and pollute the surrounding interstellar medium, making it possible for the next star formation episodes to produce more metal--rich stars. This spread at such old ages is however not resolvable from the upper part of the RGB alone, and from our data we can only try to put some constraints on the age range of the intermediate--age populations from the number and brightness of the luminous AGB stars. The unresolvable spread in age for old populations could have the effect of inflating the derived metallicity spreads by $10-20\%$. On the other side, the possible presence of intermediate--age stars would also affect the metallicity spreads in a way that depends on each individual galaxy's characteristics, and it deserves more careful attention. Both these aspects will be discussed in detail in the next Section.
\section{Metallicity distribution functions} \label{mdf_sec}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{cmd_pap_corr.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Color magnitude diagrams of the six early--type dwarf galaxies studied in this paper, ordered by absolute $V$ magnitude of the galaxies, as in Fig. \ref{cmds}. Overlaid are Dartmouth stellar isochrones (green solid lines) with a fixed age of 10 Gyr, shifted to the distance of the galaxies and reddened according to the values listed in Table \ref{infogen}. Their metallicities have values of [Fe/H] $=-2.5$, $-1.9$, $-1.3$ and $-0.7$ (proceeding from the blue to the red part of the CMD). For KK197 and ESO269-66, also the isochrone with [Fe/H] $=-0.4$ is shown, because of the broader RGB. Drawn in red is the selection box within which we interpolate metallicity values for the single RGB stars (see text for details).}}
\label{cmds+iso}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{mdf_norm_pap_corr.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Normalized metallicity distribution functions of the six dwarfs, derived via interpolation of isochrones at a fixed age (10 Gyr) and varying metallicity. Overlaid (black lines) are the MDFs convolved with the observational errors. Also plotted in the left upper corner is the median error on the individual values of [Fe/H], and the total number of stars considered (for details see Sect. \ref{mdf_sec}).}}
\label{mdfs}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{\footnotesize{Metallicity values derived for the studied sample of galaxies}}
\label{infores}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Galaxy&$N_{RGB}$&$\%_{cont}$&$<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}$&$\sigma$[Fe/H]$,obs$&$\sigma$[Fe/H]$,int$\\
\hline
\object{KKs57}&$347$&$9$&$-1.45$&$0.46$&$0.28$\\
\object{KKs55}&$1748$&$2$&$-1.56$&$0.40$&$0.1$\\
\object{CenN}&$926$&$5$&$-1.49$&$0.40$&$0.15$\\
\object{KK189}&$526$&$5$&$-1.52$&$0.42$&$0.2$\\
\object{KK197}&$6647$&$1$&$-1.08$&$0.49$&$0.41$\\
\object{ESO269-66, KK190}&$6668$&$0.5$&$-1.21$&$0.42$&$0.33$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
At the distance of the Centaurus A group ($\sim3.8$ Mpc on average, \citealt{kara07}), there is no possibility to obtain individual stellar absorption line spectra for red giants using the current instrumentation within reasonable integration times (compare $I_{TRGB}$ in Table \ref{infogen}). Moreover, genuine early--type dwarf galaxies usually do not contain neutral gas reservoirs nor do they show ongoing star formation. Hence, we cannot directly measure their present-day metallicity from spectroscopy of HII regions around massive young stars. Finally, a reconstruction of the star formation history from CMDs would be almost impossible, given the small amount of information that comes from the RGBs only.
The only tool we have to constrain metallicity in this type of galaxies and at these distances, is thus photometry combined with isochrones. Once we have a set of isochrones from an evolutionary model, we can overlay them on the observed CMDs, as shown in Fig. \ref{cmds+iso}. In the case of a single stellar population with a narrow RGB, one would try to find the one best--fitting isochrone. However, early--type dwarf galaxies, at least in the Local Group, are known to have large spreads in their metallicities (e.g., \citealt{grebel97}; \citealt{mateo98}). As our RGBs look quite broad and there are no young population features in the CMDs (i.e., stars younger than $\sim1$ Gyr, as argued in the previous Sect.), we make the simplified assumption of a single, fixed old age and then let the metallicity of the isochrones vary to cover the whole RGB color range. In this way we are able to derive the metallicity of each star on the RGB via interpolation among the isochrones. This method is widely used for studies of predominantely old populations, for which spectroscopy is not available \citep[e.g., ][]{durrell01, sara02, rejkuba05, harris07, richardson09}, to derive photometric metallicity distribution functions.
In this method, there are some weaknesses that have to be taken into account. Firstly, we will have a small ($\sim22\%$, see e.g. \citealt{durrell01}) contamination from old ($\gtrsim10$ Gyr), low-luminosity AGB stars which overlap with our RGB. With the available photometry it is impossible to distinguish them from RGB stars, and our main conclusions are not affected by this inevitable contamination since it would introduce a systematic bias towards slightly lower metallicities within the investigated metallicity range. That is, we would have an approximately equally overestimated numer of stars for each metallicity bin. Secondly, we observe the presence of luminous AGB stars above the TRGB, which resemble an intermediate--age, metal--poor population (going up almost straight to higher luminosities), meaning that in the most metal--poor bins of our resulting metallicity distribution functions there will be a non-negligible contribution from these stars. This effect has to be quantified more accurately for each galaxy, and will be considered in the next Section.
In Fig. \ref{cmds+iso} we overplot on the observed CMDs the boxes (in red) used to select the putative stars for which we derive metallicities. Their width in color is chosen by constructing Hess diagrams for the galaxies, so as to approximately contain stars that lie within $\sim\pm3\sigma$ from the mean locus of the RGB. Their vertical size is such that the stars in the selection boxes have $1 \sigma$ photometric errors of $\leq0.1$ mag in magnitude and $\leq0.15$ mag in color, and go up to the TRGB (the apparent magnitude of the latter has been adopted from \citealt{kara07}). In the selected region, the $I$-band completeness is above the $\sim70\%$ level and the theoretical isochrones are more widely separated from each other than at lower luminosities, providing a better resolution in metallicity.
In Fig. \ref{cmds+iso} we further show the adopted stellar isochrones, taken from the Dartmouth evolutionary models \citep{dotter08}. We chose not to use $\alpha$-enhanced tracks, because nothing is known about the level of the $\alpha$-enhancements in our target galaxies. The effects of this arbitrary choice will be discussed in the next Section. The isochrones are shifted to the distance of each observed galaxy and reddened by the respective foreground reddening value. Distances and reddening values are taken from \citet{kara07} and from the Schlegel extinction maps \citep{schlegel98}, respectively. The Dartmouth set of evolutionary models is able to reproduce particularly well the populations of old and intermediate--age clusters, while other models generally fail to simultaneously reproduce all features of the CMD for the correct, spectroscopically measured metallicity (e.g., \citealt{glatt08a}; \citealt{glatt08b}; \citealt{sara09}). We choose a fixed age of 10 Gyr, and metallicities ranging from [Fe/H] $=-2.5$ to $-0.3$ in solar units. The implications of this simplistic, single age assumption are discussed in detail in the next Section. The isochrone grid is finely spaced ($0.2$ dex steps), in order to get good interpolation values for each star. We interpolate linearly among the isochrones. We also only retain stars that fall within the range of our isochrone grid, while rejecting those with extrapolated values (meaning values blueward of the most metal--poor isochrone and redder than the most metal--rich one), to avoid artificially metal--poor or --rich extremes in the results.
After deriving the metallicity values for each RGB star through interpolation, we show in Fig. \ref{mdfs} the metallicity distribution functions (MDFs) for our galaxies (each normalized to the total number of considered stars). The galaxies are again ordered by increasing absolute $V$ magnitude. We choose not to correct the MDFs for completeness, since the latter changes very little within the magnitude range of the selection box. The errors in [Fe/H] are derived as follows: we perform 1000 Monte Carlo realizations of the interpolation process, varying the position of the stars on the CMD within their respective photometric errors (assuming Gaussian distributions), thus accounting for random errors. The median $1\sigma$ measurement errors of the individual values of [Fe/H] are plotted in the left corner of each subpanel. They range from $\sim0.26$ to $\sim0.39$ dex. The vertical (random) counting errors of each histogram bin are also taken from the Monte Carlo realizations. Finally, in the figure we also draw the MDFs convolved with observational random errors (black lines). The effects of the systematic errors (on distance and reddening of the galaxy, taken from \citealt{kara07}) on the MDFs will be discussed in the next Section.
All six galaxies contain populations that are on average metal--poor, with median values ranging from $<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}=-1.56$ to $-1.08$ (the median value is more meaningful since the MDFs are not symmetric). There is no galaxy that appears to contain stars with a metallicity higher than [Fe/H] $=-0.4$. This result is influenced by our choice of the selection box, but for clarity in Fig. \ref{cmds} we overplot (for the galaxies KK197 and ESO269-66) also an isochrone with [Fe/H] $=-0.4$: indeed, it can be seen how few stars lie redwards of this isochrone, so we conclude that our cutoff is reasonable. On the other side, the few stars that lie bluewards of the bluest isochrone (see Fig. \ref{cmds+iso}) have probably been scattered there by photometric errors. Some of them may also be old AGB stars and some of them may be genuinely metal--poor RGB stars. We have no way of identifying the nature of such stars in our photometry. Hence, as stated earlier, we simply avoid extrapolating toward putative metallicities lower than covered by our isochrones.
The spreads in metallicity are quite large. The nominal ranges of the metallicity covered in each galaxy are $\Delta$[Fe/H]$,obs\sim2$ dex, and reach typically from [Fe/H] $=-2.5$ to values as high as [Fe/H] $=-0.7$ to $-0.4$. In the classical dwarf spheroidals in the Local Group the full spectroscopically measured RGB metallicity range typically well exceeds 1 dex (e.g., \citealt{grebel03}), so this large range is in good agreement with what one might expect. When calculating a formal Gaussian dispersion the metallicity spreads derived here are of the order of $\sigma$[Fe/H]$,obs\sim0.4$--$0.5$ dex. This result requires some further attention. That is, we have to take into account the median error on the individual metallicity estimates, which comes from both photometric errors and from the close spacing of the isochrones on the CMDs. This simply means that the true metallicity dispersion is in fact narrower than derived. For a better estimate of the global intrinsic spread of the galaxy, $\sigma$[Fe/H]$,int$, we thus subtract in quadrature the median metallicity error from the observed dispersion. The final values range from $\sigma$[Fe/H]$,int\sim0.10$ dex to $\sim0.41$ dex. This implies that the observed broadening of the RGBs is not only an effect of photometric errors.
In Table \ref{infores} we summarize the results as follows: column (1): name of the galaxy, (2): number of RGB stars for which we derive individual metallicity values, (3): percentage of Galactic foreground contaminants with respect to the number of stars in the selection box (see next Sect.), (4): median [Fe/H] value computed from the MDF, (5): observed metallicity dispersion of the MDF (from Gaussian fit), and (6): intrinsic metallicity dispersion, after subtraction of the median measurement error.
The six histograms shown in Fig. \ref{mdfs} show a slow decline in the metal--poor direction, and a steeper slope on the metal--rich side. The results found here are similar to what has been observed in dwarf galaxies of the Local Group, both in terms of metallicity ranges and of MDF shape \citep[e.g.,][]{shetrone01, sara02, tolstoy04, battaglia06, helmi06, koch06, bosler07, koch07a, koch07b, gullieu09}. However, since in our work we are only able to present results based on limited assumptions because of the age--metallicity degeneracy, we do not compare the shapes of our MDFs to theoretical models or to Local Group members in more detail. We just note that the overall shapes of the MDFs resemble the MDFs of Galactic dwarf spheroidals, which suggests that similar evolutionary processes may have governed their star formation and enrichment histories.
\section{Possible sources of error} \label{serrors}
The results presented in Tab. \ref{infores} will unavoidably be affected by the assumptions we made in the first place, i.e. a single old age, a negligible contribution to the MDFs by intermediate--age stars, and a scaled solar value for the $\alpha$-element abundances. We discuss now more in detail the effects that these assumptions may have on the derived results.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{KK189_cmd_notes_corr.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{KK189_mdf_notes_thick_corr_red.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{KK189_mdf_alphasys_corr_red.eps}}
\caption{\footnotesize{\emph{Upper panel.} Color magnitude diagram of the dwarf spheroidal galaxy KK189, overlaid by a Hess density diagram of its stars. Shown also is the expected location of Galactic foreground stars (red crosses), estimated from the TRILEGAL models, and the selection box within which we derived metallicities. \emph{Central panel.} Metallicity distribution function of KK189, derived via interpolation of isochrones at a fixed age and varying metallicity. The results are shown for 3 different ages (8, 10 and 12 Gry), and the errorbars are computed considering photometric errors. Also plotted in the left corner is the median individual metallicity error. \emph{Lower panel.} As for the central panel, but keeping the age fixed at 10 Gyr and varying the $\alpha$-enhancement abundance ([$\alpha$/Fe]$=-0.2,+0.0$ and $+0.4$).}}
\label{errors}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Foreground contamination}
For the HST/ACS data used here, we do not expect a high number of unresolved background galaxies in such a small field of view. In fact, they will be rejected by the DOLPHOT quality cuts, leaving a contamination of the CMDs of less than $3\%$ \citep{dalcanton09}.
Regarding Galactic foreground contamination, we obtain estimates using the TRILEGAL models \citep{girardi05}. In the direction of the Centaurus A group, and within the entire ACS field of view, there are on average $\sim200$ foreground stars expected. Additionally, the TRILEGAL models provide the photometry of the simulated stars, so that we are able to check which regions of the CMD would be most affected by foreground stars. In particular, we compute the percentage of contaminant stars found in the RGB selection boxes for each galaxy, after taking into account completeness effects (not all of the foreground stars would in fact be detected by the instrument), and we report the values in Table \ref{infores}. They range from $<1\%$ to $\sim9\%$, depending on the total number of stars in each galaxy.
In the upper panel of Fig. \ref{errors} we take the galaxy KK189 as an example: we plot a Hess density diagram of its stars on top of the CMD to illustrate more clearly its main features, and overplot the expected location of Galactic foreground stars (red crosses) derived from the TRILEGAL models. The predicted contaminants are few and are relatively uniformely distributed within the selection box, so we decided not to statistically subtract them from our RGB sample. Given the errorbars on the MDFs, the small number of stars that would be subtracted in such a procedure would indeed not change significantly our final results. With respect to the density maps presented in Sect. \ref{ssd_sec}, the lowest contour level is always well above the value inferred for foreground contamination.
It could be argued that the Galactic models are not always perfectly able to reproduce the observed contamination. In particular, they underestimate the amount of objects with colors $V-I>2$, partly because the contribution from thick disk and halo stars is uncertain at these colors and partly because there could be unresolved galaxies among them. However, the predicted star counts will differ in different color bins as a function of the slope of the adopted Galactic IMF. Thus, the underestimation at red colors does not necessarily mean that the models are uncorrectly reproducing the contamination at the position of our RGBs.
From Fig. \ref{errors} we also see that the contamination is higher in percentage for the upper part of the CMD above the TRGB, since the number of luminous AGB stars is very low. It is difficult from the optical observations alone to thus clearly distinguish between real AGB stars and foreground contaminants. This point will be considered again below, where we investigate more in detail the contribution from intermediate--age objects.
We also investigate the possible foreground contamination by projected halo stars of the dominant galaxy Centaurus A. This contamination may happen for the dwarfs that are found at very close projected distances from the giant elliptical, as in the case of KKS55 and KK197 ($\sim48$ and $\sim58$ kpc, respectively). The RGB of Centaurus A has been investigated in detail in a series of papers \citep{harris99, harris00, harris02, rejkuba05} in order to derive the MDFs for fields at different galactocentric distances (8, 21, 31 and 38 kpc). If we assume that the halo of the giant elliptical extends further, out to the projected distances at which KKS55 and KK197 are found, and that the MDF shape of Centaurus A will not be much different from the more internal ones at these distances, we may then try to look for a possible contamination in the CMDs of our dwarfs. The photometric data collected for Centaurus A show a range in magnitude and color that is very similar to those of the dwarfs in our study. Thus, if the contamination from the Centaurus A halo stars is relevant, we should tentatively observe the RGB features of the giant elliptical even in our CMDs, i.e. we should see a very broad RGB with an extended metal--rich population (the peak metallicity for the outermost field of the galaxy is of [Fe/H]$\sim-0.6$). This is not found for the closest dwarf in projection, KKS55, which displays a quite narrow RGB, and so we do not expect it to be true either for KK197. For the sake of completeness, we check the radial distribution of the most metal--rich stars found in the CMD of KK197, and found them to be centrally concentrated, thus excluding a possible, diffuse contamination from the Centaurus A field.
\subsection{Age assumption}
In our metallicity derivation, we may be neglecting the presence of stellar populations younger than the adopted age of 10 Gyr. In the CMDs of our targets (Fig. \ref{cmds}) some luminous AGB stars are indeed visible above the TRGB. The RGB could be contaminated by the stars coming from these intermediate--age populations that are on the RGB or ascending to the AGB phase, after having burned off the He in their cores. This contamination will be mostly in the metal--poor part of the derived MDFs, as relatively metal--poor, intermediate--age stars in their RGB/AGB stage would overlap the old, most metal--poor isochrones (age--metallicity degeneracy).
We give a rough estimate of the number of luminous AGB stars by considering Padova stellar evolutionary models \citep{marigo08}, since the Dartmouth isochrones do not model stages later than the RGB phase. We select stars in a box that extends (in magnitude) from $\sim0.1$ mag above the TRGB (this is greater than the photometric error in magnitude at these luminosities, so we make sure we are not picking RGB stars upscattered by photometric errors) up to $\sim1.1$ mag above the TRGB. The range in color goes from the bluest edge of the RGB to $V-I\sim3$. This selection criterion should still retain luminous AGB stars with ages from 1 to 10 Gyr, and with metallicities that are around the median metallicities derived for our galaxies (we assume that the intermediate--age populations will be on average slightly more enriched than the oldest and most metal-poor RGB stars).
We first compute the bolometric magnitudes for the candidate AGB stars with the empirical correction formula by \cite{dacosta90} (for $I$-band magnitude). We then construct the bolometric luminosity function for the AGB stars, subtracting the number of predicted foreground stars for each magnitude bin. Since the star counts from the TRILEGAL models could be uncertain, we also try a second method, subtracting the number of stars that are found in a box with the same size of the AGB selection box, but just above it on the CMD. The two methods give results that are almost identical.
Having done this, we can now use the empirical relation derived in \cite{rejkuba06} (their Fig. 19), which connects the tip luminosity of the AGB and their age (for ages $\geq 1$ Gyr). This method gives us a rough quantitative idea about the fraction of an intermediate--age population. Finally, we use an approximation for the formula of the fuel consumption theorem (\citealt{armand93}, originally from \citealt{renzini86}) to compute the expected number of luminous AGB stars per magnitude, given their fraction relative to the entire galaxy population. We then compare the results from our AGB counting to the predictions from this theorem, varying the fraction of the intermediate--age contaminants until the two values are similar.
We now obtain for each galaxy an estimate of the presence of stars with ages in the range $\sim4-8$ Gyr. Younger stars are probably not present as seen from our data, if we assume our foreground subtraction is correct. The results are as following: for KK189, KKS57 and KK197 the estimated fraction of the intermediate--age population relative to the entire population is of $\sim10\%$; ESO269-66 has a probable fraction of $\sim15\%$, while for KKS55 and CenN this number grows up to $\sim20\%$. All of the stated fractions could possibly be lower limits to the true values, since the luminous AGB phase is short and thus this stage could be poorly populated in the observed CMDs. These numbers are lower than what is observed in those few Local Group early--type dwarf galaxies with pronounced intermediate--age star formation (e.g., Leo I, Leo II, Fornax, Carina, NGC147 and NGC185, with fractions up to $\sim50\%$), but in line with previous studies of other early--type dwarfs in the Centaurus A group \citep{rejkuba06}.
At this point, in our MDFs we simply subtract the fraction of intermediate--age stars from the metallicity bins that are more metal--poor than the median metallicity. If we then recompute median metallicities and spreads for each galaxy, we find that: for KK189, KKS57 and KK197, the median metallicities values would not change significantly since the amount of intermediate--age stars is small, and the spreads would be slightly narrower ($\sim5-10\%$); for ESO269-66 the new median metallicity is higher by $\sim5\%$ and the spread is smaller by $\sim10\%$; finally, KKS55 and CenN would be only slightly more metal--rich ($\sim2-3\%$), but the Gaussian metallicity spreads would practically go to zero.
However, we want to underline that the best way to look more in detail at luminous intermediate--age stars is rather to combine optical with near-infrared filters, because they are more luminous in the infrared and more easily separated from foreground contamination in the latter ones (e.g., \citealt{rejkuba06}; \citealt{boyer09}). We will consider ground based (Very Large Telescope) images in $J$- and $K$-band in a companion paper (Crnojevi\'{c} et al. 2010, in prep.), in order to get better constraints on the epoch and strength of the more recent star formation episodes for our target galaxies.
The assumption of one single age for the galaxies' populations is also a strong simplification. In order to account for the spread in metallicity, extended star formation histories are needed. For early--type dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, complex star formation histories have been derived, and it was shown that no two dwarfs are alike, not even within the same morphological subtype \citep{grebel97}. Although there are examples of Local Group dwarf spheroidals with predominantely old and metal--poor populations (e.g., Ursa Minor, Draco), the case of a single, ancient starburst is quite unlikely for most of them, on the contrary large metallicity spreads have been detected, and the early star formation appears to have been low and continuous (e.g., \citealt{ikuta02}; \citealt{grebel03}; \citealt{koch06}; \citealt{coleman08}; \citealt{koleva09}). Different models arrive at different durations to explain the observed metallicity spread (e.g., \citealt{ikuta02, lanfranchi04, marcolini08}). Assuming that the spread in metallicity is predominantly due to a spread in age, we repeated the metallicity interpolation process choosing the three most metal--poor isochrones to have an age of 12 Gyr, and the most metal--rich ones an age of 8 Gyr. The result of this simple test is that, as one would expect, the peak of the MDF is less pronounced, and the intrinsic dispersion is slightly larger ($\sim15\%$ in dex). However, since the observations are not deep enough to permit us to resolve the age--metallicity degeneracy from photometry of main sequence turnoff stars, a single age is the simplest assumption we can make without going into pure speculation. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, metallicity is the main contributor to the shape and width of the RGB; age has much less of an effect.
Having clarified this, our choice to set the isochrone age to 10 Gyr is arbitrary, but as we can see from the central panel of Fig. \ref{errors} we may make such an assumption. We plot three different MDFs for KK189: one is derived from our chosen age, the other two are derived from ages slightly lower ($8$ Gyr) and slightly higher ($12$ Gyr) than the chosen one. It is clear that we do not introduce a significant bias when choosing one isochrone age instead of a slightly older or slightly younger one. Only in the case of an assumed younger age, there will be a higher number of metal--rich stars, but this will not significantly change the median metallicity value (the amount of change is $\sim5\%$ in dex), nor the shape of the distribution. The reason for this relatively small dependence on age is that a decrease or an increase in age by a few Gyr has very little effect on the isochrones for these high ages. Hence a change in metallicity is much more noticeable, as it will have a larger effect on the isochrones.
\subsection{$\alpha$-enhancement}
For our adopted set of isochrones, we chose not to use $\alpha$-enhanced tracks, because nothing is known about the level of the $\alpha$-enhancements in our target galaxies. In the Local Group, the dwarf spheroidals present a broad range of [$\alpha$/Fe] ratios at the metallicities of our galaxy sample \citep[e.g., ][]{shetrone01, shetrone03, sadakane04, geisler07, koch08}. In particular they can vary from sub- ([$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim-0.2$) to super-solar ([$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim+0.4$) values within the same dwarf, and the observed [$\alpha$/Fe] ratios show a correlation with the [Fe/H] ratios, such that the $\alpha$-element abundance tend to decrease for increasing [Fe/H] (e.g., \citealt{tolstoy09, koch09}).
We try again the simple test described above for a choice of different ages, and let the $\alpha$-element abundances vary for our isochrones. With a fixed age of 10 Gyrs, we re-compute the metallicities for isochrones with [$\alpha$/Fe]$=-0.2,+0.2$ and $+0.4$. The resulting MDFs are shown in the lower panel of Fig. \ref{errors} for [$\alpha$/Fe]$=-0.2,+0.0$ and $+0.4$. Changing the $\alpha$-element abundances by $\pm0.2$ from the solar values gives a similar result as a change in age, such that lower (higher) $\alpha$-element abundances would mimic a younger (older) set of isochrones, and the median metallicities would be accordingly higher (lower) by less than $\sim5\%$. When choosing [$\alpha$/Fe]$=+0.4$, the median metallicity is lower by $\sim30\%$, and the metallicity spread is almost doubled. However, this is a rather extreme assumption, since the most probable case is the one where we have a spread of $\alpha$-enhancement values. This could again be included in our computation by choosing the most metal--poor and oldest isochrones to have sub-solar $\alpha$-enhancement, and the most metal--rich and youngest to have super-solar $\alpha$-enhancement. Our simple test is primarly intended to explore the parameter range. It demonstrates that the resulting median metallicities would be slightly lower ($\sim15\%$ in dex), while the metallicity spread would be much larger (3-4 times) when a range of [$\alpha$/Fe] values is considered.
\subsection{Systematic errors}
In our analysis, we adopt the values for distance and foreground reddening from \citet{kara07} and from the Schlegel extinction maps \citep{schlegel98}, respectively. These are affected by uncertainties of the order of $\sim7\%$ and $\sim10\%$ of the values listed in Tab. \ref{infogen}. If we let one of these two parameters vary within its errorbars, the isochrones overplotted on the observed CMDs will be all shifted by the same amount.
We first test how the derived median metallicities and metallicities spreads change if we change the adopted distance value within its errorbars. We find that for distances higher (lower) than the adopted one, the median metallicities are lower (higher) by $\sim10\%$ (meaning $\sim0.10-0.15$ dex), while the spreads are also higher (lower) by $\sim20\%$. Similarly, for higher (lower) foreground reddening values the resulting median metallicities will be higher (lower) by $\sim3\%$ and the spreads lower (higher) by $\sim10\%$.
\subsection{Stellar evolutionary models}
As a test, we also repeated our entire analysis using Padova isochrones \citep{marigo08}, with an identical age and metallicity grid. The results are overall quite similar, from the shape of the MDFs to the presence of metallicity gradients and distinct stellar populations (see next Sect.), but the average metallicities found for each galaxy are systematically higher by $\sim0.3$ dex on average. However, a detailed comparison between different theoretical models goes beyond the goals of our work (for some examples, see \citealt{gallart05}; \citealt{glatt08a}; \citealt{glatt08b}; \citealt{goud09}; \citealt{sara09}).
\section{Metallicity and population gradients} \label{ssd_sec}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{rmd_pap_corr.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Metallicities of individual RGB stars as a function of elliptical radius for the six galaxies. The projected half--light radius $r_{h}$ is plotted as a dotted line in each subpanel. A running mean (red points) is also drawn for each galaxy.}}
\label{mgrad}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{mr_to_mp_new.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Ratio of metal--rich to metal--poor stars as a function of elliptical radius. These stars have metallicities values $>(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}+0.2)$ and $<(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}-0.2)$, respectively.}}
\label{mrtomp}
\end{figure*}
We now look for metallicity gradients within the galaxies, and for projected spatial variations in their stellar populations.
\subsection{Metallicity gradients?}
To take into account the fact that the galaxies do not have a perfectly circular shape, we consider elliptical radii from now on. The determination of the ellipticity for each galaxy follows the method of \citet{mclaug94}. In Fig. \ref{mgrad} we show the individual metallicity values for the RGB stars as a function of elliptical radius. We plot the data until the last ellipse that is entirely contained within the ACS field of view, because data beyond that point are incomplete in metallicity. That is, we could correct the number of stars to account for the fact that we do not observe the entire area of the ellipse, but we could not have any metallicity information about the stars that lie outside the instrumental field of view. For the galaxies KKs55, KK197 and ESO269-66, the instrumental field of view does not cover their whole extent. We also overplot the projected half--light radius for each galaxy, derived as described below.
We compute projected, completeness corrected surface density profiles from our RGB stars, and fit them with 3-parameter King models \citep{king62}. However, these models yield only poor results when we attempt to simultaneously fit both the very central parts and the outskirts of the dwarf galaxies. We thus also derive $I$-band surface brightness profiles from star counts, and fit them with Sersic profiles \citep{sersic68}. This is a generalized exponential function of the form $I(r)\sim I(r_h)\exp[-(r/r_h)^{1/n}]$, where the surface brightness is expressed in terms of intensity. It should be noted that for this type of parametrization some authors use the index $n$ instead of ${1/n}$. The free parameters for the Sersic profile are the effective (half--light) radius $r_{h}$, a shape parameter $n$ that characterises the curvature of the profile, and the surface brightness at the radius $r_{h}$. The values derived here are reported in Table \ref{sersic}. We cannot make direct comparisons with the values previously published for our sample of galaxies because such studies consider surface brightness profiles from different bands (\citealt{jerjen00b}), or perform the fit with a simple exponential profile (\citealt{sharina08}). The results derived in this work are nevertheless consistent with the ones found in the aforementioned studies. For the sake of clarity, we have to underline that we construct our surface density profiles as a function of elliptical radius. However, other authors often define a ``reduced radius'' ($r_{red}=\sqrt {ab}$, with $a$ and $b$ as the semi-major and semi-minor axis, respectively) to account for the ellipticity of the galaxy. In the case of a small ellipticity, the two radii are consistent with each other, but in the case of a high ellipticity they can differ substantially. In our sample, the galaxy KK197 is very elongated so its ``reduced'' half--light radius would result in a value smaller than the one computed from our profiles. For completeness, we apply the correction for ellipticity to our derived half--light radii and report them as well in Table \ref{sersic} ($r_{h,red}$). We will use this information later, when looking for different stellar populations within our galaxies.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{\footnotesize{Parameters from Sersic profiles}}
\label{sersic}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\hline
Galaxy&$r_{h}^{\mathrm{a}}$&$r_{h,red}^{\mathrm{b}}$&$n$\\
\hline
\object{KKs57}&$17.5\pm0.8$&$14.2\pm0.6$&$0.97\pm0.14$\\
\object{KKs55}&$45.3\pm0.6$&$43.9\pm0.6$&$0.79\pm0.04$\\
\object{CenN}&$23.3\pm0.6$&$22.5\pm0.5$&$0.73\pm0.05$\\
\object{KK189}&$16.8\pm0.5$&$14.9\pm0.4$&$0.88\pm0.06$\\
\object{KK197}&$68.1\pm1.5$&$47.2\pm1.0$&$0.60\pm0.05$\\
\object{ESO269-66, KK190}&$49.6\pm0.6$&$43.6\pm0.5$&$0.76\pm0.04$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[$^{\mathrm{a}}$] computed from surface brightness as a function of elliptical radius.
\item[$^{\mathrm{b}}$] computed from surface brightness as a function of ``reduced'' radius $r_{red}=\sqrt {ab}$ (see text for details).
\end{list}
\end{table}
Coming back to Fig. \ref{mgrad}, it is not easy to see a possible trend in such plots, thus we also compute and plot a running mean for each galaxy (in steps of $\sim5$ arcsec). Simple linear fits reveal flat or weak overall gradients. For KKS55, KK197 and ESO269-66, the results are $\sim-0.043$, $-0.09$ and $-0.17$ dex per arcmin respectively (or $\sim-0.036$, $-0.075$ and $-0.15$ dex per kpc). For the three remaining galaxies, which are less extended than the ones above, a weak gradient is observed in the central regions, while in the outer parts it tends to flatten (and the statistic tends to worsen because of the small number of stars in the outskirts). We find that: for KKS57, within the inner $\sim40$ arcsec, we have a gradient of $\sim-0.18$ dex per arcmin ($\sim-0.15$ dex per kpc); for CenN, the value is of $\sim-0.078$ dex per arcmin ($\sim-0.065$ dex per kpc) in the inner $\sim40$ arcsec; for KK189, within the inner $\sim30$ arcsec, the linear fit gives $\sim-0.36$ dex per arcmin ($\sim-0.3$ dex per kpc). Due to the large errorbars reported in Fig. \ref{mgrad}, we may conclude that an \emph{overall} metallicity gradient is definitely present for ESO269-66, while KKS57 and KK189 show hints of a gradient only in their central regions. Finally, for ESO269-66 we have no information about the stellar population of its nucleus, because it is not resolved in the photometry.
We may further want to check if there are differences in the stellar population of the galaxies, as observed in some early--type dwarfs in the Local Group. For each galaxy we thus divide the stars with derived metallicities in two subsamples. The first (\emph{metal--poor}) subsample contains stars with metallicity values $<(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}-0.2)$, while the second (\emph{metal--rich}) subsample has values $>(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}+0.2)$. We thus avoid any significant overlap for the subsamples, by excluding the values around the peak of the metallicity distribution functions.
First of all, we check the results derived for the metallicity gradients by plotting the ratio of metal--rich to metal--poor stars as a function of elliptical radius (Fig. \ref{mrtomp}, where the errorbars come from the Monte Carlo realizations described above). The ratio is overall decreasing with radius for all of the galaxies. For KKS57, CenN and KK189, this is valid out to a bit more than the $r_{h}$, after which the ratio tends to be dominated by statistical errors and fluctuations. These are due to the small-number statistics and to the fact that we are averaging over an elliptical radius, thus not taking into account asymmetric features. For the other three galaxies, the ratio decreases over their whole extent.
\subsection{Population gradients?}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KKS57_sbp_rp_new.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KKS55_sbp_rp_new.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{CENN_sbp_rp_new.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KK189_sbp_rp_new.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KK197_sbp_rp_new.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{E269-66_sbp_rp_new.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Normalized surface brightness profiles as a function of elliptical radius. For each galaxy there is a distinction between \emph{metal--poor} (solid grey lines) and \emph{metal--rich} (solid red lines) stars (with metallicities values $<(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}-0.2)$ and $>(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}+0.2)$, respectively). We also report the result of a KS test on the cumulative distribution functions of the two subsamples, in order to statistically assess whether they belong to the same parent population or not (see text for details).}}
\label{sbps}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=8cm]{KK197_mdf2_pap_red.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{E269-66_mdf2_pap_red.eps}}
\caption{\footnotesize{Normalized metallicity distribution functions for the inner and outer regions of KK197 and E269-66. The RGB stars are divided in two subsamples, respectively with distances of $r<r_{h}$ and $r_{h}<r<2r_{h}$ from the galaxy center. For KK197 the data do not go out to $2r_{h}$, so the second subsample contains stars with distances that go from $r>r_{h}$ until the borders of the CDD frame (corresponding to $\sim1.35r_{h}$).}}
\label{mdf2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KKS57_maps_new2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KKS55_maps_new2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{CENN_maps_new2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KK189_maps_new2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{KK197_maps_new2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{E269-66_maps_new2.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Density maps for the galaxies, each diveded in two subsamples. For each galaxy, the left (right) panel shows \emph{metal--poor} (\emph{metal--rich}) stars with metallicity values $<(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}-0.2)$ ($>(<$[Fe/H]$>_{med}+0.2)$). The color scale is the same for the two subsamples, normalized to the peak density value of the \emph{metal--rich} one, and the density values are listed in units of number of stars per $0.01$ kpc$^{2}$. 10 equally spaced isodensity contours are drawn starting at the $1\sigma$ up to the $3\sigma$ significance level ($4\sigma$ for KK197 and ESO269-66). The center of each galaxy is indicated with a black cross, and its half--light radius with a red ellipse (see Sect. \ref{ssd_sec} for details).}}
\label{denmap}
\end{figure*}
For the two metallicity subsamples, we then derive $I$-band surface brightness profiles from star counts (corrected for radial incompleteness), and plot them in Fig. \ref{sbps} (normalized to the total number of considered stars). Indeed, for KK197 and ESO269-66 we clearly see a difference between the two subpopulations. To quantitatively test whether the two subpopulations are truly separated, we perform two-sided Kolmogorov--Smirnov (KS) tests, again varying the metallicity of each star within its metallicity error. In this way we can assess the robustness of our results. The values derived from the KS tests are reported along the surface brightness profiles in Fig. \ref{sbps}: for KKS57, CenN and KKS55, there is a probability of $\sim40\%$ (i.e., less than $1 \sigma$ significance level) that the two subsamples come from the same parent distribution; for KK189, this probability goes down to $\sim10\%$ ($\sim2 \sigma$); finally, for KK197 and ESO269-66 the null hypotesis can be rejected (with a probability of, respectively, $0.15\%$ and $<<0.01\%$), thus these galaxies do show significantly separated subpopulations. This is a robust result, even though our subdivision into subsamples is arbitrary and the radial distribution of the subsamples is partly overlapping, but with these data we have no way of investigating whether \emph{more} than two stellar subpopulations are present.
\citet{jerjen00b} performed surface photometry in the $B$ and $R$-bands of dwarfs in the Centaurus A and Sculptor groups. Their sample contains three of our galaxies (KK189, KK197 and ESO269-66). \citet{jerjen00b} had a slightly larger field of view for their observations than provided by our ACS data, but the results are consistent with ours. It is particularly interesting to look at their $B-R$ color profiles as a function of radius: for KK189 the color profile stays constant, while for the other two dwarfs in common with our study they become redder for radial distances from the center greater than the projected half--light radius. This supports our results regarding an older/more metal--poor population that dominates the outskirts of these galaxies.
We can also divide the stars in two subsamples depending on their distance from the galaxy center, e.g., $r<r_{h}$ and $r_{h}<r<2r_{h}$. This is done in order to compare the results for each galaxy with a fixed physical quantity, the half--light radius, and in order to be able to do such comparisons in the future for other studies. We chose the ranges such that there is a sufficiently large number of stars in each sample. The ACS data cover (at least) $2r_{h}$ for (almost) all of our target galaxies. The only exception is KK197, for which the data cover less than $2r_{h}$, so that the stars in the second subsample have distances ranging from $r_{h}$ up to $\sim1.35r_{h}$. We check for the less extended galaxies whether the results change significantly when choosing a larger second interval ($r_{h}<r<3r_{h}$), but we do not see evidence for that. We then derive normalized (to the total number of considered stars) MDFs for the two radius-selected subsamples. For the galaxies for which there is no significant signature of two different subpopulations, the normalized MDFs are indistinguishable within the errorbars, but for KK197 and ESO269-66, they show a marked difference as expected. We report the normalized MDFs for the two latter dwarfs in Fig. \ref{mdf2}. The fact that the data do not cover the whole extent of KK197 within $2r_{h}$ does not change our conclusions, since a gradient is already clearly present in the inner regions of the galaxy. KK197 and ESO269-66 are classified as dwarf ellipticals, they are the most luminous galaxies in our sample, and they are located very close to the central dominant galaxy of the group (see Fig. \ref{sky}).
However, in these kinds of analyses one has the keep in mind two aspects. Firstly, by looking at properties as a function of projected radius, possible non--radial gradients can be averaged out. We thus also compute area density maps for the two subsamples in the following way. At the mean distance of the group ($\sim3.8$ Mpc), 1 arcsec approximately corresponds to $\sim0.02$ kpc. We first count the number of neighbours within $\sim0.03$ kpc$^{2}$. This value was chosen in order to avoid introducing any small-scale noise or artificial substructures, but to permit us to still recognize overall features. Then we convolve the results with a square grid and get a final resolution of $0.01$ kpc$^{2}$. The resulting density maps are shown in Fig. \ref{denmap}. The color scale is the same for both subsamples of each galaxy, normalized to the peak density value of the \emph{metal--rich} sample, and the values are reported in units of number of stars per $0.01$ kpc$^{2}$. We draw 10 equally spaced isodensity contour levels starting at the $1\sigma$ significance level up to the $3\sigma$ significance level ($4\sigma$ for KK197 and ESO269-66). In every case, the outer contours have values of many ($\sim5$ on average) $\sigma$ above the Galactic foreground level.
The density maps of the two subsamples in each galaxy do not show striking differences. In every case, the subsamples' distributions follow the elongation of the galaxy. However, we can see that the \emph{metal--rich} stars tend to be more centrally concentrated than the \emph{metal--poor} ones in KK197 and ESO269-66. There are some fluctuations and asymmetries within the galaxies, to some extent due to small-scale substructure and poor sampling in the outskirts. In the most massive galaxies, the ACS gap between its two CCDs is visible in the density maps (a horizontal line at pixel y $\sim2000$), but this does not affect their general features. For KK197, an unresolved globular cluster is found near the position of the central peak \citep{georgiev08}, which may in fact represent a nucleus. For the nucleated galaxy ESO269-66, a depression in the density map is seen at the center, because we chose to leave out the nucleus due to the high crowding in that region.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{agb_to_rgb_new.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize{Ratio of luminous AGB to RGB stars as a function of elliptical radius (see text for details about the selection of the two subsamples).}}
\label{agbtorgb}
\end{figure*}
The second thing that has to be mentioned is that, as seen in the previous Sect., for some of our galaxies there is a non negligible presence of an intermediate--age population. The intermediate--age stars could, in principle, bias the derived metallicity gradients. We thus have a qualitative look at the radial distribution of the luminous AGB stars. We compute the number of AGB and RGB stars (selected as described in Sec. \ref{mdf_sec}) in elliptical annuli of $\sim4$ arcsec width. We correct the counts for radial incompleteness, and we also subtract the estimated number of contaminants for AGB and RGB separately. This has to be done because the amount of relative contamination is quite different for the two samples due to the smaller number of luminous AGB stars with respect the RGB stars. We then compute the ratio between AGB and RGB stars, and consider it as a function of radius. The results are plotted in Fig. \ref{agbtorgb}. The strong fluctuations in these plots are just reflecting the poor statistics. In almost every case, this ratio stays nearly constant over the whole extent of the galaxy. Only for ESO269-66, the inner $\sim20$ arcsec show a slightly higher AGB to RGB ratio, revealing the presence of a small amount of intermediate--age AGB stars concentrated in the inner region of this galaxy. As discussed before, this younger population would - at least qualitatively - increase the number of apparently blue, metal--poor RGB stars, thus biasing the metal--poor subsample. Nonetheless, we see that the more metal--rich stars are clearly more centrally concentrated (Fig. \ref{sbps} and \ref{mdf2}). On the other side, the metallicity gradient that we find for this galaxy is still significant: it could be even more pronounced if some of the central stars that we identify as metal--poor RGB stars were in fact more metal--rich, low-luminosity AGB stars superimposed on the RGB.
\section{Discussion} \label{discuss}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{sky_new.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{sky_zoom_new.eps}}
\caption{\footnotesize{\emph{Upper panel.} Positions in the sky of the galaxies belonging to the Centaurus A group (from \citealt{kara07}). Red symbols indicate for early--type dwarfs (dE and dSph), while blue symbols are for late--type dwarfs (dIrr). Two red stars are drawn at the positions of the two dominant giant galaxies Centaurus A and M83, around which the smaller companions are clustering and forming two distinct subgroups. The filled circles represent the dwarfs studied here. \emph{Lower panel.} Same as above, just zoomed in in a smaller region around Centaurus A, where the galaxies studied here are located (as labeled in the plot).}}
\label{sky}
\end{figure}
In order to illustrate where the target galaxies are located within the Centaurus A group, we plot the position in the sky of the galaxies in this group in Fig. \ref{sky}, using the data from \cite{kara07}. The upper panel shows the distribution of dwarfs with positive tidal index (i.e., belonging to the group) around the two giant galaxies Centaurus A and M83, which form two distinct subgroups. In the lower panel of the Figure, we zoom in around Centaurus A, since all of the galaxies studied here belong to the Centaurus A subgroup. This is obviously quite a dense region: it contains approximately the same number of galaxies within a fixed radius as our Local Group, with the difference that the census for Centaurus A is likely to be incomplete (e.g., \citealt{jerjen00b}, \citealt{rejkuba06}).
The six early--type dwarfs of our sample have a quite wide range of luminosities (see Table \ref{infogen}), and their morphological types vary from dwarf spheroidals (KKs57, KKs55, CenN and KK189), to dwarf ellipticals (KK197 and ESO269-66, the latter being a nucleated galaxy). What they have in common is the absence of any recent star formation (as traced by H$\alpha$, or young populations from CMD), nor is there any significant amount of HI detected that would allow for ongoing or future star formation. For example, \citet{bouchard07} investigated the gas content in three of our target dwarfs (KK189, KK197 and ESO269-66) and found only upper limits for their HI masses ($<1.6$, $<2.9$ and $<1.0\times 10^{5}$M$_{\odot}$, respectively). Moreover, only upper limits can be found for the star formation derived from H$\alpha$ emission: for KK189, KK197 and ESO269-66 the values reported by \citet{bouchard08} are $<0.4\times10^{-5}$M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$.
The metallicities derived here can be compared to the work of \citet{sharina08}. These authors derive the mean metallicities for a large sample of nearby dwarfs, among which there are also our target objects. \citet{sharina08} apply the empirical formula [Fe/H]$=-12.64+12.6(V-I)_{-3.5}-3.3(V-I)^{2}_{-3.5}$ \citep{lee93}, which infers the mean metallicity from the mean color of the RGB at an absolute magnitude of M$_I=-3.5$. Their derived values are all slightly lower ($\sim10-15\%$ in dex) than the values found with our isochrone interpolation method, but still consistent within the errors, if we consider the difference ($\sim0.1$ dex) between the empirical metallicity scale from the above mentioned formula and the one used in the Dartmouth isochrone models. This discrepancy is also possibly due to a different selection of stars for the computation of the mean color of the RGB.
\citet{sharina08} further plot the color spread as a function of luminosity, and suggest that the linear correlation between these two quantities could be due to a more intense star formation in more massive galaxies, probably because of denser gas reservoirs. They however note a very high \emph{color} spread for the galaxy KK197, twice of what could be expected for its luminosity. \citet{sharina08} suggest this to be the consequence of a possible strong mass loss. If we plot our derived \emph{metallicity} spreads as a function of luminosity, KK197 appears indeed to be slightly displaced from the linear relation shown by the other galaxies, and so does also KKS57. Looking at the position of these two galaxies within the group (Fig. \ref{sky}), and also their deprojected distance from Centaurus A (see below), they are located not far from the giant elliptical, but we have no way of adding more information about possible environmental effects because nothing can be said about the orbits that the dwarfs had in the past. However, \citet{bouchard07} point out that KK197 and ESO269-66 could both be influenced by the closeby radio lobes of Centaurus A, through which they may pass during their orbits and which may have contributed to the removal of the neutral gas content. In fact, ESO269-66 appears to have a particularly low HI gas mass to visual luminosity ratio, suggesting that some external agent could have contributed to the loss of its gas content. Although KKS55 is (in deprojection) located very close to Centaurus A as well, it does seem to contain a slightly bigger fraction of intermediate--age stars, as compared to KKS57, KK197 and ESO269-66. This could possibly imply that this galaxy may now be on its first close approach to Centaurus A.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{feh_vs_lum.eps}}
{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{feh_vs_dist.eps}}
\caption{\footnotesize{Median metallicity plotted as a function of (\emph{upper panel}) absolute V luminosity and (\emph{lower panel}) deprojected distance from the dominant group galaxy. The black symbols are representing the Centaurus A group dwarfs studied here (filled circles are dwarf ellipticals, the others dwarf spheroidals), while red symbols are for Milky Way companions.}}
\label{fehvs}
\end{figure}
It is difficult, given the restricted amount of information we can derive from the data considered here, to make a detailed comparison to the dwarf galaxies of our own Local Group. However, there are some points that are suggesting that the smallest objects in these two groups may have had a similar history. Just as the complex and different star formation histories seen in our neighbourghood, we see that the metallicity and stellar population properties in our target dwarfs differ from each other (e.g., median metallicity, metallicity spread, fraction of intermediate--age stars). However, it looks like in our sample there are no purely old dwarfs such as Ursa Minor or Draco in the Local Group.
Coming to our results, all of the studied dwarfs are relatively metal--poor, as is expected for galaxies of such low luminosities. For comparison, dwarf spheroidals in the Local Group that lie in the same range of luminosities have mean values of [Fe/H]$=-1.7$ to $-1.2$ (see, e.g., \citealt{mateo98}; \citealt{grebel03}; \citealt{koch09}), thus being on average slightly more metal--poor than our sample (see Fig. \ref{fehvs}). This small difference could be due to the measurement techniques, from one side detailed spectroscopy and from the other side photometry. Moreover, as mentioned in Sect. \ref{mdf_sec}, the metallicities derived here could possibly be upper limits due to our assumptions about age and $\alpha$-enhancement, so we conclude that on average there are no significant differences between the dwarfs of the two groups. Dwarf galaxies with even lower luminosities have recently been found in the Local Group, which have even lower metallicities, but such objects are intrinsically too faint to be observed in the existing surveys at the Centaurus A group distance. This naturally leads us to the metallicity--luminosity relation, already analysed in detail for the Local Group and other environments by many authors (e.g. \citealt{mateo98}; \citealt{grebel03}; \citealt{thomas03}; \citealt{lee07}; \citealt{sharina08}). The six galaxies analysed here were already included in the metallicity--luminosity relation of \citet{sharina08}, their Fig. 9. They show that this relation is very similar for the dwarfs in the Local Group and those in other groups and in the field within $\sim10$ Mpc distance. They also comment on a few early--type dwarfs that show metallicities lower than all of the others, pointing out that they resemble dwarf irregulars in their metallicity content and could thus be in a transition phase. Among the galaxies with metallicity values lower than expected, there are the three galaxies in common with our study (KKs55, CenN and KK189). In the upper panel of Fig. \ref{fehvs}, we plot again the metallicity--luminosity relation with the small sample of values derived in our study (black circles) and adding the values for dwarf spheroidals companion to the Milky Way (taken from the literature compilation by \citealt{kalirai09}). There does not seem to be any major displacement of our target dwarfs from a linear relation that represents Local Group dwarfs. This relation will however be considered again with the addition of data for late--type dwarfs of the Centaurus A group in two forthcoming papers (Crnojevi\'{c}, Grebel \& Cole, in prep.).
The other panel in Fig. \ref{fehvs} represents the dependence of metallicity on the deprojected distance from Centaurus A (black circles), and the same is reported also for Milky Way dwarf spheroidals (red circles). We compute the distances from the host galaxy by considering the radial distances listed in \citet{kara07} and the angular ones derived by \citet{kara02}. In this relation, our dwarf spheroidals seem to resamble what is seen for Milky Way companions: neither the Centaurus A nor the Milky Way companions show any obvious trend with galactocentric distance from their massive primary (other than increased scatter in close proximity to a massive galaxy). The two dwarf ellipticals KK197 and ESO269-66 are slightly more metal--rich, similarly to the dwarf elliptical companions of M31 (there are no such objects in the vicinity of the Milky Way). Finally, we also look for a possible correlation of the metallicity with the tidal index (i.e., a measure of the degree of isolation of a galaxy, with higher values corresponding to denser environments, \citealt{kara04}), but find no evidence for any trend.
The last aspect investigated in our study is the possible presence of subpopulations with different metallicity content. For the Local Group, photometric, detailed spectroscopic, and in some cases also kinematic studies revealed dwarfs with distinct subpopulations, but also dwarfs that do not present any such trend, and only weak metallicity gradients. It it thus not surprising to find such a diversity also in the Centaurus A group. Recent simulations by \citet{marcolini08} provide a convincing model for the formation of population gradients and can even account for the formation of subpopulations distinct in metallicity and kinematics. According to this model, population gradients are the natural consequence of ``the chemical homogeinization of the interstellar matter, together with the combined inhomogeneous pollution by supernovae type Ia'', provided that star formation lasts for several Gyr. In our sample we have two cases (KK197 and ESO269-66) where the metallicities are quite high, and where moderate metallicity gradients are found. Defining a metal--poor and a metal--rich subsample of stars, we do find evidence for at least two subpopulations which have different radial distributions, even though our separation between the subsamples is arbitrary. This could be the effect of a low, extended star formation at the early stages of these galaxies' life, which would enrich the subsequent stellar populations. Since these are the two most luminous galaxies, the retention of some neutral gas due to deeper potential wells could in principle help keeping the star formation active for some Gyr. The possible existence of small age gradients in old populations with ages $>10$ Gyr cannot be resolved in our data, since the effect of age on the isochrones is too small and we have no other way to disentangle age and metallicity on the upper RGB, but it is almost certainly present and could explain the observed metallicity spreads and gradients.
\section{Conclusions} \label{conclus}
We have analyzed stellar point source photometry for six early--type dwarf galaxies in the Centaurus A group (at an average distance of $\sim3.8$ Mpc), using archival HST/ACS data. Their color--magnitude diagrams show broad red giant branches without any evidence of young ($<1$ Gyr) populations, so we assume a predominantly old age for their stellar content. We note, however, that our target galaxies also exhibit a small number of luminous asymptotic giant branch stars above the tip of their red giant branches, indicative of some contamination with intermediate--age stars (in the range $\sim4-8$ Gyr). In order to derive photometric metallicities for the luminous red giants in our sample, we choose Dartmouth isochrones \citep{dotter08}, since they have been shown to provide an excellent fit to the full extent of color--magnitude diagrams of both old and intermediate--age star clusters. Fixing the age of the isochrones at 10 Gyr and assuming a solar scaled $\alpha$-element abundance, we let the metallicity vary and interpolate between the isochrones to get individual metallicity values for stars on the red giant branch. The results show in all the cases: 1. An on average \emph{metal--poor stellar content} ($<$[Fe/H]$> =-1.56$ to $-1.08$), and 2. a \emph{spread of metallicities} (internal dispersion of $0.10$--$0.42$ dex). We further estimate the amount of bias in our results due to the presence of intermediate--age stars (which account for $\sim10$ to $\sim20\%$ of the entire populations), and find that for two of the target galaxies the metallicity spreads are likely to be the result of this contamination. For the other objects, we show that the presence of extended early star formation episodes (which are indeed very likely) and of a range of $\alpha$-element abundances would eventually broaden the derived metallicity spreads, and make the median metallicities lower by $\sim15\%$.
We investigate the possible presence of metallicity gradients as a function of elliptical galactic radius. We find a moderate overall gradient for one dwarf elliptical ($-0.17$ dex per arcmin, or $-0.15$ dex per kpc), and hints for a gradient in the inner regions of two dwarf spheroidals. We further investigate possible differences in the stellar spatial distributions, splitting the stellar content of each galaxy into metal--poor and metal--rich stars. For the two dwarf ellipticals, which are also the most luminous galaxies of our sample, we can reject the null hypotesis that the two subpopulations come from the same parent distribution with a high statistical confidence level, with the more metal--rich stars begin more centrally concentrated.
A detailed comparison to well-studied dwarfs in the Local Group is not possible due to the intrinsic uncertainties of our methods. However, the results derived in this study (metal--poor stellar contents, broad metallicity spreads, metallicity gradients) are overall very similar to what is found for the early--type dwarfs in our Local Group, despite the fact that the Centaurus A group is a denser environment, possibly in a more evolved dynamical stage. Having a look at the global properties of the sample, we find that our preliminary metallicity--luminosity relation is similar to the one that holds in the Local Group. We do not find any clear trend of median galaxy metallicity versus tidal index (i.e. degree of isolation), or versus distance from the central galaxy of the group.
As a next step of this study, in two companion papers we will consider the dwarf irregular galaxies found in the Centaurus A group, and for which HST/ACS data are available. Studying dwarf galaxies in Centaurus A and other groups, and comparing the results to what we already know about the Local Group, will ultimately help us to put further constraints on the connection between star formation, chemical enrichment and environmental effects on the evolution of dwarf galaxies.
\begin{acknowledgements}
DC is very thankful to S. Pasetto, K. Glatt, K. Jordi, S. Jin and T. Lisker for enlightening discussions and useful suggestions. DC acknowledges financial support from the MPIA of Heidelberg, as part of the IMPRS program. AK acknowledges support by an STFC Postdoctoral Fellowship and by the Heidelberg Graduate School for Fundamental Physics of the University of Heidelberg (grant number GSC 129/1). This work is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\chapter{Preface}
This work was inspired by author experiences with a telescope scheduling.
Author long time goal is to develop and further extend software for an
autonomous observatory. The software shall provide users with all the
facilities they need to take scientific images of the night sky, cooperate with
other autonomous observatories, and possibly more. It shall provide support for
as many devices coming from as many different vendors as possible, yet remains
"plug and play" to setup and operate.
From thirty thousands feet view, telescope time scheduling looks simple. Take
some entries, select the best one, and observe it as long as possible. If it is
no more worth to observe this particular position, choose another. Do so every
night from dusk to dawn, see results of the night runs, analyse acquired images
and try to advance mankind knowledge of the astronomy, astrophysics or physics
from the acquired images.
However, as we zoom closer to provide more details about scheduling, nice flat
landscape become covered with various obstacles. Start with the definition what
is the best target -- is it the one which is currently rising or the one which
is setting and so telescope will not have possibility to observe it again for
some time. And what about future plans? Is it better to observe star A, and in
a few weeks time star B, or shall the observatory pick star A and B at the same
night?
No wonder that scheduling is one of the major issues of current world class
observatories, both ground and space. Usual approach is to have some time
allocation committee, which pick which observations proposals are worthy to
observe, and then meets every day, week, month or year to discuss which objects
will be observed during the next period. Rules are created for sharing risks
between an observatory and the observation proposal authors -- for example it
has to be defined what shall happen if bad weather prevents observations on a
ground observatory, or if data are lost during transmission from a satellite to
the ground. And humans, which are member of time allocation committee, make
sure that all observation constraints are obeyed and that users are happy with
acquired data and do a lot of interesting and useful science based on the data
acquired.
Autonomous observatories are by definition autonomous. They do not have any
time allocation committee composed of smart people. They are destined to create
observation strategy from inputs which human operators provided to them and/or
from results of the previous observations. This works provides overview of the
various constraints and objective of the observatory, and gives some solution
to the scheduling problem.
The obvious question which can be asked is why we need the schedule at all?
Would not it be better to simply pick the best observation, and then the next
one, as mentioned above? Is not this a principle of the queue scheduling, which
is used on most of the human operated observatories today? There are various
hints which gives us answer that this is not a desired operation for the
autonomous operations.
The first one comes from possible network scheduling. Network nodes can of
course by scheduled locally. But that will not exploit network advantages.
Network can observe one star simultaneously over period longer then usual dark
period at a single site. For this kind of observations some collaboration among
schedulers is needed. One of the possibility is to let local scheduler
collaborate and create a plan. Second possibility is to have possibility to
centrally schedule network observations. Our experience shows that while first
option is feasible, second is more easily controlled and monitored by a human
operator.
The second case come from operation of a single instrument. Our experience
shows that it is handy to have a schedule before start of the night to check
what observatory will do during night. The system poses option to create an
observing plan and then to execute it, but plan has to be created somehow. And
as the scheduling process is annoying and can only distract person doing it
from other work, plan creation has to be automated. With human experts possibly
reviewing it and taking actions if they found something strange on the
schedule.
\mainmatter
\chapter{Introduction}
RTS2\cite{2006SPIE.6274E..59K} is an open-source software package for robotic
observatory. Apart from a central server, device drivers and various other
functions, it provides service for target selection - a selector.
Current selector uses a simple single merit function selection to select next
observation from the list of the possible observations. The merit function,
which measure how good is a target for observation, is hard-coded in selector
code and cannot be easily modified. Moreover, current selector does not allow
generation of an observing plan for a full night. Current design allows only
selection of the next target. After the current target observation is finished,
the target with the highest current merit function value is selected by
the selector. Creating night schedule for telescope belongs to NP class of
problems. Some heuristic might apply, but the problem will remain hard to
solve.
This work describes design and implementation of a selector based on genetic
algorithm. This selector allows generation of the full night plan. It must also
keep an overview of which important targets remain to be observed, and allow to
schedule them appropriately. The algorithm must be extensible for scheduling of
the robotics telescope network. And it must be written so it can be easily
integrated with the current \mbox{RTS2} code.
\section{Basic definitions}
{\bf Target} is an object on the sky telescope users would like to observe. It
can have fixed coordinates (stars,..) or its coordinates can change with time
(planets, solar system minor bodies,..). For given time and location, target
altitude, zenith distance and azimuth can be easily calculated.
{\bf Observation} is one visit to the target. During observation, target can be
observed in different colours, using filters placed in optical path by some
rotating mechanism. If an observation does not satisfy user needs (e.g. does
point to clouds, instrument problems occured during observing run,..) it shall
be rescheduled. Observation usually consists of images acquired with different
filters. For some targets the length of the observation can be modified, for
others it must remain fixed.
\section{Constrains}
The following constrain might apply to a target:
\begin{itemize}
\item target must be {\bf visible}, e.g. above local horizon
\item various constraints based on {\bf lunar distance} of the target, solar
distance, moon phase (some targets cannot be observed with a full moon, etc..).
\item {\bf budget constraints} -- time allocated to target/user can be limited,
and target cannot exceed it
\item {\bf time} -- some targets required observation in a given time, some can
be observed anytime they are visible, some targets should be observed only once
per night, week, .., as other observations will not lead to increase in the
scientific return obtained from the acquired images
\item when scheduling a network of autonomous observatories, some observations
can be carried either simultaneously with two or more telescopes, or
observation with one telescope must follow observation with another telescope
\end{itemize}
Constraints are formalised in the third chapter.
\section{Selection of the best schedule}
Astronomers would measure an observatory success by a number of the articles
which reference the observatory (possibly weighted by the journal citation
index). Because scheduling does not pose black magic it is unable to predict
which targets observations will contribute to the most interesting discoveries
and scientific papers. So some evaluation function has to be defined which
compares targets. The goal would be to found a sequence with the highest sum of
observation fitness values, while keeping the constrains outlined above.
Evaluation can be based on:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf height} of the target during observation (higher is usually better)
\item {\bf distance} of the target from the Moon or any other sky body
\item {\bf quality} of the proposal (some accepted targets may only fill the
gap, other can be ranked as top priority by evaluation committee)
\end{itemize}
Formalisation of the various fitness measurements is described in the third
chapter.
\section{Genetic algorithms for robotic telescope scheduling}
Aim of this work is to design, develop and tests various genetic algorithm for
scheduling of the robotic observatories. Problem is similar to job shop
scheduling, and thus belongs to NP-hard problems. Schedule for one telescope
and scheduling of telescope network will be investigated.
Problem input consists of targets and their characteristic. Target is
location on the sky which can be visited by telescope to acquire data.
Each target have constrain which specify when it can be observed.
Output is list of targets and their observations times on the telescope
or on the telescope network.
\chapter{Autonomous robotic observatory}
Autonomous robotic observatory is a complex environment of computers, networks
and instruments. Aim of an autonomous robotic observatory is to carry
observations of night sky and record the observations using CCD cameras or
other instruments.
Most of the modern astronomical observatories are controlled by computer. But
degree at which computer is in charge of the observatory varies significantly.
One extreme is a computer controlling only the telescope, and offering observer
quick way how to enter target coordinates. Observer is then responsible for
scheduling, acting as coordinator synchronising various instruments, recording
data and processing them.
Other extreme end of observatory a complete autonomous observatory. Software
is then responsible for observatory operations, opening and closing of the
roof, assuring that observatory is protected from elements, and reducing data.
Only a few world observatories are operated in a fully autonomous mode, without
night operator overseeing night operations. Full list of observatories which
claims to be robotic is provided at \cite{Hessman}. It should be noted, that
\mbox{RTS2} operates at least 6 telescopes with others coming hopefully in near
future. And at least 2 of those were run in fully autonomous mode over periods
of years - FRAM and Watcher.
Major current projects which operates and further extend fully autonomous
observatories \footnote{of which author of this work is informed} are "{\it
Thinking Telescope/RAPTOR}" developed at LANL\cite{ttlanl}, AudeLA developed at
Observatory de Haute Provance\cite{audela} and Las Cumbres Observatory Global
Telescope Network\cite{lcogt} -- eStar project\cite{estar}, which operates
Faulkes Telescopes. It should be noted, that from those only eStar is actively
investigating telescope scheduling\cite{fraser}, and AudeLA is the only other
project which provides observatory control system under open source license.
Majority of the world observatories operates in semi automatic mode. Scheduling
is usually done by human in the loop, supported by tools to help him/her decide
the best strategy. Following paragraphs provide review of the current practice
at leading Spanish and European observatories.
\section{CAHA}
Calar Alto Hispano Aleman (CAHA) observatory currently operates two major
instruments - 3.5m and 2.2m telescope. Both are remotely controlled by night
operators. For troubleshooting, operators are equipped with a torch, two way
radio and a car to drive to the instrument. Some scripting is provided for some
observations, but it is a night assistant who is responsible for operating the
instrument.
Scheduling on 2.2m is done on paper basis, with observer having printed
observing proposal for a night and selecting two or three observations he will
be performing during night. He is then responsibly to enter targets to the
schedule and oversee that observations are performed as expected.
Scheduling of 3.5m is even more complicated. Night staff have printed observing
proposals, pick up the one that will be observed and according to proposal text
handle instrument setup and observation synchronisation.
\section{OSN}
Observatory de Sierra Nevada has three major instruments -- 1.5m, 0.9m and 0.6m
telescope. The 0.6m is controlled by RTS2, so it is designed to be fully
autonomous. The other telescopes are controlled by night observer, who either
carry all observations himself, picking targets from a prepared list, or enter
current target to observatory control system and check that the observations
are performed as expected.
\section{ESO VLT}
European South Observatory Very Large Telescopes are operated in queue
scheduling\cite{vlt}. Night observers have screen with preselected list of
possible observations. Depending on observing conditions, their experience and
mood they select and oversee progress of the observation they choose to
perform.
\section{GTC}
Grand Telescopio de Canarias is now in commissioning phase. So far queue
scheduling is envisioned once telescope will be open for scientific
observations. Software for telescope operation posses similarities with ESO
BOSS\cite{vlt}, mentioned above.
\chapter{Formalisation of the observation scheduling problem}
The problem deals with distributing time on a single instrument. Night is time
when observatory is operational and can take observations. Schedule is sequence
of targets which will be observed during night. Each target have position where
it will be observed, observation script which defines how the observations will
be observed - for example which filters and exposures combinations will be used
during observation. For each target, various properties are set, and other
properties can be calculated.
In the following paragraphs are defined terms that will be used when dealing
with scheduling problem.
\section{Night}
Night start at some time after sunset and ends at some time before sunrise.
More complicated scheduling scenarios might include use of twilight period,
when observation is possible on certain parts of the sky. To keep problem
simply it is assumed that night runs from time $N_s$ till time $N_e$. Night
has then duration $N_d = N_e - N_s$.
Observatory operation can be disturbed by various factors. Those can be divided
into predictable and unpredictable interruptions. Predictable interruptions are
usually caused by maintenance work, which must be performed at given time at
the observatory. Unpredictable is weather, which causes major observatory
downtime, and technical issues with the observatory, which causes some
downtime. Depending on various factors (location, season, ..) weather usually
account for downtime between few percents up to 100\%. But observatories are
usually not build on sites where back weather account for more then 70\% of
available night time. Technical downtime is on tuned--up systems less then 1\%.
Unless explicitly specified, a case of an ideal observatory without any
downtime is considered.
\section{Observing sequence}
Observing sequence describes how the observation of a target is carried. It is
a sequence of camera exposures, telescope operations and various modifications
performed on instruments on light path. For some targets, observing sequence
can be looped. For others, only single observation must be carried.
\section{Target}
Target is a position on sky which can be observed. Target has sky location,
usually expressed in equatorial coordinate system as right ascension and
declination. Each target has assigned observing sequence.
Observing sequence can change depending on various parameters. But that change
will make problem even more complex. Unless explicitly stated, only case of a
single observing sequence for a target is considered.
Targets are included in set $TS$. Size of target set is equal to $|TS|$.
\section{Observation}
Observation is a single visit of the telescope of a single target location.
Data are acquired during observation. Observing sequence describes how the data
shall be acquired.
\section{Duration of target observation}
Each target have three major duration values. When combined together they
describe how much night time will be used by a single target observation. Slew
time, $T_s$, describes how much time will be spend by slewing telescope on
target. Shutter open time, $T_o$, gives total time of the exposures taken for a
single observing sequence of target. Total observation time, $T_t$, gives time
spend in a single observing sequence. If telescopes moves during observing
sequence, $T_t$ contributes to total observing time and not to slew time -- slew
time is only the time needed to perform first slew to target.
Observing sequence can be repeated $l$ times, where $l \geq 1$. Dark time $T_d$,
time when shutter is closed, is equal to
\[
T_d = T_s + l * (T_t - T_o)
\]
Target slew time depends on previous telescope position. For some targets,
observing sequence can be looped and so total observing time can change in
multiplies of observing sequence duration. For others targets, only single
observing run must be performed, and so total observing time cannot change.
Total observation time $TT$ is then calculated as
\[
TT = T_s + l * T_t
\]
\section{Observation fitness}
Observation fitness describes how good is it to observe a target at a given
time. It is important to realize that the position of the target on the sky and
its distance to various disturbing bodies depends on time. Hence observation
fitness depends on time. So the observation fitness can be described as
function:
\[
f: time \Rightarrow fittness
\]
where time is time variable and fitness is some arbitrary set which describes
target fitness.
To make further explanation more understandable, we divide the fitness function
into two parts. The first depends only on time, second depends on a target
position. Following two paragraphs describes various fitness functions. The
first paragraph describes those which depends primarily on time, the second
those which depends on target position.
For algorithms to transform object coordinates to object position at a given
time, and to calculate object position with respect to other bodies, please
refer to \cite{aalgo}. Please see libnova (\cite{libnova}) for their
implementation.
\section{Observation time fitness}
To formalise observation time fitness binary logic is used. It is either
interesting or uninteresting to observe target at a given time. So the fitness
function is one returning either 0 or 1:
\[
f_t (t) = 0 \vee 1
\]
The $f_t$ function can depend on various factors. Even through the author of
this text gain some experience in the area, full list of those factors is
beyond his current knowledge. The ones he can mention are: {\bf time from
last observations of the object}, {\bf brightness of the object which show
periodic brightness variations} and {\bf special observing circumstances}.
Time dependent brightness variability of the objects observed by the
astronomers can be separated into three classes: regular time variability in
brightness, irregular time variability and brightness variability bellow
detection limit of the instrument. The objects can also show regular time
variability with superimposed irregular time variability.
Objects without any significant brightness variability have time fitness
constant through whole night. Objects which shows regular time variability are
usually worth observing at a certain time in the variability period. Hence
those objects should have time fitness higher when it is worth observing them.
Objects showing irregular time variability can be observed anytime. However, if
instrument or other astronomers detects that the object of interest is showing
some interesting behaviour, usually increase in brightness, they shall be
visited more frequently.
\subsubsection{Time from the last observation of an object}
This case can be used when astronomer would like to monitor the object behaviour
in predefined intervals. If he/she is interested in variability of the object
at time scale of $t_{var}$ seconds, then the observations shall usually be
carried every $\frac{t_{var}}{2}$ seconds. So the $f_t()$ function
will be written in form:
\[
f_t (t) = 1 \iff now - T_s \geq \frac{t_{var}}{2}
\]
where $now$ is current time and $T_s$ is time of start of the last observation
of the target.
\subsubsection{Phase of the object which show periodic brightness variations}
Suppose that an object has periodicity $P_l$ seconds. Suppose that one know
period started at time $P_s$. Astronomer is interested in data taken in phase
between $H_s$ and $H_e$. Then time fitness function will then become:
\[
f_t (t) = 1 \iff \exists h \in Z : now - P_s - h * P_l \in < H_s, H_e >
\]
\subsubsection{Special observing circumstances}
Special observing circumstances are some know circumstances which will occurs
and which will make target observation interesting. For example, consider
transit of some solar system body in of some bright background stars. The
transiting body can be as big as the Moon and as small as some minor solar
system body. If astronomers have precise timing of transit, they can calculate
object size and others interesting parameters.
Of course not all targets shows this dependency. For them, the special time
fitness function $f_s$ is equal to 1. For those which have special time
dependence, there is set of times when observation should start. The duration
of observation is governed by observing sequence. To formalise this, we have a
set $TC$ of pairs ${T_s, T_e}$. Then fitness function $f_s$ is defined as:
\[
f_s (t) = 1 \iff \exists s \in TC : t \in s
\]
\section{Observation position fitness}
Following paragraphs describes some of the time fitness functions, which
depends on target position. As was mentioned in introduction to this chapter,
position of the target can be calculated from time and target properties.
First some introduction to how target position can depend on a time is given.
Then various factors which affect target fitness depending on its position are
described.
Objects observed by astronomers are located on the stellar sphere. As earth
rotates, those objects show apparent movement on the sky. Furthermore position
of objects which are close enough to the Earth and moves significantly in
respect to the Earth changes with regard to the stellar sphere. For example
objects in the solar system -- planets, dwarf planets and other solar system
bodies -- moves on the sky with comparison to more distant background stars.
Satellites on the Earth orbit moves even more quickly then the solar system
bodies.
\subsubsection{Relation between object position and Moon position}
Moon significantly increases sky brightness. Increased sky brightness can make
some observations useless, and other more difficult to process. The targets can
have following constraints:
\begin{itemize}
\item target cannot be observed if Moon height is above certain limit
\item target cannot be observed if Moon phase is in certain interval and Moon
height is above certain limit
\item those which can be observed only if their distance to the Moon is above
certain limit and Moon phase is above certain limit
\end{itemize}
As Moon sky position changes roughly by $13^\circ$ in 24 hours, object distance
to the Moon does not changes significantly during night. Moon phase, if
measured in range $<9^\circ, 360^\circ>$, changes by same amount. This show
that fitness function based on moon position, $f_m$, will not show great
variance during night if it depends only on distance of the object to the Moon.
So $f_m$ with only two possible values, $0$ or $1$, is used. So for a target
with duration $TT$, $f_m$ is defined as:
\[
f_m(t) =
\begin{cases}
1 & $if all moon constraints are valid in time $ <t, t + TT> \\
0 & $otherwise$
\end{cases}
\]
\subsubsection{Object altitude}
Object altitude changes during the night as it moves on the sky. For an object with
{\it declination} $\delta$ and hour angle $H$, and observing site with latitude
latitude $\phi$, the altitude $h$ of the object is calculated as:
\[
sin(h) = sin(\phi) * sin(\delta) + cos (\phi) * cos (\delta) * cos (H)
\]
The minimal altitude of an object attained during 24 hours $Aday_{min}$ is
for an observer on northern hemisphere calculated as
\[
Aday_{min} = \phi - 90^\circ - \delta
\]
The maximal altitude $Aday_{max}$ is equal to
\[
Aday_{max} = 90^\circ - \phi + \delta
\]
For an observer on southern hemisphere signs in the above formulas before
$\phi$ and $\delta$ has to be swapped.
As objects can be observed only during night, more important are values of
$Anigh_{min}$ and $Anigh_{max}$, the maximal and minimal altitudes of the
object during night. Those are calculated as
\[
Anight_{min} =
\begin{cases}
Aday_{min} & if \ t_{lower transit} \in < N_s , N_e > \\
\min (A_{N_s}, A_{N_e}) & otherwise
\end{cases}
\]
\[
Anight_{max} =
\begin{cases}
Aday_{max} & if \ t_{upper transit} \in < N_s , N_e > \\
\max (A_{N_s}, A_{N_e}) & otherwise
\end{cases}
\]
Those calculations reflect fact that minimal or maximal altitude is reached
either during given interval or on one of its edges.
Each target $T$ has low observing altitude $TA_{min}$. It is useless to observe
the object bellow this altitude. So if $h$ is target altitude, then
position fitness function is equal to 0 if $h \leq TA_{min}$.
If we do not consider changes in weather, which might render target observation
useless, then the best time for target observation is when its altitude is
maximal. To formalise this, height fitness function $f_h$ has range <0,1> and
is calculated as
\[
f_h(h) =
\begin{cases}
0 & if h \leq TA_{min} \\
\frac{h - max (Anight_{min}, TA_{min})}{Anight_{max} - max (Anight_{min}, TA_{min})} & otherwise
\end{cases}
\]
\section{Observation accounting}
Observatory time is usually shared by multiple groups. They contribute to
capital and operational costs of the observatory. Based on their contribution
they are allocated some fraction of the observatory time.
The time sums over given period and the fraction left for the observation is
adjusted accordingly. Suppose that we have two groups sharing time on the
telescope, both having equal share (50\%) of the telescope time. Then if two
nights are scheduled, and one group receives first night for its observations,
the other group shall get remaining full night.
Time allocated to the groups is accounted, and compared with the share values.
If some shared values drop bellow reasonable number, system must give higher
preference to this group in order to successfully fill requested share
fractions.
To formalise this mechanism consider $a$ accounts. Vector $A$ of length $a$
holds fraction of time allocated to each account. It is clear that
\[
\sum_{k=1}^{a}A[k] = 1
\]
Vector $OA$ of length $a$ holds seconds accounted for various groups. Total
time of all observations, $OT$, can then be calculated as
\[
OT = \sum_{k=1}^{a}OA[k]
\]
If $OT > 0$, current percentage for a given account, $OC[k]$, is calculated as
\[
OC[k] = \frac{OA[k]}{OT}
\]
\section{Observation schedule}
Observation schedule is an ordered sets of targets. For each target, starting
time is provided. After target is selected for observation, telescope is slewed
to target position and observing sequence is executed. Shutter open time and
total observing time can be calculated for observing sequence provided with
target.
Schedule is a set of three vectors of length $s$. Vectors are $SS$, $ST$ and
$SL$. Vector $SS$ contains start time of observations. Vector $ST$ contains
targets which are scheduled for observation. And $SL$ contains observation loop
counts. For feasible schedule, following conditions must be fulfilled:
\[
\forall_{k=1}^{s - 1} SS[k+1] \geq SS[k] + T_s[ST[k]] + SL[k] * T_t[ST[k]]
\]
\[
\forall_{k=1}^{s}SL[k] \geq 1
\]
\[
SS[1] \geq N_s
\]
\[
SS[s] \leq N_e
\]
\section{Number of targets observed during night}
Observing schedule should try to visit as much targets during night as
possible. Schedule which contains only observations of two targets visited
through whole night is most probably not better then schedule with three, four
or more targets. That is because due to probability, more visited and observed
targets can bring more opportunities to discover new science and hence write a
good paper - and as mentioned at the beginning, the whole game is at the
ultimate end about publications.
On the other hand, an excess fragmentation of night time is weighted good.
Excess fragmentation will make long--duration observations highly improbable.
Long--duration observations are necessary for planet transits and other
science. The solution may be found in a careful examination of the possible
schedules and picking sometimes ones with fewer targets, but more
long--duration runs, and sometimes go for a large night fragmentation.
It must be also mentioned that big fragmentation naturally allows better time
distribution and hence creating a schedule which will fill accounted time of
various groups. So the system shall aim for a bigger fragmentation in order to
be able to better distribute remaining time.
There should be an objective night fragmentation, expressed in number of
targets visited during night. The better schedule is the one with number of
targets visited closer to this number.
\chapter{Time-dependent objective functions}
This section deals with problem of using various, usually time-dependent target
fitness functions to calculate fitness of the whole schedule.
As two different schedules can hold different number of targets, using sum of
observation fitness included in schedule will be useless. It is also important
to note that observation fitness can be different during duration of the
observation. For example value of observation position fitness calculated from
object altitude will change with a daily and other movement of the object on
the sky.
The first solution to those problems is to use average fitness calculated at
the midpoint of the observation duration, which can be expressed as:
\[
\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{s} f^{ST[k]} (SS[k] + T_s[ST[k]] + \frac{SL[k] * T_o[ST[k]]}{2})}{s}
\]
where $f^{T}(t)$ is value of the fitness function for target $T$ at time $t$,
and there are $s$ targets in the schedule. There are however still some
problems associated with this approach:
\begin{itemize}
\item as there are multiple fitness functions, it does not present single
objective, but rather multiple objectives
\item fitness value at the various times can different significantly from
fitness value at the observation middle time
\item the functions does not differentiate between schedules with higher number
of observations and those with fewer observations
\end{itemize}
To handle differences due to time used for calculating observing fitness,
minimum can be used. So the function then becomes:
\[
\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{s} min_{t \in < SS[k] + T_s[ST[k]], SS[k] + T_s[ST[k]] + SL[k] * T_o[ST[k]] >} (f^{ST[k]} (t))}{s}
\]
This function truly evaluates targets merit functions. Averaging will make sure
that schedules with fewer observations will not be disadvantaged against
schedules with more observations.
Most probably fitness functions shall be evaluated separately. As some
objectives are contradicting it is impossible to construct schedule with only
the best observations at the best times. There will be multiple paths to choose
from, and the whole play is about sufficient balance between different objectives.
\chapter{Multiobjective scheduling optimisation}
Multiobjective scheduling optimisation is discussed in great detail in
\cite{multiobjsch}. Here are discussed various method to select best schedule in
problems with multiple independent objective functions. The possible solutions
are reviewed bellow.
\section{Weighted single objective function}
This is probably the simplest approach. Objective functions are multiplied with
weighting factors and summed together to form a single objective function.
Scheduling algorithm then search for schedule with highest single objective
function.
The major disadvantage of this approach is necessity of finding correct weight
factors.
\section{Single objective function, move others objectives to constraints}
This approach picks the most significant objective as the single objective.
Other objectives are then used as schedule constraints.
Major disadvantage of this approach is in specifying correct constraints for
objective functions which are not used as a single objective. When the
constraint range is too narrow, there is a risk of loosing some good solution
because they will slightly not fit inside the range. If the range is too wide,
there is a risk of finding schedules way from the best one.
\section{Searching Pareto optimal solutions}
Pareto\cite{pareto} optimality is named after Vilfred Pareto. This method
search for all nondominant solutions. It overcomes disadvantages of both
previous approaches by finding subsurface in the solution space with the best
possible tradeoffs between various objective functions. It does not need any
weight factor nor correctly picked constraints.
Genetics algorithms are very good in finding Pareto optimal subsurface. As the
algorithm always operates with multiple solutions, they can represent multiple
points on Pareto optimal subsurface. So the genetic algorithm naturally fits in
Pareto search.
Following section describes one of the genetics algorithm variants, know as
Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II - \mbox{NSGA II}.
\chapter{Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II}
Scheduler uses Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) developed by
Deb et al. A short description provided by Deb et. al. \cite{Deb00} is the
following:
The step-by-step procedure shows that NSGA-II algorithm is simple and
straightforward. First, a combined population $R_t = P_t \cup Q_t$ is formed.
The population $R_t$ is of size $2N$. Then, the population $R_t$ is sorted
according to non-domination. Since all previous and current population members
are included in $R_t$, elitism is ensured. Now, solutions belonging to the
best non-dominated set $F_1$ are of best solutions in the combined population
and must be emphasised more than any other solution in the combined
population. If the size of $F_1$ is smaller then $N$, we definitely choose all
members of the set $F_1$ for the new population $P_{t+1}$. The remaining
members of the population $P_{t+1}$ are chosen from subsequent non-dominated
fronts in the order of their ranking. Thus, solutions from the set $F_2$ are
chosen next, followed by solutions from the set $F_3$, and so on. This
procedure is continued until no more sets can be accommodated. Say that the
set $F_i$ is the last non-dominated set beyond which no other
set can be accommodated. In general, the count of solutions in all sets from
$F_1$ to $F_i$ would be larger than the population size. To choose exactly $N$
population members, we sort the solutions of the {\it last} front $F_i$ using
the crowded-comparison operator $\prec_n$ in descending order and choose the
best solutions needed to fill all population slots. The NSGA-II procedure is
also shown in Fig. \ref{pseudo}. The new population $P_{t+1}$ of size $N$ is
now used for selection, crossover, and mutation to create a new population
$Q_{t+1}$ of size $N$. It is important to note that we use a binary tournament
selection operator but the selection criterion is now based on the
crowded-comparison operator $\prec_n$. Since this operator requires both the
rank and crowded distance of each solution in the population, we calculate
these quantities while forming the population $P_{t+1}$, as shown in the above
algorithm.
The components of the \mbox{NSGA-II} scheduling structure are described as
follows:
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig_NSGA-II.pdf}
\caption{The \mbox{NSGA-II} algorithm \cite{Deb00}.}
\label{pseudo}
\end{figure}
\section{Chromosome Representation}
\mbox{RTS2 NSGA-II} scheduling encodes only feasible schedules in each
chromosome. Chromosomes are implemented as an array of observing entries. The
gene in chromosome is a record containing starting date, duration and pointer
to ticket\footnote{which contains observation details - target, account etc.}.
The initial population consists of a set of random schedules, generated using
random number generator. The set of all nondominant chromosomes of the final
population represents an optimal schedules.
\section{Genetic Operators}
\mbox{RTS2 NSGA-II} scheduling applies crossover and mutation operators with a
given probability over the chromosomes composing the GP population. The
crossover operator consists of the following steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item pick a random time $T_{cross}$between night start and night end.
\item construct beginning of the resulting schedule by using observations from first schedule till $T_{cross}$
\item add schedules to the resulting schedule from second schedule, starting from $T_{cross}$.
\item repair resulting schedule, so it is feasible - adjust schedule starting
time, and schedules duration. If schedule duration cannot be adjusted, remove
shortest schedule.
\end{itemize}
The mutation operators used in \mbox{RTS2 NSGA-II} scheduling implementation are those:
\begin{itemize}
\item Delete a random selected observation
\item Change ticket entry of a random selected observation
\item Adjust duration by a random time of a randomly selected observation
\end{itemize}
After the mutation is performed, resulting schedule is repaired by same
algorithm used for repairs after crossover.
\section{Selection}
\mbox{RTS2 NSGA-II} scheduling employs a crowded binary tournament constraint
-- dominated selection operator \cite{Deb00}. Assuming that every individual in
the population has three attributes: number of violated constraints
($i_{violation}$, nondomination rank ($i_{rank}$) and crowding distance
($i_{distance}$), the crowded constraint -- dominated operator $\prec_{cc}$ is defined as
\[
i \prec_{cc} j \iff
\begin{cases}
(j_{violation} > 0 $ and $ i_{violation} < j_{violation}) \\
$or $ (i_{rank} < j_{rank}) \\
$or $ (i_{rank} = j_{rank} $ and $ i_{distance} > j_{distance})
\end{cases}
\]
See \cite{emocc} and \cite{Deb00} for a complete description.
\section{Constraints}
Selection of crowded constraint -- dominated selection operator allows easy
addition of new constraints. Constraint functions returns integer values, which
tell how many constraints are violated. The objective of algorithm is to
minimise this value, so there will be as few constraints as possible. The following
constraints can be used:
\begin{itemize}
\item{\bf Visibility.} Observation violates visibility constraint, if it is not
visible during its scheduled time.
\item{\bf Schedule time.} Observing ticket might provide time during which
observation should be carried. If observation is not carried in the specified
time interval, it breaks schedule time constraint.
\item{\bf Unobserved tickets.} If time period during a ticket should be
observed intersect with interval being scheduled and it is not selected for
observation, it violates this constraint.
\item{\bf Number of observations per ticket.} Some tickets might provide number
of observation required to be performed of the target. Schedule violates this
consists if more observations of the ticket are schedule.
\end{itemize}
\section{Fitness functions}
One of the principal advantages of NSGA-II multi-objective algorithm is ability
to easy add new fitness functions. Following fitness functions are used: {\it
altitude, observation distance, account, target diversity, observation
diversity}. The diversity functions conflicts with observation distance - if
schedule has better diversity, it has worse observation distance and vice
versa. The implementation works to maximalize fitness functions and minimalize
constraints violations. In the fitness functions description is provided note
if target is to maximalize or minimalize its value. If not specified otherwise,
it is assumed that if objective is to minimalize fitness value, inverted
value is used in algorithm for maximalization.
\begin{itemize}
\item{\bf Altitude merit.} Altitude merit is calculated as ratio of mid
altitude to maximal possible altitude which target can have during night. For a
given observing ticket it is calculated as:
\[
f_h(h) =
\begin{cases}
0 & if h \leq TA_{min} \\
\frac{h - max (Anight_{min}, TA_{min})}{Anight_{max} - max (Anight_{min}, TA_{min})} & otherwise
\end{cases}
\]
For final schedule merit is used average of those ticket functions. Objective
is to maximalize this value.
\item{\bf Observation distance merit.} This merit is calculated as sum of
distance of the telescope travelled. Its purpose is to minimalize time
telescope will spend moving from one location to the other. For a single
observation it is calculated as:
\[
f_d() = angularDistance (Position^{previous}_{end}, Position^{current}_{start})
\]
Sum of the individual values is used. Objective is to minimalize this value.
\item{\bf Account merit.} Account merit is calculated as ratio of observed
schedule account use versus requested account use:
\[
AD = \sum_{k=1}^{a} \frac{|OC[k] - OA[k]|}{OA[k]}
\]
where $AD$ is sum of proportional differences of requested and observed
accounting.
Objective of the scheduling algorithm is to find schedule with minimal deviation
from requested time share. Time share is accounted usually by longer
intervals, months, semesters or year. So the scheduling algorithm shall give
lower priority on fairness of the selection at the beginning of the accounting
period then at the end of the accounting period.
\item{\bf Target diversity merit.} Target diversity merit is calculated as
number of targets observed in the schedule. Objective is to maximalize this
function.
\item{\bf Observation diversity merit.} Observation diversity merit simply
counts observing entries in the schedule. Objective is to maximalize this
function.
\end{itemize}
\chapter{Implementation}
Because RTS2\cite{rts2} is mostly coded in \cite{GNUC++}, choice of the
language in which scheduler shall be written was pretty obvious.
Coding was done in the \href{http://www.vim.org}{Vim}\cite{vim} editor.
debugging was done using {\href{http://www.valgrind.org}{Valgrind}} and
\href{http://sourceware.org/gdb}{GDB: The GNU Project Debugger}.
Code was documented using \href{http://www.doxygen.org}{Doxygen}. The design
relies as much as possible on standard template library provided by
\href{http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++}{GNU libstc++}.
\href{http://libnova.sourceforge.net}{LibNova} was used for various
astronomical calculations.
The implementation benefits from object oriented approach. It provides classes
which holds list of schedules = {\it GA population} = {\bf Rts2SchedBag},
schedules = {\it chromosomes} = {\bf Rts2Schedule} and observation entries =
{\it genes} = Rts2SchedObs. Observation targets are subclasses of {\bf Target}
class, created by a standard {\bf createTarget} call. Rts2SchedBag provides
methods for GA algorithms. Rts2Schedule provides methods for chromosome
evaluation.
Interface for testing was written as subclass of the standard
{\bf Rts2AppDb} class. The interface provides few options, and prints out
results in simple space separated format. The output can be feed directly to
\href{http://www.gnuplot.org}{GNUPlot} plotting program. It is expected that
scheduling classes will be integrated to RTS2 as a standard library.
During development
\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_and_incremental_development}{iterative
life cycle} was used. Small parts of the system were developed, tested and
results checked. The following sections document progress of development.
Development was initially committed to
\href{http://rts-2.svn.sourceforge.net/viewsvn/rts-2/branches/REL_0_8_0}{REL\_0\_8\_0}
branch. After firsts successful tests of GA code, branch was merged to trunk.
\section{Simple test}
First test was done on a simple genetics algorithm for selecting visible
schedules. Target set consists of flat field targets used to obtain calibration
observations. Plot of targets altitude as function of time observed from a site
at 36\ensuremath{^\circ} north latitude are show in figure \ref{fig:ga_simple_alts}. As
targets are distributed along the celestial equator, it is possible to observe
each target for 12 hours.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{ga_simple_alts.pdf}
\caption{Altitude of targets used for first tests as function of time.
\label{fig:ga_simple_alts}}
\end{figure}
Schedule consists of observations with predefined total time. Valid schedule
for this problem is any sequence of targets which fills requested time.
The algorithm work in the following steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item Initial random population is created
\item Elite population is chosen. Only the most fit schedules are drawn for
mating.
\item Mating is performed using roulette wheel selection. Crossing operator is
simple two fold crossing -- random number $r$ smaller then number of
observations in a schedule is drawn. Two child are created -- one with first
$r$ observations from the first parent and rest from second parent, the other
with opposite parents chromosomes used.
\item Mutation is performed. Random observation entry is picked and replaced by
another random observation entry.
\item Population number is increased
\item If population number is bellow predefined population maxima, go to step
2.
\end{itemize}
Only schedule visibility ratio was used as fitness criteria. The results
confirmed correctness of genetic algorithm implementation. Results for 30 test
runs are presented in figures \ref{fig:ga_simple} and \ref{fig:ga_simple_max}. It can be clearly seen that:
\begin{itemize}
\item it works - the visibility fitness converge towards 1
\item the population converges pretty fast
\item as targets are distributed along celestial equator, the average visibility fitness of a random observation schedule is 0.5.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{ga_simple.pdf}
\caption{Convergence of the population average visibility ratio.
\label{fig:ga_simple}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{ga_simple_max.pdf}
\caption{Convergence of the maximal visibility ratio.
\label{fig:ga_simple_max}}
\end{figure}
These tests confirms quick convergence of genetic algorithm. Quite nice results
was a quick convergence of entire population to global maxima. Those results
provided firm ground for further improvements.
\chapter{Results}
The algorithm clearly identify Pareto optimal fronts. Figures
\ref{fig:1000_100}, \ref{fig:500_100} and \ref {fig:100_100} shows altitude,
observation distance and target diversity merits for different populations
sizes.
\begin{figure}[hp]
\includegraphics[width=1.25\linewidth]{fig_1000_100.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Pareto front, population = 1000, generations = 100}
\label{fig:1000_100}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hp]
\includegraphics[width=1.25\linewidth]{fig_500_100.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Pareto front, population = 500, generations = 100}
\label{fig:500_100}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hp]
\includegraphics[width=1.25\linewidth]{fig_100_100.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Pareto front, population = 100, generations = 100}
\label{fig:100_100}
\end{figure}
Tests against currently used single objective algorithm were carried. Figures
\ref{fig:bootes1b_alt} and \ref{fig:bootes1b_dist} shows simulated altitude
merit and distance merit functions versus observed merit and distance functions.
Unfortunately account merit cannot be calculated, as this merit was recently
introduced.
Altitude merit is in proportional units, where 1 means optimal altitude of the
observations. Distance merit is in degrees - there lower value means lower slew
times, and so better schedule. In both graphs, blue dots are difference between
observed schedule and average of Pareto front schedules. There lower difference
value means better \mbox{NSGA-II} scheduling simulation then current scheduler.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{bootes1b_alt.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Altitude merits of a used single merit algorithm versus new \mbox{NSGA-II} scheduling}
\label{fig:bootes1b_alt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{bootes1b_dist.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Distance merits of a used single merit algorithm versus new \mbox{NSGA-II} scheduling}
\label{fig:bootes1b_dist}
\end{figure}
\chapter{Conclusion}
In this work was presented a novel approach to telescope scheduling, using
Pareto optimal search genetic algorithm. Having Pareto optimum provides
experienced observers with overview which observations are possible.
Complex autonomouse telescope scheduling is a difficult task. It requires
continuous adjustment of objectives, so the observatory remains productive for
a various science goals. Also new observatory constraints can be introduced.
Presented approach provides an easy and robust way how to add new objectives and
constraints without a need to invest time and effort towards discovering
heuristics and rules which will make scheduling working better.
Scheduling network of the autonomouse observatories is a magnitude more
difficult then scheduling of a single observatory. Yet the approach outlined in
this work looks promising and provides solid base for a development of an
algorithm for network scheduling.
The software is ready for live use on the telescopes of \mbox{RTS2} network. It
is expected that it will be used in production during first quarter of 2009.
\chapter{Further work}
This work presents solid foundations for observatory and network scheduling.
The expected further work is related to further development of the \mbox{RTS2}.
This includes development of the central planning and monitoring facility,
which will enable observers to continuously monitor network performance. This
will also solve various operational issues and enables network scheduling. It
is expected that the network scheduling functionality will be added to network
in second quarter of 2009, at the time when \mbox{Bootes 3} telescope, located
on New Zealand, will start routine operations.
\backmatter
|
\section{Introduction}
Investigating the chemical evolutionary history of the Milky Way is
critical for understanding galaxy formation and evolution, as we can
accurately measure the abundances of individual stars from rare
populations, such as the most metal-poor stars. Analyses of cooler
stars, such as G and K dwarfs, are of particular interest, as they have
lifetimes equal to or greater than the age of the Galaxy. The oldest
stars of these types were formed from gas with composition typical of
the earliest moments of galaxy evolution. Simple models of star
formation, such as the closed-box model defined by \citet{schmidt},
reveal the G dwarf problem: we observe fewer metal poor stars than
predicted by simple models of Galactic chemical evolution, indicating
that we do not yet fully understand the early chemical enrichment
history of the Galaxy. Work such as \citet{pp75}, \citet{norris_ryan},
\citet{sl91}, \citet{wg95}, and later \citet{rpm97}, \citet{chiappini01} and
\citet{tumlinson06,tumlinson10} investigate this,
giving rise to many different galaxy models with a variety of structural
components and material recycling processes.
One difficulty with these analyses has been the lack of a large uniform
sample of cool stars with accurate metallicity measurements. Previous
large surveys, such as the Geneva-Copenhagen survey that analyzed
$\sim$14,000 F and G dwarfs in the solar neighborhood, have a large
number of targets but rely on Str{\"o}mgren photometry to determine
stellar metallicity \citep{nordstrom04}. Similarly, work with SDSS
photometry, such as that by \citet{ivezic08} and \citet{juric08},
utilized a large sample size of stellar targets but determined
metallicities from empirical photometric indicators. Although both of
these analyses boast large sample sizes, they are hindered by the use of
photometric, rather than spectroscopic, metallicity indicators.
Photometric calibrations are susceptible to errors from reddening. They
also have reduced sensitivity for low metallicity targets. Using
spectroscopy directly can increase the accuracy and precision of
metallicity determinations, in addition to providing kinematic
information such as radial velocities, albeit with the added cost of
increased observing time.
The SEGUE (Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration)
survey combines the extensive uniform data set of photometry from SDSS
with medium resolution (R$\sim$\,1800) spectroscopy over a broad
spectral range (3800-9200\AA) for $\sim$\,240,000 stars over a range of
spectral types \citep{yanny09}. Technical information about the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey is published on the survey design \citep{york00},
telescope and camera \citep{gunn06, gunn98}, astrometric \citep{pier03}
and photometric accuracy \citep{ivezic04}, photometric system
\citep{fuku96} and calibration \citep{hogg01, smith02, tucker06, pad08}.
Combining SEGUE spectroscopy with SDSS \emph{ugriz} photometry over a
range of 14$<g<$20.3 in $\sim$3500 square degrees on the sky
allows us to better understand the chemical abundance distribution in
the Galaxy, while avoiding the difficulties associated with purely
photometric surveys and issues of small sample size for spectroscopic
analyses \citep{yanny09,lee08_I}.
SEGUE uses photometric cuts to target SDSS stars for spectroscopic
analysis. The SEGUE ``G dwarf'' sample is defined as having
14.0$<r_0<$20.2 and 0.48$<(g-r)_0<$0.55 while the ``K dwarfs'' have
14.5$<r_0<$19.0 with 0.55$<(g-r)_0<$0.75 where the subscript 0 denotes
dereddened based on the \citet{sfd98} values \citep{yanny09}. This
corresponds to a temperature range of $\approx$5000$-$5300 K for K
dwarfs and $\approx$5300$-$5600 K for G dwarfs for [Fe/H] from $-$0.5 to
$-$2.5. Each of the spectra is then processed through the SEGUE Stellar
Parameter Pipeline (SSPP) to determine its atmospheric parameters,
namely effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity, and
$\alpha$-enhancement. The SSPP employs 8 primary methods for the
estimation of T$_{\rm eff}$, 10 for the estimation of $\log g$, and 12 for
the estimation of [Fe/H]. Lastly, the SSPP estimates [$\alpha$/Fe] by
comparison with synthetic spectra utilizing the effective temperature
determined by the SSPP (Lee et al. in prep). For an in-depth
description of SSPP calculations and processes, see
\citet{lee08_I,lee08_II}. This program's outputs have been checked
against high-resolution spectra of stars within globular and open
clusters, as well as in the field \citep{lee08_II,
allendeprieto08}. Conservatively, the SSPP determines effective
temperatures to within 150 K, surface gravity ($\log g$) to 0.29 dex,
and metallicity ([Fe/H]) to 0.24 dex for targets with
4500$\leq$T$_{eff}$$\leq$7500 with $S/N \geq$50, and can
determine parameters for stars with temperatures as low as 4000 K
\citep{lee08_I}. For spectra with lower signal-to-noise, these
uncertainties increase. For $S/N$=25, $\sigma(T)$=200 K, $\sigma(\log
g)$=0.4 dex, and $\sigma([Fe/H])$=0.3 dex. Lastly, for $S/N$=10,
$\sigma(T)$=260 K, $\sigma(\log g)$=0.6 dex, and $\sigma([Fe/H])$=0.45
dex \citep{lee08_I}. The uncertainties for [$\alpha$/Fe] also increase
with decreasing signal-to-noise. Y.S. Lee et al. (in prep.) show that
errors in [$\alpha$/Fe]$<$0.1 dex can be achieved for spectra with
$S/N>$10. For $S/N$ of or less than 10, $\sigma([\alpha/Fe])\approx$0.2
dex.
It is critical that we understand any potential biases and uncertainties
that arise in this expansive data set, as it will be used extensively to
analyze the structure of the Milky Way. In particular, we focus on
errors associated with unresolved binaries in the SDSS sample. SEGUE
does not have a program designed to check for binaries using repeat
observations. However, there has been work done on potential binaries in
the sample. \citet{sesar2008} have extracted numerous wide field
binaries in SDSS; in particular, they determine the frequency and
distribution of the semimajor axis of these systems. As they focus on
targets with a separation of greater than 3\arcsec, these targets are
unlikely to affect spectroscopic or photometric parameter
determinations, as each SEGUE spectroscopic fiber is 3\arcsec\,
across. We complement \citet{sesar2008} with an analysis of close
binaries and their effect on atmospheric parameter estimates for SEGUE
targets.
Almost all high-mass stars, such as spectral types O, B, and A, are
likely to be in binaries, while lower mass stars, such as M types, have
a binary fraction of around 30$-$40\%
\citep{fischer92,kouwen08}. Analyses of the F-G stars in the solar
neighborhood have determined that $\sim$65\% of these spectral types
possess at least one companion \citep{dm91}. The effect of the secondary
on the parameter determinations of the primary from photometric and
spectroscopic methods must be quantified and potentially taken into
account when using SEGUE for studies of the Galaxy. In this analysis,
we first model the binaries in the nearby Galaxy using distributions
based on past empirical studies. We then create a grid of primary and
secondary spectra, which we combine and analyze using the
SSPP. Combining this grid and our modeled distributions, we determine
how the prevalence of binaries will affect the atmospheric parameters
derived by SEGUE. We cover a mass range of primaries from 0.5 to
1.0\,M$_\odot$\, and a metallicity range from [Fe/H] of $-$0.5 to
$-$2.5. These techniques can be expanded to different mass and
metallicity ranges.
\section{Pair Modeling}
\label{sec:pair_modeling}
Every stellar population contains a certain fraction in binaries. The
number of detected pairs depends upon how the sample is observed, such
as the number and magnitude limits of the observations. Depending upon
their orbital properties, distances, and mass ratios, some of these
pairs will be blended photometrically, which will potentially change the
measured \emph{ugriz} magnitudes and affect SEGUE target
selection. These targets will also be blended in the spectroscopic data,
affecting the SSPP parameter measurements. For both photometric and
spectroscopic measurements of binaries, the ratio between the members'
luminosities determines the extent of the secondary's effect.
We have used a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the extent of the
influence of undetected binarity. We model a sample of 100,000 binaries,
assigning stellar and orbital parameters based on various empirical
distributions, explained below. For each binary in the sample, we
determine whether or not the pair will appear blended in the data based
upon their orbital properties and distances, namely their period, mass
of each member based on a specific IMF, eccentricity, inclination, and
phase. The point-spread-function (PSF) of the SDSS photometric data is
variable, depending on the seeing. As an approximation to consider the
effects of photometric blending, we set the PSF to 1.4\arcsec, the
median seeing of SDSS in the $r$ band \citep{stoughton02}.
Additionally, if the pair is separated by more than 1.4\arcsec\, but
less than 3\arcsec, they will be spectroscopically blended, i.e. both
stars will be within the SEGUE fiber but the \emph{ugriz} magnitudes
will be separable. All photometrically blended targets are thus
spectroscopically blended, affecting their parameter determinations by
the SSPP. For our purposes, even though they are both spectroscopically
and photometrically blended, we refer to these as photometric blends.
Some pairs will be blended only spectroscopically, affecting SSPP
measurements parameter estimates but leaving their magnitudes
unchanged. We refer to these as spectroscopic blends in the rest of the
paper. Our criteria for spectroscopic blends is conservative, assuming
the largest possible amount of contamination. When a primary is
centered in a fiber, the contamination from the secondary depends on its
distance to the primary. By assuming the full contribution from any
secondary closer than 3\arcsec\, we examine the most extreme scenario
possible, and thus determine the upper limit to the spectroscopic
contamination of the sample by undetected secondaries.
While our primary and secondary targets have a range of temperatures and
surface gravities, we assign them the same metallicity, thus neglecting
the effects of any chance superpositions. To determine the effect of
these unassociated pairs on our sample, we use the TriLegal 1.4 program
\citep{girardi05}. Examining our preliminary G-K dwarf sample from
SEGUE (see \S\,\ref{sec:distance}), we select plates with the highest
number of G-K targets, as these are sky regions of high stellar
density. The magnitude limit for a consistent volume for G and K dwarfs
in our simulation is 17.45 in \emph{r}. However, we also want to
simulate fainter stars that contaminate the sample, similar to our
undetected secondaries. The difference in magnitude between a
0.5\,M$_\odot$\, and 0.1\,M$_\odot$\, star is around 5 in \emph{r}; thus, our
TriLegal magnitude limit is \emph{r}$\leq$22.45.
We queried TriLegal 1.4 with the coordinates of all the plates with G-K
dwarfs in our preliminary sample, inputting the galactic coordinates for
each plate into TriLegal to determine a star count for a region of 7
deg$^2$, the area on the sky covered by each plate. We then randomly
assigned each star a position within 1$^{\circ}$.49 of the plate
center. Extracting the targets between 0.5\,and 1.0\,M$_\odot$, we compare
the coordinates of these to all stars with masses less than that of the
primary, simulating superpositions with an undetected companion within
3\arcsec\, of one another. The likelihood of a chance superposition in
the entire sample ranges from a minimum of $\sim$2\%, for plate 2313 at
$l \sim$132$^{\circ}$ and $b \sim$$-$63$^{\circ}$, to a maximum of
$\sim$15\%, for plate 1908 with $l \sim$47$^{\circ}$ and $b
\sim$$-$25$^{\circ}$. For a SEGUE plate directed at the Galactic plane,
the probability of superposition is much higher. The SEGUE plate closest
to the plane of the Galaxy is 2537, at $l \sim$110$^{\circ}$ and $b
\sim$10.50$^{\circ}$ (note that this plate is not in our sample as it
does not have G-K dwarfs due to a different targeting scheme). This
plate has a 44$\%$ likelihood of a superposition for the entire sample,
a very significant contamination. As SEGUE primarily focuses on
latitudes with $|b|>$35$^{\circ}$ \citep{yanny09}, there should
typically be a $\sim$5\% chance of superposition. Simulating these
superpositions would greatly increase the modeling parameter space we
cover, due to the metallicity differences. As there is only a $\sim$5\%
likelihood of encountering one, we do not consider chance superpositions
in our analysis.
We generate a 100,000 pair sample for each combination of primary and
secondary mass distribution at each metallicity from [Fe/H]=$-$0.5 to
$-$2.5, in 0.5 dex increments. An estimated 20,000 stars in the
preliminary SEGUE sample are within the SEGUE G-K color range (see
\S\,\ref{sec:distance}). With our Monte-Carlo simulation of 100,000
pairs, we expect 30,000 to be within the color range, giving us a model
sample slightly larger than the true sample. To determine the model
uncertainty, which is associated with the finite size of the binary
sample, we use a jackknife error estimate by dividing each 100,000
sample into ten sets of 10,000 pairs and examine the numerical
variation. From this variation, we calculate the standard deviation of
each 10,000 target set from the mean. We then divide by $\sqrt{10}$ to
determine the uncertainty for the larger 100,000 target sample. This is
reported as the uncertainty on the numbers throughout the paper and is
the only source of uncertainty considered.
\subsection{Isochrones}
\label{sec:isochrones}
Throughout this analysis, we use isochrones from the Dartmouth Stellar
Evolution database to define temperature, surface gravity, and broadband
$ugriz$ magnitudes for our model stars \citep{dartmouth}. The
isochrones we select cover a metallicity range from [Fe/H]=$-$0.5 to
$-$2.5, with [$\alpha$/Fe]=0 for masses between 0.1 and
1.0\,M$_\odot$\,. This spread reflects the metallicity-mass range of our
preliminary G-K dwarf sample from SEGUE (see \S\,\ref{sec:distance}).
We examine only the main sequence section of the selected
isochrones. Additionally, our model atmospheres limit us to stars cooler
than 8000 K. Although we expect the SEGUE stars to be around 10 Gyr in
age, to simulate targets on the main sequence up to 8000 K requires
using a 3.5 Gyr isochrone (see Fig.\ref{fig:iso_comp}). Even though
this age is less than the expected age for these stars, there are not
significant differences between the isochrones of various ages on the
main sequence (see Fig.\ref{fig:iso_comp}). The Dartmouth isochrones
are especially useful as they are calculated directly for $ugriz$
photometry and do not require any conversions between $UBVRI$ and SDSS
photometry, which could be a potential source of uncertainty as these
transformations are metallicity dependent and incomplete over our
temperature and metallicity ranges. We also used the isochrones from the
Padova database \citep{girardi}, which cover a similar metallicity and
age range. Using these two sets of isochrones provided similar numerical
results, and we selected the Dartmouth isochrones for the bulk of our
work as they are in uniform incremental steps of metallicity, making our
distribution of models over metallicity smoother.
\subsection{Binary Properties}
\label{sec:binary properties}
Previous analyses of G dwarf binaries in the solar neighborhood, in
particular \citet{dm91}, have established empirical expressions for
various orbital properties, such as period and eccentricity. By
utilizing these, in conjunction with different empirical descriptions of
stellar mass functions, we can model a sample of binaries that mimic
observed conditions. Our adopted model parameters for the synthetic
pairs follows.
\subsubsection{Period}
We assign each pair a period between 0 and 10$^{10}$ days based on the
Gaussian distribution in $\log P$ from \citet{dm91}. This work analyzed
the properties of 82 pairs with G dwarf primaries in the solar
neighborhood from the CORAVEL and Gliese catalogs, empirically fitting a
lognormal to the period distribution with an average $\log P= $4.8 and
$\sigma_{\log P}= $2.3, where P is in days.
\subsubsection{Primary Mass Distribution}
We use three different distributions to define the masses of the
primaries. The color range of our SEGUE G-K dwarf sample is
0.48$\leq$$(g-r)_0$$\leq$0.75, implying a mass range from approximately
0.5 to 0.8\,M$_\odot$\, using the Dartmouth isochrones over a range of
metallicities (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:iso_comp}). Our mass range extends
slightly beyond the typical mass range of G and K dwarfs, going from 0.5
to 1.0\,M$_\odot$\,, to ensure that we account for all potential
contaminants; higher mass primaries can be bumped into the color region
of G-K dwarfs when blended with cooler secondaries. Similarly, G-K dwarf
primaries can potentially be bumped out of a rigid color cut when
blended with a secondary.
We use three models for the mass distribution of the primary stars from
\citet{salpeter55}, \citet{kroupa01}, and \citet{chabrier03}. The
Salpeter distribution, based upon the observed luminosity function at
that time, is a simple power law:
\begin{equation}
f(M)\propto M^{-2.35}
\end{equation}
The \citet{kroupa01} model is in the form of three broken power laws
over different mass ranges and is quite similar to a Salpeter
distribution over the mass range of the primaries. For the primaries,
\begin{equation}
f(M)\propto M^{-2.3}
\end{equation}
Lastly, work by \citet{chabrier03} utilized observational data of the
bottom of the main sequence to determine that the basic power law
relationships defined by Kroupa and Salpeter are not accurate for stars
below M$_\odot$. The Chabrier distribution for stars with
M$<$M$_\odot$\, is based on a Gaussian form:
\begin{equation}
f(M)\propto \exp[-(\log M -\log m_{c})/2\sigma^{2}]
\end{equation}
where $m_{c}$ is the mean mass, 0.079 M$_\odot$\,, and $\sigma$ is the variance in
$\log (M/$M$_\odot$\,$)$, 0.69. Chabrier also determines a mass function for system
masses to account for unresolved binaries. This function is consistent
with the single mass function with a 50\% binary fraction
\citep{chabrier03}. As we want the individual mass of primary and
secondary, rather than their total mass, we use the individual rather than
the system mass function. To ensure that not using the system mass
relationship would not significantly affect our numerical results, we
used it in conjunction with our Monte Carlo modeling, finding that its
numerical results were within the errors of those from the standard
Chabrier distribution. We normalize all three of these mass
distributions according to the mass range they cover, from 0.5 to
1.0\,M$_\odot$.
Despite differences in form, these three distributions are, in actuality,
quite similar to one another (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:primary_dist}), making
it largely irrelevant which of the three we choose. When not explicitly
stated, we use the Chabrier distribution, because it was defined
specifically for our mass range of interest.
\subsubsection{Secondary Mass Distribution}
The mass distribution for the secondary depends on both the mass of the
primary and the period of the system. We use primary-constrained
pairing, i.e. the mass of the secondary is determined from a specified
distribution and is limited by the mass of the primary \citep{kouwen08};
more specifically, the mass of the secondary is between 0.1\,M$_\odot$\, and
M$_{prim}$. The photometric uncertainties of SDSS are 2\% for $gri$ and
3\% for $u$ and $z$ \citep{ivezic04, abazajian05}. For our binaries, the
photometric changes from blending with a secondary are significant,
i.e. greater than the uncertainties, for a primary of 0.5\,M$_\odot$\, when
it is blended with a 0.2\,M$_\odot$\, secondary for a change in $g$ and $r$
of $\approx$0.05$-$0.1, depending upon the metallicity. By expanding
our model to secondaries with masses of 0.1\,M$_\odot$\,, we ensure that we
cover the entire mass range where a companion can influence the
parameters, both photometric and spectroscopic, of its primary.
Work by \citet{abtwill92} on $\sim$70 binaries with F-G type primaries
determined that for those with short period, defined as less than 100
years, the distribution of secondary masses is flat, confirming previous
work using a sample of 94 binaries with solar-type primaries by
\citet{abtlevy76}. This is of particular interest, because
\citet{hurley05} find that having a flat mass distribution for short
period binaries results in more blue stragglers in their models of M67,
helping them better match observations. \citet{dm91}, however, hesitate
to adopt a flat mass distribution for short-period binaries, while
acknowledging the ambiguities resulting from their small sample size of
$\sim$80 pairs. Currently, there is not firm observational evidence for
or against a flat secondary mass distribution for pairs with short-periods, as the
sample sizes analyzed have been too small to determine the distribution
conclusively, and future work must be done on much larger observed samples.
For our models of short periods, defined as less than 1000 days based on
the criteria of \citet{dm91}, we try both a flat distribution, as
determined by \citet{abtwill92}, and one that follows the behavior
defined for long periods. We model this for all of our secondary mass
distributions. Defining a flat mass distribution for short-period
binaries affects approximately 22$\pm$1\% of all G-K dwarf blends by
moderating the secondary mass distributions. For all of the
distributions, the number of low mass secondaries are decreased and the
number of high mass are increased. Despite this, the basic overall shape
of the distribution is not affected (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:flattens}). It
also does not affect the numerical results. The number of blended pairs,
etc. are within the uncertainties of one another for simulations with
and without the short-period modifications. For the remainder of this
analysis, we assume that short- and long-period binaries have the same
secondary mass distribution, independent of the system's period.
We employ a variety of distributions to model the secondary masses,
including those used to model the primary masses, the Salpeter, Kroupa,
and Chabrier distributions. All secondary mass determinations are
normalized assuming a mass range from 0.1\,M$_\odot$\, to the mass of the
primary. Note that the Kroupa distribution has a different exponent at
masses less than 0.5\,M$_\odot$\,:
\begin{equation}
f(M)\propto M^{-1.3} \textrm{ if }0.08 \leq M \leq 0.5
\end{equation}
Additionally, we adopt two relationships based upon \emph{q}, the mass
ratio between the secondary and primary. The first is a Gaussian
distribution from \citet{dm91}:
\begin{equation}
f(q)\propto \exp[-(q-\mu)^{2}/2\sigma^{2}]
\end{equation}
where $\mu= $0.23 and $\sigma= $0.42. The second \emph{q} ratio
distribution we use is from \citet{halb03}. This model takes into
account the prevalence of ``twins," binaries with two stars of
approximately equal mass. Similarly to \citet{dm91}, it is derived
empirically from CORAVEL data, but covers a slightly wider range of
spectral type, from F7 to K, and includes cluster stars in addition to
targets in the solar neighborhood. This particular model has three
peaks, at \emph{q}=0.25, 0.65 and 1.
These five different models have very different distributions, as
expected and shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:secondary_dist}. By using all of
these different methods, we can compare the results and measure the
effect of using a mass function rather than an empirical \emph{q}
distribution to define the secondary mass distribution. We discuss this
further in \S\,\ref{sec:numbcomp}.
\subsubsection{Eccentricity}
We adopt an eccentricity distribution from \citet{dm91}. If the period
is less than the circularization period, $\approx$10 days, the orbit is
circularized by tidal interactions and has an eccentricity, \emph{e}, of
0. The eccentricity of tight binaries, with 10$\leq$P$\leq$1000 days,
has a Gaussian distribution, with a mean of 0.31 and a dispersion of
0.155. Again, these values were determined from a sample of nearby G
dwarfs; similar mean values have been determined for young open clusters
and halo stars as well \citep{dm91} . Lastly, we consider the eccentricity of
long-period binaries, with P$>$1000 days. \citet{dm91} determined that
for these binaries,
\begin{equation}
f(e) \propto 2e
\end{equation}
Using these three distributions, we assign an eccentricity to each
sample pair based upon its period.
\subsubsection{Inclination}
We assume a flat distribution of $\cos I$ between 0 and 1, where
\emph{I} is the inclination angle. This assumes that all orientations of
the binary system in space are equally likely.
\subsubsection{Phase}
The position of the secondary with respect to the primary determines
whether or not the two will be blended within the SDSS PSF. For each
secondary we pick a random mean anomaly, \emph{M}, between $-\pi$ and
$\pi$. Combining this with the assigned eccentricity, we calculate the
eccentric anomaly, \emph{EA}, using iterations of a Taylor series
expansion of the Kepler equation \citep{md00}.
\begin{equation}
f(EA)=EA-e\sin(EA)-M
\end{equation}
This results in each pair having an \emph{EA} between 0 and 2$\pi$. For
pairs with non-negligible eccentricities, the secondary will spend a
larger fraction of its time in orbit far away from the
primary. Determining the parameter \emph{EA} from \emph{M} takes this
distribution into account. From the eccentric anomaly, we then calculate
the true anomaly, \emph{F}.
\begin{equation}
\tan(F/2)=\sqrt{\frac{1+e}{1-e}}\tan(EA/2)
\end{equation}
With \emph{F}, we determine \emph{r}, the distance between the two stars
at that particular orbital phase.
\begin{equation}
r=\frac{a(1-e^2)}{(1+e\cos(F))}
\end{equation}
where \emph{a} is the semimajor axis of the orbit, which we derive from
the period and masses of the pair. Finally, we select random values
between 0 and 2$\pi$ for $\Omega$, the longitude of the ascending node,
and $\omega$, the argument of pericenter. We use \emph{r} in
conjunction with the true anomaly, \emph{F}, $\Omega$, and $\omega$ to
determine the two orthogonal components of the projected distance
between the secondary and the primary, $X$ and $Y$.
\begin{eqnarray}
X &=& r[\cos\Omega \cos(\omega+F) - \sin\Omega \sin(\omega+F) \cos I] \\
Y &=& r[\sin\Omega \cos(\omega+F) + \cos\Omega \sin(\omega+F) \cos I]
\end{eqnarray}
Using $X$ and $Y$, we then calculate the projected
magnitude of the separation on the sky of the two stars, R:
\begin{equation}
R = \sqrt{X^2 + Y^2}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Photometric Blending}
\label{sec:distance}
As mentioned earlier, for a pair to be blended photometrically, they
must be within 1.4\arcsec\, of each other on the sky. Combining the
orbit information with an assigned distance, we can determine whether or
not the pair fulfill the separation criteria. If blended, we then
combine $ugriz$ magnitudes, based on isochrones.
To model the distances to each pair, we determine an empirical distance
distribution for G and K dwarfs with spectra from SEGUE using their
target selection parameters in the $(g-r)_0$ color and $r_0$ magnitude
\citep{dr6}. From this sample, we first eliminate all targets for which
the SSPP was unable to determine a metallicity, temperature, or
$\log\,g$. In total we extract approximately 20,000 G-K stars from
SEGUE, two-thirds of which are SEGUE-defined G type.
For each SDSS target, we then select a 10 Gyr comparison isochrone from the
Dartmouth set based upon the SSPP metallicity over a range of
[Fe/H]=$-$0.5 to $-$2.5 (see \S\,\ref{sec:isochrones} for more
information on the isochrone selection). If the target's metallicity
falls between two isochrones, we interpolate. We then match the target
to the isochrone by SSPP temperature and pull out the modeled
\emph{ugriz} magnitudes, surface gravity, and mass from the isochrone.
Comparing the isochrone magnitudes to those detected by SDSS, we use the
distance modulus to determine an approximate distance to each target
based on the $g_0$ and $r_0$ magnitudes, weighted equally. For this
sample we find a range of distances from 0.5 to 6 kpc (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:distdist}). As G dwarfs are brighter than K dwarfs, SDSS
can observe them at greater distances. Based on the magnitude limits of
SDSS, we select a distance range from $\sim$750 and $\sim$3700 pc. to
ensure that our G and K dwarf sample occupy the same volume of space.
We fit the distribution of distances in this range using a linear least
squares fit, measuring:
\begin{equation}
f(d) = -298(d/kpc)+1027
\label{eq:distorig}
\end{equation}
Each modeled pair is thus assigned a distance according to this
distribution, and, in conjunction with each pair's R value, we derive a
projected separation on the sky in arcseconds.
If our sample of dwarfs from SEGUE is contaminated by binaries, the
distance distribution will be affected; targets will appear brighter,
and we will underestimate their distance. To simulate this effect, we
adjust our measured distances for the G-K dwarfs in SEGUE. We select a
random 65\%\, of our sample, the percent expected to be in binaries
\citep{dm91}, and double their calculated distance. As undetected
secondaries will cover a range of masses, by assuming that all of the
pairs are twins, we calculate the most extreme scenario of binary
distance contamination. We again determine a linear least squares fit to
the distribution of distances, which now has a much shallower slope:
\begin{equation}
f(d) = -128(d/kpc)+625
\label{eq:distcont}
\end{equation}
For the G-K color pairs, using the most extreme contaminated distance
relationship results in an additional $\sim$2 percentage points of
blends, independent of metallicity and mass distributions. Consequently,
we feel confident using the original distance relationship and ignoring
the potential binary contamination effects.
\subsection{Spectroscopic Blending}
We have determined the combined magnitudes of pairs photometrically
blended in SDSS photometry. However, as the spectroscopic fiber for
SEGUE is 3\arcsec, we must take into account that there are some pairs
that, although not photometrically blended, are spectroscopically
blended.
Spectroscopic blends are photometrically distinguishable. If SEGUE
recognizes them as close pairs and systematically avoids them, due to
concerns about spectral contamination, we do not need to take
spectroscopic blends into account. The SDSS photometry pipeline has a
deblending function capable of resolving a binary with a separation of
1\arcsec\, or greater (Yanny, private communication). If the deblend is
not done well, as indicated by certain photometric flags, SEGUE avoids
that particular target. However, a well-resolved pair will not be
avoided by SEGUE. As SDSS can separate stars as close as $\sim$1\arcsec,
this indicates that SEGUE will likely include many binaries with
separation less than 3\arcsec\, in the sample, and the primaries will
have their spectroscopic parameters contaminated by a secondary. Thus,
we count every pair with 1.4\arcsec$\leq r \leq$3\arcsec\, as a
spectroscopic blend capable of contaminating the SEGUE sample and
affecting SSPP measurements.
\section{Number Comparison}
\label{sec:numbcomp}
We use a Monte Carlo method to determine the effect of binaries on the
G-K spectroscopic sample in SEGUE. The first step is to determine how
frequently a photometric blend will cause a binary that would otherwise
fall into the G-K sample to fall outside the color range, or how often a
photometric blend will put a pair into the sample whose primary would
otherwise be too blue. We examine whether the fraction that shift into
or out of the color range depends on the primary or secondary mass
function. For each combination of metallicity and mass distributions,
we pick 100,000 primaries drawn from the primary mass distribution and
match them with 100,000 secondaries, drawn from the secondary mass
distribution. These pairs are given orbits in accordance with the
previous discussion (see \S\,\ref{sec:binary properties}). As shown in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:primary_dist}, the three different mass distributions for
the primaries result in approximately the same number of stars at each
mass. However, the mass distributions for the secondaries have very
different forms (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:secondary_dist}). For each combination
of primary and secondary mass distribution, we determine the number of
pairs that are photometrically (projected closer than 1.4\arcsec) and
spectroscopically (projected closer than 3\arcsec) blended.
Of a sample of 100,000 pairs, approximately 90$\pm$1\% are
photometrically blended, regardless of mass distribution or metallicity.
Approximately 40\% of all targets will have their $(g-r)_0$ color
shifted by an amount greater than the uncertainties in SDSS photometry
by the addition of a secondary. We then use color cuts to extract the
pairs that will be within the $(g-r)_0$ color range of G and K
dwarfs. These are the binaries that will be contaminating the G-K dwarf
sample and possibly affecting SEGUE target selection, resulting in
potential errors in studies of stellar populations. Similar to the
larger sample, $\approx$40\% of the G-K dwarf sample will have their
$(g-r)_0$ color shifted by more than the SDSS photometric
uncertainty. In Fig.\,\ref{fig:gminr}, we compare the $(g-r)_0$ color
distribution for the primaries to that of the blended pairs over a range
of metallicities, examining the numbers of targets that remain within
the G-K dwarf color cut. On average, 30$\pm$2\% of the 100,000
primaries are within the G-K color cut, compared to 28$\pm$2\% of
the pairs (see Table\,\ref{tab:numbers}). The addition of a
secondary bumps out slightly more targets from the G-K range than it
bumps in. On average, 2\% of the 100,000 primaries will be
bumped into the color cut by adding in a secondary; 3\% will be
pushed out of the $(g-r)_0$ range by a companion. In addition to
calculating percentages, we examine the most frequent color shifts by
comparing the $(g-r)_0$ of the blended binaries to those of the
primaries. We analyze a sample which includes every combination of
primary and secondary mass distribution at every metallicity. For the
entire sample, the addition of a secondary most often shifts $(g-r)_0$
by 0.01 with $\sigma$=0.02. When we extract all of the targets for which
the primary is in the G-K dwarf SEGUE color range, the shift and
$\sigma$ are the same. The population error resulting from
photometric binary contamination in target selection is minimal, as the
shifts themselves are small.
We isolate G-K dwarf spectroscopic blends by selecting pairs where the
primary is within the color cuts. As noted earlier (see
\S\,\ref{sec:pair_modeling}), using 3\arcsec\, as the criteria is the
most extreme scenario for spectroscopic contamination. On average, about
3\% of the G-K sample are spectroscopically, but not
photometrically, blended. Thus, even for the largest possible chance of
purely spectroscopic contamination, the likelihood is negligible.
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:pairs_sec}, we plot the fraction of blended pairs
within the G-K dwarf color range, both photometric and spectroscopic,
versus the secondary mass distributions for all three primary
distributions over the range of metallicities. As listed in
Table\,\ref{tab:numbers}, we examine how many primaries are initially in
the G-K color range and compare it to the number of pairs within the
color cut. We plot the average blend number with the error bars
representing the standard deviation among the 10 samples of 10,000. As
expected, there is variation in the blended fraction related to the
different secondary distributions. However, in general, the statistics
for the range of secondary distributions agree with one another within
uncertainties for each primary mass distribution, indicating that there
is not a substantial numerical difference from one model to another (see
Table\,\ref{tab:numbers}). We are not surprised by this because
different factors, such as the short period flattening and Chabrier
system mass distribution, appeared to have little to no effect on the
number of resulting blends as well. The fractions determined for the
Salpeter and Kroupa primary distributions are quite similar to one
another, whereas the Chabrier results are slightly increased.
Recent work by \citet{met09} determined that the mass functions of
companions are different than those of individual objects, making it
inaccurate to use the empirical mass functions, such as the Salpeter,
Kroupa, and Chabrier relationships, to model and analyze stellar
secondaries.
However, \citet{met09} find good agreement between the distribution of
companion masses and the relationship measured by \citet{dm91} for all
targets with \emph{q}$>$0.1. We do not find significant variation in our
blended G-K fraction with different secondary models. The model using
the \emph{q} relationship from \citet{dm91} appears quite similar
numerically to the other models, where we pull random secondary masses
from an IMF. Thus, we are not particularly concerned about the detected
differences between the primary and secondary mass function, as it does
not appear to have a significant effect on our statistical modeling.
For each primary distribution, we plot the average fraction of blends at
each metallicity and compare them in Fig.\,\ref{fig:pairs_met}. There
is no clear relationship between the blended fraction and metallicity.
The fractional variation over our metallicity range is likely due to our
color cut, rather than a real physical effect. At each metallicity, the
mass range of our pairs covers a different $(g-r)_0$ color range. Lower
metallicity primaries cover a smaller range of colors which are shifted
more towards the blue. Conversely, the spread in $(g-r)_0$ color range
of the secondaries is larger for lower metallicities. The different
spread of colors in both primaries and secondaries changes the effect a
secondary has on the primary's color, in particular whether or not it
can shift primaries in and out of the G-K color range. This causes
variation, but not a consistent trend, in the fraction of blends that
remain within the G-K color range with metallicity. Independent of the
effects of metallicity, all of the blended fractions determined by the
different distributions agree with one another within the errors,
indicating that our choice of mass distributions has little effect on
our numerical results.
\section{Spectroscopic Modeling}
To understand the effect of simulated binary contaminants on SSPP
parameter determinations, we spectroscopically model a grid of binaries
over the range of metallicities and process them through the
pipeline. Each member is of a particular mass, with the temperature,
surface gravity, luminosity, and \emph{ugriz} magnitudes extracted from
the Dartmouth isochrones. We then model the spectra using a MARCS model
atmosphere grid \citep{gustaffson08} in conjunction with the
TurboSpectrum program using these Dartmouth parameters \citep{ap98}.
\subsection{Model Atmosphere Grid}
We utilize MARCS model atmospheres of standard chemical composition and
plane parallel geometry to develop a grid of model spectra, covering a
range of temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity
\citep{gustaffson08}. Each spectrum in the grid is interpolated from
MARCS model atmospheres using the bracketing values in effective
temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity. For our interpolation,
the temperature is in increments of 25 K from 3200 to 8000, $\log g$ in
0.1 dex from 3.0 to 5.5, and metallicity in steps of 0.5 ranging from
[Fe/H]=$-0.5$ to $-2.5$. For standard composition models of
[Fe/H]=$-0.5$, [$\alpha$/Fe] is defined as 0.20. For all other
metallicities, [$\alpha$/Fe]=0.40. Finally, our microturbulence is
defined as 2 km/s.
\subsection{Model Synthesis}
For each metallicity, we synthesize 10 model stellar spectra,
corresponding to the masses from 0.1 to 1.0\,M$_\odot$\, by interpolating a
MARCS model atmosphere and processing it in TurboSpectrum (see
Table\,\ref{tab:parameters}). These models cover the same wavelength
range as SEGUE, 3800-9200\AA, in 0.1\AA\, increments. To simulate the
spectra of binaries, each primary spectra, from 0.5 to 1.0\,M$_\odot$\,, is
combined with all secondaries of lesser or equal mass. TurboSpectrum
provides us with the flux from the star; combining this with the radii
of the stars squared, as determined from the Dartmouth isochrones, we
calculate the luminosity of each star. The ratio of these luminosities
determines how much an undetected secondary will affect its primary. We
then apply an SDSS dispersion file to Gaussian-smooth the synthetic
spectra to model the instrument output. Lastly, the synthetic spectra
are binned into pixels of width 69 km/s. These modifications ensure both
that our spectra are accurate reflections of data taken by SEGUE, and
that our models can easily be run through the SSPP. We have compared a
synthesized model and a SEGUE spectrum in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:synth_segue.eps}.
\section{Parameter Shifts}
We do not expect our synthetic spectra to be a perfect match to real
spectra, particularly for the strongest features, such as the Balmer
lines, because we do not take into account known difficulties related to
NLTE, 3-D, and chromospheric effects in our models. Therefore, we are
not surprised that there are differences between the parameters we use
to model the spectra and the parameters that the SSPP derives. The
critical issue is understanding how much simulated binarity changes the
values the SSPP determines for the atmospheric parameters of our sample
of synthetic binaries, independent of modeling errors.
We run our synthetic spectra of single stars with
0.5\,M$_\odot$\,$\leq$M$\leq$1\,M$_\odot$\, through the SSPP as a control sample
to determine the SSPP parameter offsets for temperature, metallicity,
surface gravity, and $\alpha$-enhancement. The values measured for the
control group of primaries are listed in
Table\,\ref{tab:control_group}. The temperatures determined by the SSPP
for this sample most frequently overestimate the model temperature by
around 12 K (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:sspp_prim_temp}), a negligible amount
with respect to the expected errors ($\sigma(T_{eff})$$<$150 K) for the
pipeline \citep{lee08_I}. We also compare the [Fe/H] value determined by
the pipeline to that set for the models (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:sspp_prim_feh}). The pipeline overestimates the
metallicity of the sample with a mode of $\sim$0.15 dex, less than the
expected error of $\sigma([Fe/H])$=0.24 dex \citep{lee08_I}. Whereas
temperature and metallicity are overestimated by the pipeline, surface
gravity is underestimated (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_prim_logg}). The
most common shift is a decrease of $\sim$0.25 dex, which is comparable
to the expected SSPP error of 0.29 dex. Lastly, we examine the offsets
in [$\alpha$/Fe] in Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_prim_alpha}. All of the
synthetic spectra have [$\alpha$/Fe] set to 0.2 or 0.4, based on the
MARCS model atmosphere metallicity. When processed, the SSPP finds a
wide range of $\alpha$-enhancement, spreading the values over a range
from $\sim$$-$0.5 to $\sim$0.25. The most frequent offset is $-$0.075
dex. Since the offsets are smaller than or on the order of the SSPP
errors, we find that our model spectra are more than adequate for
measuring the effects of binary contamination.
Using this control sample of primaries, we define a temperature,
metallicity, and surface gravity offset between the models and the SSPP
parameters due to assumptions in our model synthesis. We then compare
the values determined for the grid of binaries with those determined for
the primary member of each pair. The parameters SSPP determines for each
pair are listed in Table\,\ref{tab:binary_params}, and the differences
between these values and those determined for the primary control group
are in Table\,\ref{tab:binary_diff}. In general, for all of the
parameters, temperature, metallicity, surface gravity, and alpha
enhancement, the shifts between the SSPP determinations for the
primaries and the pairs are most often within the expected SSPP
uncertainties (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:delta_all},
Table\,\ref{tab:binary_diff}). There is a slight anticorrelation between
these values for the [$\alpha$/Fe] with a slope of $-$0.56, but
otherwise the relationships are flat.
We also compare the shifts for the grid of pairs to those for the
primaries to see if there is any correlation between the two (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:dd_all}). There appears to be small anticorrelations, all
less than a slope of $-$0.6, between the amount a primary is shifted and
the amount a pair is shifted, determined by performing linear least
squares fits on the points. These anticorrelations are small, indicating
that the addition of a secondary shifts the SSPP determinations
independently of the standard offsets. The largest anticorrelation is
$-$0.57 for the [$\alpha$/Fe] measurements.
For the following analyses, we examine the shifts in atmospheric
parameters due to an undetected secondary in two ways. First, we examine
the ``grid'' of synthetic spectra. Namely, we calculate the differences
between the synthetic binaries and their associated primaries
individually for every modeled spectra. Second, we examine the shifts of
a numerical population model of stars. The Galaxy does not have a flat
mass distribution for stars. To accurately determine the actual shifts
due to undetected binarity in our SEGUE G-K sample, we combine our
numerical population modeling with our grid of synthetic spectra
atmospheric parameters. We create a large sample including every
combination of primary and secondary mass distributions at every
metallicity as a model of the actual stellar sample. By matching each
primary and secondary in this sample with the parameters in the
synthetic spectra grid, we determine the most frequent shifts in
temperature, metallicity and surface gravity, in addition to the spread
in these shifts for a realization of the SEGUE G-K sample. We combine
the numerical sample of primaries with the grid of primaries vs. model
parameters to determine the uncertainties stemming from the
imperfections in our synthetic spectra and the SSPP's analysis of
them. This checks the SSPP measurements for a set of known inputs,
allowing us to calculate constant offsets associated with the
uncertainties in the modeling. We then determine the differences between
the sample of binaries and primaries. Analyzing the uncertainties from
the primaries with those for the binaries, we can isolate the
uncertainties that stem exclusively from binarity.
\subsection{Effective Temperature}
\label{sec:temp_shifts}
The SSPP has temperature errors of 150 K at $S/N \geq$50
\citep{lee08_I}. The addition of a secondary decreases the SSPP
measured temperature from that determined for the primary alone (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:delta_all},\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_hist_all}). This is
expected, as we can see by examining the changes in $(g-r)_0$ color (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:gminr}). Whereas shifts in the other atmospheric
parameters may be due to random errors produced by the contribution of a
secondary, the downward shift in temperature is a systematic shift due
to the low mass secondaries being redder than the primaries.
The most frequent offset between the pair and the model temperature of
the primary for the grid is approximately -12.5 K, whereas it is
$\sim$12.5 K for the primary control group (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_hist_all}). The most extreme shift in the G-K
color range results from a 1\,M$_\odot$\, primary with [Fe/H]=$-$2.5 with a
0.85\,M$_\odot$\, secondary shifted in temperature by 410 K. When we
examine our numerical population sample of primaries, we find that the
mode shift is 55 K with $\sigma(T)$ of 36 K for the largest $S/N$ (see
Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}). This indicates the uncertainty from
imperfections in our synthetic spectra is $\pm$36 K.
We then use our grid of synthetic spectra to examine the mode and
uncertainty in our binaries when compared to their associated
primaries. First, we examine the variation in the shifts at different
metallicities. Fig.\,\ref{fig:teffhists} displays the sizes of the
shifts in temperature for all targets within the G-K color cut in a
10,000 target sample at each metallicity, and finally, for all of these
samples combined. There is some variation in the size and range of the
shifts at different metallicities. Additionally, there is some variation
in the shifts from different combinations of primary and secondary mass
functions. Table\,\ref{tab:temp_percent} lists the absolute value of the
shifts in temperature between binaries and primaries for spectra of
infinite $S/N$; the listed uncertainties reflect the variation in these
percentages from the different combinations of primary and secondary
mass functions. The uncertainties listed for the ``Total'' sample
account for variation in both mass functions and
metallicity. 52$\pm$10\% of the sample have the addition of a secondary
shift their temperature from that of the primary by $\leq$60 K, a
minimal effect (see Table\,\ref{tab:temp_percent}). In fact,
$\sim$82$\pm$7\% of the pairs are within 150 K of their associated
primary. Only $\sim$18\% of the shifted pairs lie outside the SSPP
temperature uncertainties at the highest $S/N$.
Our ``Total'' sample is our complete numerical population model,
including every combination of primary and secondary mass functions at
each metallicity. We use this sample to determine the effects of
binarity on our SEGUE sample. Examining the mode and $\sigma(T)$ shows
that the binary sample is most frequently shifted down 15 K in
temperature, with a variance of $\pm$72 K (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:binary_sni},
Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}). This variance represents the
uncertainty from both binarity and the synthetic modeling errors, which
we measured above to be $\pm$36 K. We can isolate the uncertainty from
undetected secondaries using the values determined for the primaries
vs. the model parameters, assuming the errors add in quadrature. For
infinite $S/N$, there is a systematic shift of $-$15 K and an additional
uncertainty of $\pm$62 K due to undetected binaries.
\subsection{Metallicity}
The metallicity determinations are relatively unaffected by the addition
of a secondary. The primary control group most often overestimates the
metallicity by $\sim$0.15 dex (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:sspp_prim_feh}). Whereas the addition of a secondary
affected the shifts in temperature, there is little shift in the
metallicity determinations of pairs versus primaries (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_hist_all}). The largest metallicity shift for
targets in the $(g-r)_0$ color cut range defined for G and K dwarfs is
0.36 dex. This shift is for a pair of metallicity $-$0.5, a
0.75\,M$_\odot$\, primary with a 0.6\,M$_\odot$\, secondary.
Once again, we combine the shifts in the grid of synthetic spectra with
the numerical modeling to determine the metallicity uncertainties most
often found in a SEGUE sample of G-K dwarfs (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:fehhists}). Similar to the temperature shifts, there is
variation in the metallicity shift over the range of [Fe/H]. There is
little variation with different combinations of primary and secondary
mass distributions (see the uncertainties listed in
Table\,\ref{tab:feh_percent}). For the blended pairs with infinite
$S/N$, $\sim$62$\pm$3\% will be within 0.05 dex of the determination of
the primary; the addition of a secondary does not have a
significant effect (see Table\,\ref{tab:feh_percent}). While $\sim$18\%
of the shifts in temperature are outside the SSPP uncertainties, only
$\sim$1\% of the binary sample are shifted by an amount greater than
$\sigma([Fe/H])$ from the SSPP for the infinite $S/N$ sample.
We expect the metallicity determinations of the pipeline to agree as
well if not better than temperature measurements, as both stars in the
pair are of the same metallicity. This is reflected in the mode and
$\sigma([Fe/H])$ determined for the large unbiased sample (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:binary_sni} and Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}).
Using the same methodology as in \S\,\ref{sec:temp_shifts}, we find that
a sample of G-K dwarf stars at infinite $S/N$ will have no systematic
shift but an additional uncertainty of around $\pm$0.05 dex.
\subsection{Surface Gravity}
We next consider the surface gravity determinations of the pipeline. The
control group of primaries is shifted down in surface gravity (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_prim_logg}), with a mode of $-$0.25 dex,
within the expected error of 0.29 dex \citep{lee08_II}. The addition of
a secondary does not significantly affect the surface gravity offsets
for the grid of synthetic spectra, as shown in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_hist_all}, shifting the mode to 0.15 dex.
Again, we apply the grid of synthetic values to our unbiased numerical
sample (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:binary_sni}). Using the same methods used for
temperature and metallicity, we find that the uncertainty from binarity
for the G-K dwarf sample is around $\pm$0.25 dex (see
Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}). At different signal-to-noise
ratios, the uncertainties in the primary sample are similar or larger
than those of the binaries. This implies that the effects of an
undetected secondary are minimal for measurements of $\log g$ in the
SSPP.
\subsection{[$\alpha$/Fe]}
Each of the models has a specified [$\alpha$/Fe] value defined by the
properties of the MARCS model atmospheres' metallicity and composition
model. As we are using the standard composition models, for
[Fe/H]=$-$0.5, [$\alpha$/Fe] is set to 0.20. For all our other
metallicities, [$\alpha$/Fe]=0.40. We compare the control group of
primaries to the [$\alpha$/Fe] determined by the SSPP in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_prim_alpha}. The spread of measurements for the
grid of synthetic primaries is large, with a mode of -0.075 dex and a
range from approximately $-$0.3 to 0.3. The addition of a synthetic
secondary shifts the mode to -0.025 with a spread of shifts that looks
more Gaussian for the grid of binaries (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:ssppcomp_hist_all}). A KS test indicates that the
distributions have a 60\% chance of being from the same parent sample.
Because we are spectroscopically blending pairs of the same metallicity
and composition (i.e. the primary and secondary have the same
[$\alpha$/Fe] values), we expect there to be little difference between
the parameters determined for the primaries and the blended binaries.
When we apply our grid of differences to the unbiased sample, we
calculate an uncertainty from binarity of around $\pm$0.10 dex (see
Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}). However the uncertainties
in the primary sample are comparable in size to those
of the binaries, indicating that binarity is not a dominant
uncertainty for measurements of [$\alpha$/Fe].
\subsection{Effects of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio}
It is possible that signal-to-noise ratio effects can diminish the
effect of a secondary. In particular, noise in the spectrum could
overwhelm any contributions from an undetected companion. We analyze
both the original infinite signal-to-noise synthetic spectra and also
degrade each model to a median signal-to-noise ($S/N$) of approximately
50, 25 and 10, covering the $S/N$ range of SEGUE's targets. A model of
the noise in SEGUE has been applied to high $S/N$ stellar spectra over a
range of spectral types to simulate spectra with signal-to-noise ratios
from 6 to 60 (C. Rockosi, private communication). Using these
realizations, we calculate the $S/N$ at each point in the spectrum. As
the noise patterns can potentially vary with spectral type, we match up
the SEGUE $S/N$ models to our synthetic spectra based on $(g-r)_0$
color. We then compute a value for the noise fluctuation at each point
in our model spectra based on the $S/N$ of the noise-modeled spectra. We
convolve this noise value with a Gaussian, and add it to our spectra
signal-to-noise ratios of 50, 25, and 10.
We run the degraded and infinite $S/N$ models of the control sample of
primaries and modeled binaries through the SSPP. To isolate the effect
an undetected secondary has on the parameter determination of the SSPP,
we compare the primary and pair values for each model at each $S/N$ (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:noisy}). We determine the difference between the primary
and pair values and compare these to the variance of the parameter in the
control group, isolating the effect of a blended secondary at different
$S/N$. As expected, as the $S/N$ decreases, the spread determined for
all atmospheric parameters increases. For $S/N>$10, the distributions
are quite similar, showing similar effects of binarity from a
signal-to-noise of $\sim$100 to 25. For $S/N$ of 10, the spread of
values increases greatly. With spectra this noisy, the SSPP accuracy
is already decreased significantly. With the spectral contribution of
an undetected secondary, it is even more difficult for the SSPP to
determine accurate atmospheric parameters.
Combining our numerical and synthetic spectra modeling at a range of
$S/N$, we have determined the amount of shifting in temperature and
metallicity for the confidence intervals, 68\%, 95\%, and 99\% of our
modeled SEGUE sample (see Table\,\ref{tab:signaltonoise}). Similar to
Fig.\,\ref{fig:noisy}, this table indicates that the distributions of
atmospheric parameter shifts are similar up until a $S/N$ of
10. Starting with the 1$\sigma$ interval, 68\% of the sample for the
entire range of $S/N$ is within $\sim$140 K, within the $S/N$=50
uncertainty of 150 K for the SSPP. Moving out to the 2$\sigma$ sample,
95\% of the modeled sample of $S/N=\infty$, 50, and 25 are within 230
K. However, 95\% of the modeled sample with $S/N=$10 are within 480 K, a
much greater number. This behavior is also seen for
metallicity. Similarly, we examined the mode and RMS of the shift for
the various median signal-to-noise ratios. The uncertainties for the
various atmospheric parameters tend to increase as the signal-to-noise
decreases (see Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}). This pattern
continues when we isolate the uncertainty of binarity alone from the
uncertainty from the synthetic spectra.
\section{Conclusions}
In this analysis, we have modeled samples of 100,000 binaries with
primaries from 0.5 to 1.0\,M$_\odot$\, and a variation of mass distributions
and metallicity, to better understand their effect as potential
contaminants of the SEGUE sample in the G-K dwarf range. Work by
\citet{dm91} established that around 65\% of F-G type stars have at
least one companion. Thus, understanding how undetected binaries affect
the atmospheric parameter determinations in SEGUE is crucial.
From our Monte Carlo analysis, we have determined that of a sample of
100,000 binaries, modeled using a range of mass distributions, on
average 90$\pm$1\% will appear spectroscopically or photometrically
blended in the SEGUE sample, i.e. the two stars will be within
3\arcsec\, of each other projected on the sky. Of all the pairs with G-K
type primaries, approximately 30$\pm$2\% of the sample of 100,000
binaries based on a $(g-r)_0$ color cut, $\sim$93\% are
blended.
To quantify the effect of an undetected secondary on the stellar
atmospheric parameters T$_{eff}$, [Fe/H], and $\log g$ determined for
the SEGUE spectra, we utilized a grid of synthetic spectra processed by
the SSPP. We quantified the systematic offsets between the synthetic
spectra parameters and those measured by the SSPP, which result from the
various approximations made in our spectral modeling. We then compared
the determinations for the blended pairs to those of the primaries to
quantify the effect of an undetected companion. Examining the
distribution of offsets at infinite $S/N$ shows that the majority of the
G-K sample is within the established SSPP errors for both temperature
and metallicity (see Table\,\ref{tab:temp_percent},
\,\ref{tab:feh_percent}). In particular, 82$\pm$7\% of blended pairs
with a G-K dwarf primary with $S/N$ of $\sim$50 are within the SSPP's
error of 150 K in temperature. For determinations of [Fe/H], 99$\pm$1\%
of these pairs have a measured metallicity that differs from that of the
primary by less than the established SSPP metallicity error of 0.24 dex.
Examining the modeled pairs, we find that very few are outliers in both
temperature and metallicity. Of the 53 synthesized pair spectra in the
G-K color range that are outliers in temperature or metallicity, only 3
are outliers in both estimates. Thus, we can assume that all outliers
in metallicity are independent of those in temperature, for a total of
$\sim$18$\pm$7\% of the G-K blended targets shifted a significant amount
in metallicity or temperature by an undetected secondary.
A search of SEGUE using CasJobs and based on the target selection
parameters extracted a data set of $\sim$20,000 G-K type dwarfs in the
sample. According to statistics from \citet{dm91}, 13,000 of these are
in binaries. Applying our numerical results, we conservatively assume
that 93\% of these G-K binaries are blended pairs. Thus, of a sample of
20,000 G-K stars, $\sim$12,000, or 60\%, are potentially affected in
SEGUE by a secondary companion. Using our spectroscopic analysis, we
can determine how many of this subsample are expected to have inaccurate
SSPP parameter determinations, due to their undetected companion. We
determined that 18$\pm$1\% of the G-K blends are shifted beyond the
expected uncertainties in temperature and/or metallicity in the SSPP by
the presence of a secondary, a total of $\sim$2000 SEGUE targets. Thus,
11$\pm$2\% of the entire G-K dwarf sample of high signal-to-noise will
be significantly affected by an undetected companion in its SSPP
temperature or metallicity determination. This 11$\pm$2\% sample will be
systematically shifted to cooler temperatures, and generally shifted
down in metallicity as well. The percentage affected is similar for a
$S/N$ of 50. For signal-to-noise of 25, the expected SSPP uncertainties
increase \citep{lee08_I}; $\sim$10\% are shifted outside the expected
uncertainties, similar to the value for $S/N$ of 50 and higher. This
percentage increases significantly for $S/N$ of 10. $\sim$40\% of the
G-K dwarf sample will be shifted outside the expected uncertainties in
temperature and/or metallicity at this signal-to-noise.
Beyond examining the percentage of targets pushed beyond the SSPP
uncertainties in various atmospheric parameters, we quantify the
uncertainties from our synthetic spectra individually and from the
undetected secondary. Both the systematic shift and additional spread
in each parameter must be taken into account when accounting for binary
contamination in the SEGUE sample. The most frequent shift and spread
values we derive for each $S/N$ we model are summarized in
Table\,\ref{tab:shifts_and_sigmas}. For $\log g$ and [$\alpha$/Fe] the
most frequent shifts are very small. The uncertainties in these
parameters for the primary and binary samples are similar in
size. Sometimes the uncertainty measured for the primary sample is even
larger than that of the secondaries. The small shifts and variation in
the $\sigma$ indicates that, for these two parameters, the uncertainties
due to binarity are minimal with respect to the general uncertainties in
determining the values themselves. For temperature and metallicity
however, binarity can increase the SSPP uncertainties in a well defined
way, with it systematically decreasing the measured temperature and
slightly affecting the measured [Fe/H]. Additionally, the shifts in
metallicity are quite small, while there are clear systematic shifts
down in temperature.
An additional concern about binary contamination was its effect on
target selection, as SEGUE uses photometric color cuts to extract
different spectral types. Our analysis indicates that approximately 93\%
of all primaries that are within the G-K dwarf color cut,
0.48$\leq$$(g-r)_0$$\leq$0.75, remain within this cut with the addition
of a secondary (see Table\,\ref{tab:numbers}). The most frequent shift
is merely 0.01$\pm$0.02 in $(g-r)_0$. Thus, the target selection effect
of undetected binaries is small, but not entirely absent.
Finally, it is important to understand the effect of these undetected
binaries on the metallicity distribution function (MDF) of the Milky
Way. As noted earlier, due to their long lifetimes, G and K dwarfs are
valuable for understanding the early conditions of the Galaxy. Although
the shifts in metallicity are in general small over the entire range of
[Fe/H]=$-$0.5 to $-$2.5 for the modeled pairs (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:delta_all}), when applied to the numerical models of
blended binaries in the G-K range, there is a tendency for lower
metallicity pairs to be shifted more in [Fe/H] (see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:fehhists}). Although the most frequent shift remains
small, there is increased spread in $\Delta$[Fe/H] with decreasing
metallicity. As it is more difficult to determine the metallicity for
low metallicity stars because their features are not as strong, we
expected there to be an increased spread at lower metallicity. This will
make the low-metallicity end of the MDF more uncertain. We can use
our binary modeling to better understand the size of the binary contamination
effect on the MDF.
Our examination of the effects of undetected secondaries in the SEGUE
sample has established that for $S/N >$10, only around 10\% of G-K dwarf
type stars will have their derived atmospheric parameters (T$_{eff}$,
[Fe/H]) shifted by more than the SSPP errors at that signal-to-noise due
to an undetected companion. Additionally, the added uncertainties are
insignificant for $\log g$ and [$\alpha$/Fe]. Primarily, secondaries
serve to decrease the effective temperatures measured for the primary by
the SSPP, while the measurements og metallicity not significantly
altered, likely due to the fact that this value should be the same for
both members of the pair.
\acknowledgements
K.S. and J.A.J acknowledge support from NSF grant AST-0807997. Y.S.L
and T.C.B. acknowledge partial support from grant PHY 08-22648: Physics
Frontiers Center/Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics (JINA),
awarded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Funding for the SDSS
and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and
the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is
http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the
Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University
of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval
Observatory, and the University of Washington.
|
\section{Introduction}
The absorption-line systems found in quasar/gamma-ray burst spectra, the
so-called "quasar absorption systems", provide us with a unique probe of galaxy
formation and evolution processes. The systems offer valuable opportunities to
explore the physical and chemical properties of inter-galactic media and/or
intervening galaxies (e.g., the amount of neutral gas and metals, the gas dynamics).
In particular, because the absorption feature provides
basic information about hydrogen gas which is a main component of galactic gas,
HI absorption systems have been studied extensively as means of placing
stringent constraints on galaxy formation and evolution.
Recently, radio surveys have provided large samples of HI-selected galaxies and
significantly improved our understanding of galaxy evolution.
The HI-selected galaxies have been explored
in blind surveys of the HI emissions, for example, the Slice Survey (SS; e.g.,
Spitzak \& Schneider 1998), the Arecibo Dual-Beam Survey(ADBS; e.g., Rosenberg \& Schneider
2000), the HI Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS; e.g., Zwaan et al. 2003; Meyer et al. 2004),
the HIDEEP survey (HIDEEP; e.g., Minchin et al. 2003), the HI Nearby Galaxy Survey
(THINGS; Walter et al. 2008), and the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA
survey (ALFALFA; e.g., Giovanelli et al. 2005).
These surveys result in an accurate measurement of the basic properties of galactic HI-gas
(e.g., the HI mass function, HIMF). When the HI-selected galaxies exist on a line of sight
to quasar/gamma-ray burst, the HI-selected galaxies can be
HI-absorption systems due to having the HI column densities
as high as those of HI absorption systems. In this paper, using a model of galaxy
formation, we aim to reveal the basic properties of HI
absorption systems by focusing on HI-selected galaxies in blind radio surveys.
Among the HI absorption systems,
damped Lyman $\alpha$ absorption (DLA) systems have been studied because
the high HI column densities ($N_{\rm HI} \geq 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$) are
considered to be
a good probe of an early stage of star formation processes. The origin of DLA systems
has been argued on the basis of the observational properties. It has been considered as,
for example, rapidly rotating gaseous disks of massive
spiral galaxies (e.g., Wolfe et al. 1986), gas-rich dwarf galaxies (e.g., York et al. 1986),
and so on.
Theoretical studies, utilizing numerical simulations and semi-analytic models, have been
tackled to revealing the nature of DLA systems and a relationship to galaxy population
\citep[e.g.][]{Katz96, Kau96, H98, G01, MPSP01, ONGY, ON05, N04, N07, JE06,
Raz06, Raz08, Po08, BH09, T09}.
Although the studies reproduce many properties of DLA systems, definite conclusion has not
been reached yet. For example,
at high redshifts ($z>2$), DLA systems have high number densities per unit redshift
(the incidence rate) $dN/dz$ and large velocity widths $\mathit{\Delta} V$ of the absorption lines.
Using models under an assumption that DLA systems arise mainly in galactic disks of
virialized halos,
the high number densities require large number of less massive galaxies. However,
the predicted velocity widths $\mathit{\Delta} V$ of absorption lines produced by
less massive systems appear to be smaller than the typical values of observed ones \citep{PW97}.
This suggests that the high number densities are also attributed to large cross sections
of the other population,
for example, extended gas that resides within/outside virial radii of halos, outflow gas
due to supernova explosions, tidal gas related to galaxy interactions, and so on.
At high redshifts, the mixed population, in addition to compact disks, may give rise to
damped Lyman $\alpha$ absorption lines.
There are the dedicated attempts to detect the host galaxies of DLA systems by optically
deep-imaging observations (e.g., Steidel et al. 1994, 1997; Le Brun
et al. 1997; Rao \& Turnshek 1998, 2000; Turnshek et al. 2001; Bouch$\rm \acute{e}$ et al. 2001;
Bowen, Tripp \& Jenkins 2001; Warren et al. 2001; M$\rm \o$ller et al. 2002, 2004; Fynbo
et al. 2003; Rao et al. 2003; Chen \& Lanzetta 2003; Lacy et al. 2003; Schulte-Ladbeck et
al. 2004; Chun et al. 2006; Gharanfoli et al. 2007).
A few cases of successful identifications suggest that the host galaxies of DLA
systems present mixed morphological types of galaxies.
However, in many cases, it is a challenging task to identify the host galaxies in the emission
of the optical surveys, because many host galaxies are very faint and/or very compact.
At low redshifts ($z<1$), it is expected that more DLA hosts can be identified even in the
case when their luminosities are low. In the observation,
for example, \citet{R03} have compiled data for host galaxies at low
redshifts ($z<1$). However, their sample size is still small ($\sim 14$).
They argued that the sample is dominated by galaxies with low-luminosities and small impact
parameters.
\citet{ON05} have theoretically investigated galaxies
having HI column densities as high as those of DLA systems (hereafter,
DLA galaxies) at low redshifts using a semi-analytic galaxy formation model.
We concluded that DLA galaxies consist primarily of low luminosity galaxies with small
sizes (typical radius $\sim 3$ $h^{-1}$kpc,
surface brightness in the $B$-band $22$ to $27$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$).
This result is consistent with the observations that, at low redshifts, DLA systems arise
primarily in galactic disks rather than tidal gas caused by galaxy interactions or gas
driven by galactic winds.
Moreover, in our conclusion,
(1) DLA galaxies have typical star formation rates (SFRs)
$\sim 10^{-2}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$
and (2) that the difficulty in identifying DLA galaxies is due not only to
their faintness but also to a {\it masking effect} which occurs when the point
spread function (PSF) of the respective background quasars masks the DLA galaxies.
We suggest that
$60\% -90 \%$ of DLA galaxies suffer from this masking effect.
Thus, DLA galaxies in the local universe significantly should consist of the optically-faint and
compact systems that require another approach to host galaxy detection in observations.
To understand DLA systems,
it is useful to investigate HI-selected galaxies detected
in radio surveys because they contain a large amount of neutral gas that potentially gives rise to
strong absorption lines when bright emission sources exist behind them.
The ADBS, HIPASS, and THINGS provide significantly large samples for DLA galaxies
compared to those of the optical counterparts of DLA systems
identified in the optical and near-infrared images at $0 \le z \le 1$ \citep[e.g.][]{R03}.
The large radio samples show interesting properties (e.g., HI cross-section and HI mass ) of
DLA galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Rao93, RS03, Ryan03, Z05b, Z08}.
Thus, the study of radio samples can offer {\it statistically} valuable information
about DLA galaxies and opportunities for exploring the evolution of DLA systems.
The advantage of using the radio samples is summarized as follows:
(1) the radio survey has no bias against optically low surface brightness galaxies
that may be missed by optical and near-infrared surveys,
(2) the identification process is free from the masking effect because
no bright sources are located behind them, and (3) the sample size is much larger
than those of DLA optical counterparts.
By employing our model for DLA galaxies, we investigate the number of HI-selected galaxies
that can be DLA galaxies. Next, we focus on the optical properties (e.g., SFR ) of DLA galaxies
to explore how DLA galaxies should be detected in optical surveys. Finally, we investigate
the number of HI-selected galaxies that can be host galaxies of other
quasar absorption systems such as sub-DLA systems that exhibit HI column
densities lower than those of DLA systems. This study of HI-selected galaxies offers
valuable opportunities for exploring the low-redshift end of the evolution of DLA and
sub-DLA systems. \\
In Section 2, we describe our models used in this paper. In Section 3, we argue a relationship
between the HI-selected galaxies and DLA galaxies.
In Section 4, we investigate the optical/infrared properties of the HI-selected galaxies
and DLA galaxies. In Section 5, we focus on another
population of absorption systems, namely sub-DLA systems, and argue how they
contribute to the local galaxy population. In Section 6, we derive several
implications from our results. Finally, we draw our conclusion in Section 7.
\section{Model}
We employ a semi analytic model of galaxy formation for DLA galaxies
\citep[][hereafter Paper I]{ONGY}. It has been shown that
this model accounts for the observational properties of local galaxies, such as luminosity
functions and cold gas mass fractions \citep{NTGY}. Previously, we have shown that
our model of DLA galaxies reproduces several optical/near-IR observations for the host
galaxies of DLA systems at low redshift $z < 1$ \citep[][hereafter Paper II]{ON05}.
We have also found a tight correlation between cross sections and
HI masses of DLA galaxies entirely consistent
with the ADBS result \citep{RS03}. In this paper, we adopt almost the same model as
in Paper II and investigate DLA galaxies at redshift $z=0$ by comparing
radio and optical properties between DLA galaxies and HI-selected galaxies.
The outline of this model is described as follows.
We adopt a standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with parameters,
$\Omega_{0}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.015h^{-2}$,
$h=0.7$ (where $h \equiv H_{0}/100$ km s$^{-1}$ is the Hubble parameter), and
$\sigma_{8}=1$, the normalization of the power spectrum of density fluctuations given
by \citet{BBKS}. The number of progenitors
of a dark halo is given by an extended Press-Schechter model. The mass function at
$z=0$ is provided by the Press-Schechter mass function \citep{PS74, BCEK, B91,
LC93}. The realizations of progenitor histories are computed by the method developed
by \citet{SK99}. We focus on halos with circular velocity $V_{\rm circ} \ge 30$ km s$^{-1}$
because we assume that less massive systems ($V_{\rm circ} \le 30$ km s$^{-1}$) correspond
to diffuse accretion masses. The main difference from the previous model is a value adopted
for the threshold on the accretion mass, $V_{\rm circ,th}$; $V_{\rm circ,th}$ $= 40$ km
s$^{-1}$ in Papers I and II.
We assume that baryonic gas comprises cold and hot phases. When a halo collapses, halo
gas is assumed to be shock-heated to the virial temperature of the halo and distributed
in a singular isothermal sphere ({\it hot gas}). The gas component partly cools by
radiative cooling processes. The cooled gas is called `{\it cold gas}'. Here we use a
metallicity-dependent cooling function (Sutherland \& Dopita 1993). After the cold gas
falls onto a central region of the halo, stars are formed from the cold gas.
The SFR is assumed to be $\dot{M}_{*}=M_{\rm cold}/\tau_{*}$,
where $M_{*}$ and $M_{\rm cold}$ are the masses of stars and cold gas, respectively,
and $\tau_{*}$ is the timescale of star formation. We simply assume that the SFRs are
constant in the galactic disks. Following our previous models, we assume the timescale
of star formation; $\tau_{*} = \tau_{*}^{0}(V_{\rm circ}/V_{*})^{\alpha_{*}}$.
In Papers I and II, we found that, to account for several observational properties of the DLA hosts,
$\tau_{*}$ should be constant with redshift and dependent on the circular velocity
$V_{\rm circ}$ of the halos hosting DLAs, i.e., ($\alpha_{*}$, $V_{*}$)=($-2$, $300$
km s$^{-1}$). Here we determine the parameters ($\alpha_{*}$, $V_{*}$) by matching
the HI mass function to those that have been observed. Initially, we adopt a set of parameters
($\alpha_{*}$, $V_{*}$)=($-2$, $300$ km s$^{-1}$)
and $\tau_{*}^{0}=1.5$ Gyr, the same set as used for the previous model
(Constant Star formation model) in Papers I and II.
Moreover, we also consider another model for star formation,
adopting a different set of parameters ($\alpha_{*}$, $V_{*}$). Assuming that the star
formation timescale $\tau_{*} \propto V_{\rm circ}^{\alpha_{*}}$, adopting small
(large negative) values of $\alpha_{*}$ indicates that the star formation timescales are
longer in less massive
galaxies. This leads less massive galaxies to have lower SFRs and then
produces high number densities of low $M_{\rm HI}$ galaxies. Here we employ a
model in which the star formation rates are low in less massive systems by adopting
$\alpha_{*}=-3$. Hereafter, we call the two models: High Star formation (HS) model
with $\alpha_{*}=-2$ and Low Star formation (LS) model with $\alpha_{*}=-3$.
The normalizations of the star formation timescale,
(${\tau_{*}}^{0}$, $V_{*}$)=($1.5$ Gyr, $300$ km s$^{-1}$), are
identical for both models.
Supernova feedback processes are incorporated in this model. The rate of reheating
by supernova feedback is assumed to be $\dot{M}_{\rm reheat}=\beta \dot{M_{*}}$.
Because the feedback process should affect the physical condition of
the gas more drastically in less massive galaxies, we assume that
$\beta=(V_{\rm circ}/V_{\rm hot})^{-\alpha_{\rm hot}}$, where the parameter sets,
($V_{\rm hot}$, $\alpha_{\rm hot}$)=($240$ km s$^{-1}$, $2.5$)
\footnote{
We here adopt a parameter $V_{\rm hot} = 240$ km s$^{-1}$ slightly smaller than
$280$ km s$^{-1}$ adopted in Papers I and II because this better matches the
observational data of HI mass functions as presented below. We have confirmed that
this makes little difference to our previous results in Papers I and II.
}
for the HS model
and ($320$ km s$^{-1}$, $2.5$) for the LS model, are required to
account for the observed optical luminosity functions of local galaxies.
The results for optical luminosity functions are argued in Section 3.
We include the merging of galaxies in this model. In our model, when two or more
dark halos merge, the central galaxy in the largest progenitor halo becomes the new
central one. The other galaxies become satellites dwelling in the largest halo of the
central galaxy.
We assume that the merging of {\it galaxies} in a common halo occurs due to two types
of mechanisms: dynamical friction and random collision. When satellite galaxies merge with
the central one, the merging occurs on the dynamical friction timescale.
In the merging of satellites, they collide randomly within the mean-free timescale.
After the merging of two galaxies (e.g., A and B), a starburst occurs and all
cold gas is consumed by the star formation if the mass ratio, $m_{\rm A}/m_{\rm B}$
($m_{\rm B}>m_{\rm A}$), is larger than
$f_{\rm bulge}$ ({\it major merger}). Otherwise, no star formation activity occurs when
the mass ratio is smaller than $f_{\rm bulge}$ ({\it minor merger}).
In this paper, we adopt $f_{\rm bulge}=0.5$ in the same way as in Papers I
and II.
We address the definition of the size and the HI column density of a DLA galaxy.
In this model, the radial distribution of the HI column density follows an exponential
profile with an effective radius of a gaseous disk, $r_{\rm e}$, obtained by assuming
the specific
angular momentum conservation of the cooling hot gas. The dimensionless spin parameter
of dark halos has a log-normal distribution with an average of $0.06$ and a logarithmic
variance of $0.6$. Using the above assumptions, we calculate the following quantities.
The first is
the central column density provided by $N_{\rm 0}=M_{\rm cold}/(2 \pi \mu m_{\rm H}
r_{\rm e}^{2})$, where $m_{\rm H}$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom and $\mu(=1.3)$ is the
mean molecular weight. In this procedure, in order to take into account the inclination,
$\mu_{\rm inc} = \cos \theta$ of gaseous disks in each galaxy, we create random
realizations of the inclinations, and then calculate the cross section and the column density.
The second is the size of a DLA galaxy defined by a radius $R$ where
$N_{\rm HI} = 2 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$. Here we adopt the conventional
threshold for the HI column density of DLA systems.
The third is the HI column density of a DLA galaxy, which is defined as the column density
averaged over radius within $R$.
\section{HI-selected Galaxies and DLA Galaxies}
First, we present the optical luminosity function and
the HI mass function (HIMF) of local galaxies provided by the optical and
the radio surveys.
These properties are strong indicators used to probe the physical conditions of
nearby galaxies with statistically significant confidence because,
for the optical luminosity function, the sample size of the Sloan Digital Sky
Survey (SDSS)
is quite large, more than 30,000 (Blanton et al. 2005), and, for the HIMF,
the sample size from the HIPASS is about $4000$ (Zwaan et al. 2005a) .
\subsection{Luminosity Function}
In Figure 1, we show the luminosity function at redshift
$z=0$. Figure 1(a) shows the $B$-band luminosity function of galaxies
(solid line) in the $r$ band for the HS model. The observational data are given
by the SDSS Data Release 2
(filled circles; Blanton et al. 2005).
We set the supernova feedback-related parameters, $\alpha_{\rm hot}$ and
$V_{\rm hot}$, so as
to account for the faint-end slope of luminosity function that is sensitive to
the supernova feedback because it predominantly suppresses the
formation of dwarf and faint galaxies.
It appears
that the abundance of bright galaxies ($M_{\rm r} \la -20$) is slightly higher
than the observation. This is partly because, for simplicity, we adopt total magnitudes
instead of the Petrosian magnitudes that the SDSS team uses. This makes simulated galaxies
more luminous than the observed ones.
In Figure 1(b), we show the $r$-band luminosity function of galaxies
(solid~line) for the LS model.
The LS model reproduces the faint-end slope of the luminosity
function. However, the abundance of bright galaxies, particularly at
$M_{\rm r} \sim -20$, is slightly lower than that for the HS model that reproduces
the observation.
For the LS model, by adopting $V_{\rm hot}= 320$ km s$^{-1}$ instead of
$240$ km s$^{-1}$ used for the HS model, the reheating rate by supernova feedback is
higher than that for the HS model.
The supernova feedback suppresses the formation of bright galaxies more drastically
than the HS model.
In Figures 1( a) and 1(b), we also show the optical luminosity functions of {\it
DLA galaxies} (dashed lines) for the HS and LS models, respectively.
Here, `DLA galaxies' are selected by a criterion where
the gaseous disks exhibit HI column densities above the threshold,
$N_{\rm HI} = 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$, while `galaxies' are defined without any thresholds
on the HI column density. The shapes of luminosity
functions of DLA galaxies are similar to those of galaxies in the whole range of the observed
magnitudes, indicating that many (bright and faint) galaxies have gaseous
disks with HI column densities large enough to give rise to damped Ly$\alpha$
absorption lines when they are on a line of sight to the background
quasar. In other words, the low-redshift DLA systems arise not only in bright
$L^{*}$ galaxies but also in faint ones.
\subsection{HI mass function}
The HI mass function (HIMF) is one of the most important statistical properties of local
galaxies. While the optical luminosity function describes the distribution of stellar mass,
the HIMF describes the distribution of cold gas mass. The HIMF has an advantage
in terms of the ability to trace the HI-mass distribution of galaxies even in the
case where the optical luminosities are too faint to identify in optical surveys.
Figure 2(a) shows the HIMF of galaxies for the HS model (solid line).
The predicted HIMF
is similar to a Schechter-type function. Blind 21cm surveys have shown that
HI-selected galaxies follow an HIMF, $\theta$, that can be well fitted by a Schechter
function with a faint-end slope $\alpha$, $\theta \propto M_{\rm HI}^{\alpha}$,
e.g., for the HIPASS sample, $\alpha=-1.37$ in the mass range
$10^{7.2} \le M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot} \le 10^{10.7}$ \citep{Z05a}. However, because the
survey fields and/or the sample sizes are different, the slopes of HIMFs still
appear to differ from survey to survey (e.g., $\alpha=-1.1$ to $-1.6$).
This may be due to environmental effects in which the slope depends on the
local galaxy density. Taking into account this
uncertainty, we present the range of HIMFs provided by various blind surveys
(the shaded region; Henning et al. 2000; Springob, Haynes \& Giovanelli 2005;
Rosenberg \& Schneider
2002, 2003; Zwaan et al. 1997, 2003, 2005a), together with
some individual data for the HIMF (open squares, Rosenberg \& Schneider 2002; filled circles, Zwaan et al. 2005a).
The HS model produces an abundance of galaxies within the range of the observational
data. Particularly at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{9}-10^{9.5}$ $M_{\odot}$
where the sample size provided by the HIPASS is the largest in the number density
(Zwaan et al. 2005a, 2005b), our result is consistent with the observations.
However, in the low-mass end,
the predicted abundance is somewhat lower than the HIPASS observations.
Although the small observational
sample at $M_{\rm HI} < 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ accounts for some uncertainties in the
low-mass end, for the HS model, the underprediction is mainly due to the
high star formation rates suppressing the formation of low $M_{\rm HI}$
galaxies.
In Figure 2(b), we show the HIMF for the LS model (solid~line).
The LS model also produces a good match to the observations.
In comparison to the data range of number densities $\theta$
at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{9}$ $M_{\odot}$, the LS model produces
an abundance of galaxies corresponding to upper
limit of observed number densities, while the HS model produces one corresponding to lower limit.
In Figure 2, we also show the HIMFs of {\it DLA galaxies}
(dashed~lines). For the HS and the LS models, the HIMFs of DLA galaxies
are obviously similar to those of galaxies
(in Figure 2(b), the HIMF is almost identical to those of galaxies). This result
suggests that, in the radio blind surveys,
the HI-selected galaxies mostly have
gaseous disks with the HI column densities as high as those of DLA systems.
However, it should be noted that for the HS model, we find that the number densities
of DLA galaxies are somewhat smaller than those of galaxies at the low-mass end.
This shows that all galaxies do not
have gaseous disks with HI column densities that are above the DLA threshold.
\subsection{Cold gas mass to $B$-band Luminosity}
In Figure 3, we show the ratios of cold gas mass relative to the $B$-band
luminosity of spiral galaxies for the HS (solid line) and the LS (dashed
line) models, respectively. Symbols indicate the observations provided by
Huchtmeier \& Richter (1988; filled circles), Sage (1993; open circles),
and Garnett (2002; open squares). The HI-selected galaxies from the HIPASS
are also included; Koribalski et al. (2004; shaded region) and Warren, Jerjen \&
Koribalski (2006; filled triangles). The HIPASS data from Koribalski et al.
(2004) represent {\it the shaded region} because the sample size is large. The cold gas masses given by the HIPASS and Huchtmeier \& Richter (1988) include only HI.
The results for the HS and LS models show that faint galaxies have large mass fractions of
cold gas. The mass fractions of faint galaxies for the LS model are larger than
those for the HS model
because the star formation timescales are longer in faint galaxies. Our result shows
that the predicted cold gas mass fractions are within the range of observational
data. However, taking into account the addition of the HIPASS data,
the cold gas mass fraction was still unable to constrain the star formation
timescale because the range of observed data spans one or two orders of magnitude,
particularly at the faint end. When the samples of faint galaxies increase in the
future, the ratio $M_{\rm HI}/L_{\rm B}$ of faint galaxies ($M_{\rm B} \ga -16 $)
will constrain the star formation rates more stringently.
\subsection{Number Fraction}
For the purpose of evaluating more precisely how many DLA galaxies contribute to
the galaxy population, in Figure 4, we present number fractions of DLA galaxies
as a function of HI mass $M_{\rm HI}$. The number fraction at each bin of HI mass
is defined as a ratio of the number densities of DLA galaxies relative to those of galaxies
per bin of HI mass. The result for the HS model (solid line) shows that the number
fractions are almost unity at $M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ , which suggests
a trend that the gaseous disks of massive galaxies do have high enough HI column densities
to give rise to damped Ly$\alpha$ absorption lines if a background bright
emission source exists along a line of sight. Noticeably, in the low-mass range
$M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$, the number fractions begin to decrease toward
the low-mass end, e.g., $\sim 0.7$ at $10^{7.5} M_{\odot}$ and $\sim 0.6$ at $10^{7}
M_{\odot}$. We find that, {\it at $M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$, the number
distribution of DLA galaxies is not identical to that of galaxies}. This indicates
that the small amount of HI gas contained in the less massive systems does not
have high enough HI column densities to detect as DLA systems.
For the HS model, at the low-mass end, another population becomes dominant
instead of DLA galaxies. The population at the low-mass end is argued in
Section 5.
The number fractions for the LS model are also shown in Figure 4 (dashed line).
While the number fractions are almost unity at $M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8} M_{\odot}$,
they begin to decrease gradually toward the low-mass end ($M_{\rm HI} < 10^{8} M_{\odot}$).
In comparison to the result for the HS model, the SFRs of less massive galaxies
are low for the LS model. The low SFRs make the HI column densities of
low-$M_{\rm HI}$ galaxies as high as those of DLA systems. This increase
in HI column density causes the number fractions of DLA galaxies to be large
even at the low-mass end $M_{\rm HI} < 10^{8} M_{\odot}$.
The differences between the
numbers of DLA galaxies and galaxies are not as large as those for the HS model.
However, for the LS model, we find a trend similar to one for the HS model,
in which not all galaxies correspond to DLA galaxies at the low-mass end
(e.g., number fraction $\sim 0.9$ at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{6} M_{\odot}$).
\section{Optical Properties of HI-selected Galaxies}
Here, we investigate the difference between galaxies and DLA galaxies through
the optical/infrared properties of HI-selected galaxies.
It should be noted that galaxies
in our calculation are volume-limited, whereas the observed HI-selected galaxies
are not volume-limited but flux-limited .
To draw a detailed comparison between them, attention needs to be paid to the difference
in the selection criteria. This is an issue that deserves further investigation.
In Figure 5, we show the predicted distribution of galaxies and DLA galaxies
in the plane of the HI mass and the luminosity by contours
for the HS model. In Figure 5(a), we present the $J$-band
luminosities of the galaxies by contours, together with the observational
data (filled circles, Rosenberg \& Schneider 2000; open circles,
Spitzak \& Schneider 1998). Our result
is broadly consistent with the observations. In the blind surveys, it has
been investigated whether the HI-selected galaxies
exhibit a correlation between the HI mass and the $J$-band luminosity
\citep{RS03, RS05}. Although our result indicates that
at $M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$
there is a correlation between the luminosities in the $J$ band and the HI masses,
there is no linear relationship between $\log$ $L_{\rm J}$ and $\log$ $M_{\rm HI}$.
The abundance of less massive galaxies ($M_{\rm HI}$ $<$ $10^8$ $M_{\odot}$)
in the $L_{\rm J}$-$M_{\rm HI}$ plane severely depends on formation processes of
less massive galaxies. In our model, we treat halos
with $V_{\rm circ} < V_{\rm circ,th}=30$ km s$^{-1}$ as a diffuse accretion mass.
We assume that a suppression of galaxy formation within halos with the circular
velocities less than $V_{\rm circ,th}$ occurs mainly due to the ionizing
background radiation. The presence of the ionizing radiation prevents the gas from
collapsing into a dark halo because the radiation raises the temperature and pressure
of the gas. As a result of previous studies using hydrodynamic simulations,
the suppression mechanism should be large in low-mass halos with
$V_{\rm circ} \la 30-60$ km s$^{-1}$ (e.g., Thoul \& Weinberg 1996;
Quinn, Katz \& Efstathiou 1996; Weinberg,
Hernquist \& Katz 1997; Navarro \& Steinmetz 1997; Gnedin 2000; Bullock, Kravtsov \&
Weinberg 2000; Kitayama \& Ikeuchi 2000; Hoeft et al. 2006; Okamoto, Gao, \& Theuns 2008).
The suppression of galaxy formation in the
low-mass halos with $V_{\rm circ} < V_{\rm circ,th}=30$ km s$^{-1}$ reduces
the number densities of less massive galaxies. This directly affects the shape of
the luminosity function of galaxies by making a shallower faint-end slope
\citep{N99,S02,B02}. In the $L_{\rm J}$-$M_{\rm HI}$ plane, the luminosity
distribution, particularly at the faint end,
also depends sensitively on $V_{\rm circ,th}$. If the suppression threshold,
$V_{\rm circ, th} < 30$ km s$^{-1}$, the abundance of faint galaxies
( $L_{\rm J} \la 10^{8} L_{\odot}$) shows a significant increase.
The abundance of less massive galaxies is a potentially useful probe that places
constraints on $V_{\rm circ,th}$.
In Figure 5(b), we show the number distributions of DLA galaxies in the
$L_{\rm J}$-$M_{\rm HI}$ plane by contour lines for the HS model. The $J$-band
luminosities are broad and span approximately four orders of magnitude, $10^{7}$
to $10^{11}$ $L_{\odot}$ at $M_{\rm HI}$ $\sim 10^{9}$ $M_{\odot}$.
The luminosity distribution of DLA galaxies does not significantly differ from that of
galaxies (Figure 5(a)). We find that, for each bin of HI mass
($M_{\rm HI}$ $\ga $ $10^{8}M_{\odot}$),
the averaged luminosities $L_{\rm J}$ of galaxies match those of DLA galaxies
within one $\sigma$ of error. The main reason is that most galaxies have gaseous
disks where the HI column densities above the DLA threshold,
particularly at $M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ (see Figure 4).
In Figure 6, for the LS model, we plot the abundances of galaxies
(Figure 6(a)) and DLA galaxies (Figure 6(b)) in the plane of the HI mass and
the $J$-band luminosity.
In Figure 6(a), our result is consistent with the observations, particularly
at $M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{9} M_{\odot}$. It is evident that the number distributions
in the $M_{\rm HI}$-$L_{\rm J}$ planes show no difference between DLA galaxies and
galaxies because most galaxies correspond to DLA galaxies for the LS model as shown in
Figure 4.
Both models successfully reproduce the observed abundance of galaxies at the bright end of
$J$-band luminosities ($L_{\rm J} \sim 10^{10} L_{\odot} $).
However, our models produce wide spreads at the faint end
($L_{\rm J} \la 10^{8} L_{\odot} $) in the $M_{\rm HI}$-$L_{\rm J}$ planes.
Thus, the wide spreads cannot put stringent constraints on the star formation rates.
Figures 5(c) and 6(c) show the $B$-band luminosity distributions of galaxies
as a function of HI mass for the HS and LS models, respectively. Obviously, the
$B$-band luminosity correlates with the HI mass more tightly than the $J$-band
luminosity because the $B$-band luminosity is more acutely sensitive to the SFR than
the $J$-band luminosity. In observations, this correlation has been suggested by a survey
for optical counterparts of the HI-selected samples. For example, \citet{D05} found
the optical counterparts of $\sim 84 \%$ among
the sample of $\sim 4300$ HI-selected galaxies. They argued that
there is a clear trend that more luminous galaxies have higher radio fluxes. This is
consistent with our result. The results can be of great interest in comparing the radio properties
of nearby galaxies to the optical (e.g., the $B$-band ) ones.
Furthermore, we focus on a relationship between SFRs and HI masses in galaxies.
In our model, the SFR is proportional to the cold mass with a typical
timescale $\tau_{*}$ as $\dot{M}_{*}=M_{\rm cold}/\tau_{*}$. This means that the
star formation timescale is induced directly from the slope of the
SFR-$M_{\rm HI}$ relation. Figure 7
shows the SFRs in galaxies as a function of HI mass. Figure 7(a) presents the
averages of SFRs in galaxies with one $\sigma$ error bars for the HS model (red
solid-line) and the LS model (blue solid-line), respectively.
It is evident that massive galaxies exhibit high SFRs. When this relation SFR
$\propto$ $M_{\rm HI}^{\alpha}$ is fitted by averaged least squares, we find the
slope $\alpha=1.25 \pm 0.05$ (the HS model) and $1.40 \pm 0.07$ (the LS model) in the range
of HI mass $10^{6} \le M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot} \le 10^{11}$. Moreover, we also show
the SFRs in DLA galaxies as a function of HI mass for the HS model (red dashed-line)
and the LS model (blue dashed-line), respectively. The average SFRs in DLA galaxies
are almost identical to those in galaxies. The LS model predicts
the SFRs lower than the HS model because, for the LS model, the star formation timescales
are longer particularly for less massive galaxies.
Surveys for emission lines from nearby galaxies have been attempted to investigate
the star formation activity. For example, the emission-line images in the H$\alpha$ band
provide valuable measurements of the ionizing flux against the interstellar medium (ISM)
and of the SFRs in the ISM (e.g., Kennicutt 1983, 1998, and references therein). Because large samples of HI-selected
galaxies obtained from the blind radio surveys have become available, some optical surveys have
aimed to detect the H$\alpha$ emissions from the HI-selected galaxies. For example, the
Survey for Ionization in Neutral Gas Galaxies (SINGG) focuses on detecting the H$\alpha$
emissions from the HIPASS galaxies (e.g., Meurer et al. 2006, and references therein).
The SFRs of $\sim 90$ galaxies are successfully estimated by the H$\alpha$ images of the
HIPASS samples.
In Figure 7(b), we plot a contour map between the SFR and the HI mass in galaxies for
the LS model. The SFRs range widely from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{2}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ in
the mass range $10^{7} \la M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot} \la 10^{10.5}$. Together with the SFRs
based on the SINGG (filled circles; Meurer et al. 2006), we also show the SFRs
determined from the intensities of infrared (red dotted box) and radio (green
dotted box) emissions from the HIPASS galaxies: HIPASS Optical Catalogue (HOPCAT; Doyle
\& Drinkwater 2006). Furthermore, the SFRs in low surface brightness galaxies based on
the optical and infrared imaging data are also plotted individually (open circles,
van Zee et al. 1997; filled triangles, O'Neil, Oey, \& Bothun 2007; and filled
squares, Rahman et al. 2007).
Our result is consistent with the observations because the scatter is similar to those
in the observations for the wide range of the HI masses.
At low-mass end $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7}$ $M_{\odot}$,
our model would be constrained more
stringently by further observational measurements of the SFRs in less massive galaxies.
This contour map also shows that
the scatter of the SFR is generally smaller than those in the $J$-band luminosity.
We conclude that, {\it including the less massive galaxies
($M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$),
the HI mass correlates with the SFR, e.g., the $H \alpha$ luminosity
more tightly than the $J$-band luminosity}. We also show the result of a direct measurement
of SFR, $\sim 10^{-2.2} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, in the nearest galaxy
($M_{\rm HI}\sim 10^{9.2} M_{\odot}$ at $z=0.009$) giving rise to a damped Ly$\alpha$
absorption line (cross; Schulte-Ladbeck et al. 2004). We find that our prediction
is consistent with the SFR in the DLA galaxy that is also within the range of
the SFRs obtained from the HIPASS sample.
The $J$-band luminosities in the $M_{\rm HI}$-$L_{\rm J}$ planes (Figures 5 and 6)
show scatters larger than the SFRs in the SFR-$M_{\rm HI}$ plane (Figure 7(b)).
This stems from the fact that the $J$-band luminosity is sensitive to the {\it stellar mass} rather
than the HI mass. Galaxies have a variety of stellar masses even if they have the same amount of HI gas.
Therefore, the variety of the stellar masses produces
substantial scatters of the $J$-band luminosity, as shown in the
$M_{\rm HI}$-$L_{\rm J}$ planes. Furthermore,
the $B$-band luminosity correlates with the HI mass more tightly than
the $J$-band (Figures 5(c) and 6(c)) because
the $B$-band luminosity is more sensitive to the {\it SFR} than the $J$-band
luminosity.
Figure 8(a) shows the distribution functions of galaxies as a function of the logarithmic SFR
for the HS model (solid line) and the LS model (dashed line) .
It is obvious that the SFRs range
widely from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{2} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. We find the mean values
of the logarithmic SFRs $\langle \log$ SFR [$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}] \rangle$ $\sim -3.2$
for the HS model and $\sim -3.5$ for the LS model. For the LS model,
the number fractions of galaxies with low SFRs (e.g., $\sim 10^{-4}$
$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) are higher than those for the HS model, because the star formation
timescales for the LS model are relatively long in less massive systems. This result suggests
that less massive galaxies with low SFRs ($\la 10^{-2}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) are
numerically dominant.
Figure 8(b) shows the distribution functions of galaxies as a function
of the logarithmic SFR per unit area for the HS model (solid line) and
the LS model (dashed line). The difference between the two models
is clearer than that shown in Figure 8(a). The LS model obviously predicts
smaller SFRs per unit area than the HS model. The mean values of
the logarithmic SFRs per unit area in units of $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$
are $-3.43$ for the HS model and $-3.74$ for the LS model.
When the large sample of SFRs per unit area in the HI-selected galaxies
becomes available, in addition to the SFRs, the SFRs per unit area
are a good probe of star formation activities.
\section{HI-selected Galaxies and Sub-DLA systems}
We focus on HI-rich systems that contribute to the galaxy population at the low-mass
end and make further implications concerning the relationship between the HI-selected
galaxies and quasar absorption systems. In general, quasar absorption systems optically thick
against ionizing photons are classified into three morphological types: DLA system
($N_{\rm HI} \ge 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$), sub-DLA system ($10^{19} < N_{\rm HI}
< 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$), and Lyman-limit system ($N_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$).
The sub-DLA system gives rise to HI absorption lines with strong damping wings in quasar
spectra in a manner similar to DLA systems. From aspects of the study of physical
and chemical processes in gas optically thick against the ionizing radiation background,
sub-DLA systems are also of particular interest. In recent studies, the basic properties
of sub-DLA systems have been explored in comparison with those of DLA systems
(e.g., P{$\rm \acute{e}$}roux et al. 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007;
Dessauges-Zavadsky et al. 2003; Christensen et al. 2005; Tripp et al. 2005;
Briggs \& Barnes 2006; Prochaska et al. 2006; York et al. 2006; Khare et al. 2007;
Kulkarni et al. 2007; O'Meara et al. 2007; Meiring et al. 2007, 2008).
These studies offer several interesting
findings; e.g., (1) sub-DLA systems are more abundant than DLA systems.
The number density of sub-DLA systems observed in each column-density bin is obviously
higher than that of DLA systems at a given redshift; (2) the metallicities of
sub-DLA systems are higher than those of DLA systems; and (3) the metallicity evolution
is positive: an increase in metallicity with decreasing
redshift, from $1/100 Z_{\odot}$ at $z \sim 4.5$ to $\sim 1/3 Z_{\odot}$ at
$z \sim 0.5$ ( P{$\rm \acute{e}$}roux et al. 2003, 2007).
Here, we argue how the galaxies, in which the HI column densities are as high as
those of sub-DLA systems, contribute to the galaxy population at redshift $z=0$.
In Figure 4, we showed the number fractions of DLA galaxies relative to galaxies.
Our result shows that the number fractions of DLA galaxies obviously decrease toward
the low-mass end. This indicates that another population contributes to the local galaxy
population. We refer to galaxies having gaseous disks that exhibit HI column densities,
$10^{19} < N_{\rm HI} < 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$, corresponding to those of
sub-DLA systems as {\it sub-DLA galaxies}.
In our model, the size of a sub-DLA galaxy is given by the radius $R$ where
$N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$. The HI column density of a sub-DLA galaxy is
defined as the HI column density averaged over the radius within $R$.
It has been argued that HI gaseous disks are truncated at a
column density of $\sim 10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ (e.g., Maloney 1993; Corbelli and
Salpter 1993). The truncated column density depends roughly on the number density
$n$ and the flux of the ionizing photons $\phi_{\rm i}$. It is simply estimated as
$N_{\rm th} \sim 8 \times 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($\phi_{\rm i}/10^{-4}$ cm$^{-2}$
s$^{-1}$)($n/10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$)$^{-1}$ under a gas temperature of $10^{4}$ K,
which is consistent with the column densities of sub-DLA systems.
Therefore, sub-DLA galaxies having the gaseous disks with $N_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{19}$
cm$^{-2}$ provide us with useful information about the physical condition for
gas in the outer part of galactic disks and for surroundings of disks.
\subsection{Number Fraction}
In Figure 9(a), we show the number fractions of sub-DLA galaxies relative to galaxies
per bin of HI mass for the HS model (solid line) and the LS model
(dashed line). The number fraction at each bin of HI mass is defined as a ratio of
the number density of sub-DLA galaxies relative to that of galaxies per bin of HI mass.
In contrast to DLA galaxies, the number fractions of sub-DLA galaxies increase toward
the low-mass end, particularly for the HS model. Sub-DLA galaxies are dominant at the low-mass
end while DLA galaxies are dominant at the high-mass end. For the HS model the number
fractions attain $60 \%$ at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ and $80 \%$ at
$M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$, respectively. For sub-DLA galaxies, we find that
the mean HI gas mass $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle$ $= 1.7 \times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$,
the mean logarithmic HI-mass $\langle \log (M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot}) \rangle = 6.4$,
and the cross section weighted mean HI mass $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle$
$= 7.8 \times 10^{9} M_{\odot}$ , while for DLA galaxies
$\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle = 5.6 \times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$,
$\langle \log (M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot}) \rangle= 7.7$,
and the cross section weighted $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle$
$= 8.2 \times 10^{9} M_{\odot}$ .
The results indicate that sub-DLA galaxies are primarily composed of less massive galaxies
rather than DLA galaxies. It should be noted that, in our result, some systems
are identified not only as DLA galaxies but also as sub-DLA galaxies
because the gaseous disks having central column densities higher than the DLA
threshold of $10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$ extend to the edge at which $N_{\rm HI}$ is
as low as the sub-DLA threshold of $10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$. This causes a case where, in
a bin of HI mass, the sum of the number fractions for DLA and sub-DLA galaxies is not unity
(Figures 4 and 9( a)).
For the LS model, at $M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{9} M_{\odot}$, the number fractions of sub-DLA
galaxies are lower than those for the HS model, $ \sim 40 \%$ at
$M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ and $ \sim 30 \%$ at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$.
The LS model predicts, for sub-DLA galaxies, the mean HI gas mass $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle$
$= 2.2 \times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$, the mean logarithmic HI-mass
$\langle \log (M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot}) \rangle = 7.3$,
and the cross section weighted mean HI mass $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle$
$= 6.3 \times 10^{9} M_{\odot}$ ,
while, for DLA galaxies, $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle = 2.9 \times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$,
$\langle \log (M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot}) \rangle= 7.4$,
and the cross section weighted $\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle$
$= 4.3 \times 10^{9} M_{\odot}$ .
The main reason for the difference between the number fractions for the models is that,
for the LS model, the SFRs are relatively low in less massive systems. As shown
in Figure 8(b), the high SFRs for the HS model result in higher surface densities of stars
compared to the LS model. This means that the consumption of neutral gas by star formation
result in a decrease in the HI-column density. This, in turn, increases the number fraction of
sub-DLA galaxies particularly at the low-mass end. We want to emphasize that, even for the LS model,
the number fractions are not negligible for sub-DLA galaxies, i.e., $30\%-40 \%$ for each
bin of HI mass ($10^{7} \la $ $M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot}$ $ \la 10^{8}$).
The number fraction may be greatly dependent on the suppression mechanism of forming
galaxies embedded in less massive halos. In our model, the isolated halo must have
$V_{\rm circ}$ larger than the threshold, $V_{\rm circ,th}$, which corresponds to the
effective Jeans scale. In Figure 9(b), for the HS model, we present number fractions of
DLA galaxies (dash-dotted line) and sub-DLA galaxies (dotted line) when
$V_{\rm circ,th}=40$ km s$^{-1}$, together with those of DLA galaxies ({\it solid line})
and sub-DLA galaxies (dashed line) when $V_{\rm circ,th}=30$ km s$^{-1}$.
Because $V_{\rm circ,th}$ provides the lowest mass of dark halos, adopting a small
$V_{\rm circ,th}$ generally prompts the formation of less massive systems.
However, we find that the number fractions show little difference for the
cases adopting $V_{\rm circ,th}=40$ km s$^{-1}$ and $30$ km s$^{-1}$.
This means that the number fractions are almost independent of the suppression threshold.
Adopting large $V_{\rm circ,th}$ results in reducing the number of galaxies and
DLA galaxies simultaneously, and thus $V_{\rm circ,th}$ does not affect the number fractions.
This is also the case for the sub-DLA galaxies.
These results suggest that the uncertainties in
the threshold on halo circular velocity or the ionization history in the universe
do not change our results.
The majority of HI-selected galaxies detected in the {\it latest} radio surveys have
gaseous disks where the HI column densities are above the DLA threshold.
However, our results suggest that gaseous disks of
less massive galaxies ($M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$) have
HI column densities above the {\it sub-DLA } threshold.
When the observations have sufficiently lower detection limits
($M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$),
the observed populations will switch from being dominated by DLA galaxies to being
dominated by sub-DLA galaxies. Sub-DLA galaxies will provide us with stringent
constraints on formation and evolution processes of galaxies.
\subsection{Cross Section}
Here, we argue how sub-DLA galaxies are detected in radio observations.
In Figure 10(a), we present a contour map for the cross sections of DLA
galaxies as a function of the HI mass for the HS model.
Obviously, the cross sections correlate strongly to the HI masses, and
the disk sizes of less massive galaxies are small;
$\sim 3 h^{-1}$ kpc at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ and $\sim 1 h^{-1}$ kpc
at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$.
In the observation, \citet{RS03} investigated cross sections of DLA galaxies on the
basis of the HI-selected samples including the ADBS ($\sim 100$ galaxies).
The observational data are also plotted as {\it dots} in Figure 10(a).
Our result is entirely consistent with the observation because the
$\sigma$-$M_{\rm HI}$ contours
obviously trace the observations in the range of HI mass
$10^{7} \la M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot} \la 10^{10.5}$.
In Figure 10(b), we plot the mean logarithmic cross sections of DLA galaxies
with one $\sigma$ error bars for the HS model (red line).
It is evident that the logarithmic cross section, $\log \sigma$, is linearly proportional to
the logarithmic HI mass, $\log M_{\rm HI}$; $\sigma$ $\propto$ $ M_{\rm HI}^{\alpha}$.
For the HS model, we find $\alpha=0.97 \pm 0.01$ (red line) at
$10^{6} \le M_{\rm HI} / M_{\odot} \le 10^{10.5}$ when the relation is fitted by
averaged least squares.
In Figure 10(b), for comparison to the result for the HS model, the mean cross sections
of DLA galaxies for the LS model is also plotted (blue line). For the LS model, the
$\sigma$-$M_{\rm HI}$ relation has a slope of $\alpha=0.98 \pm 0.01$ (blue line).
We find that there is no significant difference between the
$\sigma$-$M_{\rm HI}$ relations predicted by the two models.
In Figure 10(b), we present a contour map for the cross sections of sub-DLA galaxies
as a function of HI mass for the HS model. Our result shows that the cross section,
$\sigma$, tightly correlates to the HI mass. In the range of the HI mass
$10^{6} \le M_{\rm HI} / M_{\odot} \le 10^{10.5}$, we find the slopes
$\alpha= 0.92 \pm 0.01$ ( $\sigma$ $\propto$ $M_{\rm HI}^{\alpha}$) for the HS model
and $0.96 \pm 0.01$ for the LS model when the relation is fitted by averaged least squares.
We find that the slope of the $\sigma$-$M_{\rm HI}$ relation is insensitive to the SFRs in the disks.
For comparison to the $\sigma$-$M_{\rm HI}$ relation for DLA galaxies (red line),
sub-DLA galaxies have cross sections obviously larger than DLA galaxies because the disk radius
at the sub-DLA limit $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ is typically larger than that at the
DLA limit $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$ under our assumption that the radial
distribution of HI column density follows an exponential profile. The HI column densities are relatively
low in the outer part of a gaseous disk whereas the HI column densities are high in the inner part.
This means that the outer parts (large cross sections) of disks correspond to sub-DLAs
while the inner parts (small cross-sections) to DLAs.
\subsection{Size}
In Figure 11, we present the distribution functions of (a) DLA galaxies,
(b) sub-DLA galaxies, and (c) galaxies as a function of the disk radii for the HS
model (solid line) and the LS model (dashed~line).
The number fraction is defined as a ratio of the number within each bin of a radius $b$
relative to the total number. Figure 11(a) shows that the number fraction increases
toward small radii. The mean disk radii of DLA galaxies are $2.7 h^{-1}$ kpc for the HS
model and $1.7 h^{-1}$ kpc for the LS model. The LS model predicts
a mean radius of gaseous disks smaller than the HS model because, for the LS model,
less massive galaxies with small radii contribute to the population of DLA galaxies
(Figure 4). By contrast, at large radii, the number fractions for the HS model are
higher than those for the LS model.
In Figure 11(b), the distribution functions of {\it sub-DLA galaxies}
are similar to those of DLA galaxies.
We find the mean radii of gaseous disks, $3.5 $ $h^{-1}$ kpc for the HS
model and $4.4 $ $h^{-1}$ kpc for the LS model.
Conversely to the results for DLA galaxies, the HS model produces a mean disk radius
smaller than that for the LS model. This is because, for the HS model, less massive galaxies
($M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$) with small disk radii contribute
primarily to the sub-DLA population (Figure 9).
For both models, the mean radii of sub-DLA galaxies are larger than those of DLA galaxies
because a truncated column density for sub-DLA galaxies smaller than that for
DLA galaxies results in the mean disk radii of sub-DLA galaxies larger than those of DLA galaxies.
This result suggests that some massive $L^{*}$ galaxies with large
disks could also be identified as host galaxies of sub-DLA systems rather than DLA systems
when a line of sight to the background bright source is located at the disk edge where
the HI column density is $\sim 10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Zwaan et al. (2005b) investigated the properties of DLA galaxies at $z=0$
in comparison to those of DLA systems at $z>0$ on the basis of an HIPASS sample of
$355$ radio emission line maps using the Westerbrock Synthesis Radio Telescope.
They conclude that DLA systems arise in galactic disks because the basic observational
quantities of DLA galaxies are consistent with those of DLA systems obtained from the
optical and UV surveys. They also argue which morphological types of galaxies have HI
column densities as high as DLA systems on the basis of their statistical analysis of
the galaxy population at redshift $z=0$.
For example, they find that the median impact parameter between
the line of sight to a background quasar and the galactic center is $5.5 h^{-1}$ kpc,
which is larger than the typical value of $3.0 h^{-1}$ kpc for the HS model in our calculation.
This discrepancy stems from our model taking into account less massive systems below the
observational detection limit. Our result suggests that less massive systems
($M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$) partly contribute to the population of DLA galaxy
at $z=0$ (Figure 4). For DLA galaxies with the HI mass $M_{\rm HI} \ge 10^{8} M_{\odot}$,
we find the average values $5.2 h^{-1}$ kpc (the HS model), consistent with the observation.
Therefore, we want to emphasize that, although the number fraction of DLA galaxies to galaxies
is small in the low-mass range ($M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$), the contribution
of less massive galaxies to DLA galaxies is not negligible.
Figure 11(c) is similar to Figure 11(a) but for galaxies.
The radius is defined as that at which
$N_{\rm HI}=10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ given by ionization equilibrium against the UV
background radiation mentioned above. It should be noted again that
there is no criterion when picking out `galaxies' while
the sub-DLA galaxies are picked out
by a condition on the central HI column density of
$10^{19} \leq N_{\rm HI} \leq 10^{20.3}$ cm$^{-2}$.
The number fraction of galactic radii increases toward small radii, in a
manner similar to those of DLA and sub-DLA galaxies. We find that there is little
difference in the distribution between the HS and the LS models. The mean radii are
$1.6 $ $h^{-1}$ kpc for the HS model and $1.4 $ $h^{-1}$ kpc for the LS model.
This indicates that the difference between the SFRs does
not significantly affect the number fractions. The result shows that the accumulated
number fractions at $b \geq 3$ $h^{-1}$ kpc attain $\sim 17 \%$ for the HS and the LS
models, and those at $b \geq 1$ $h^{-1}$ kpc attain $\sim 60 \%$ for the HS model and
$\sim 56 \%$ for the LS model.
\subsection{Star Formation Rate}
Figure 12(a) shows the distribution functions of DLA galaxies as a function of
the logarithmic SFR
for the HS model (solid line) and the LS model (dashed line).
The SFRs in DLA galaxies widely range from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{2}$
$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ similar to those in galaxies shown in Figure 8(a).
We find the mean values of the logarithmic SFRs: $ \langle \log$(SFR)
[$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}] \rangle$ $\sim -2.3$ for the HS model and $\sim -3.7$ for
the LS model. In comparison to the result (Figure 8(a)) for galaxies without any
threshold on HI column density of gaseous disk, it appears that
in the range of the SFRs $\la 10^{-4}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ the HS model predicts
the smaller number fractions than those of galaxies.
This suggests that the galaxies with low SFRs do not significantly contribute to DLA
galaxies but they do for sub-DLA galaxies.
Figure 12(b) shows the distribution functions of sub-DLA galaxies as a function of
the logarithmic SFR
for the HS model (solid line) and the LS model (dashed line).
We find that the mean values of the logarithmic SFRs, $\langle \log$(SFR)
[$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}] \rangle$ $\sim -3.7$ for the HS and the LS models.
The mean values show little difference between the two models.
For the HS model, sub-DLA galaxies are composed primarily of
galaxies with low SFRs ($\sim 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$),
which is in contrast with the result
for DLA galaxies where the SFRs are high ($\sim 10^{-2} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$).
This stems from the fact that sub-DLA galaxies consist mainly of the less massive galaxies
while DLA systems consist mainly of massive ones (Figure 9(a)). We also find that
there is no significant difference between the number fractions of sub-DLA galaxies and
galaxies in the range of the SFRs, $\la 10^{-2} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (Figure 8(a)).
\subsection{Luminosity}
In Figure 13, we show the $B$-band luminosity distribution as a function of HI mass of
sub-DLA galaxies for (a) the HS model and (b) the LS model. The average
luminosities with $1 \sigma$ error bars are shown as {\it solid lines}. Our results show
that massive sub-DLA galaxies are luminous in the $B$-band. We find that sub-DLA galaxies
have the optical luminosities that range widely up to $\sim 10^{11} L_{\odot}$, with the
mean values of the $B$ band luminosities $\langle L_{\rm B} \rangle$
$\sim 4.2 \times 10^{8} L_{\odot}$ for the HS model and $\sim 3.6 \times 10^{8} L_{\odot}$
for the LS model. The mean luminosities in the $B$ band differ little because the mean SFR
for the LS model matches that for the HS model (Figure 12(b)). In the
$L_{\rm B}$-$M_{\rm HI}$ plane, the luminosity distributions of sub-DLA galaxies are clearly
different for the two models. For the LS model, sub-DLA galaxies with low HI-mass exhibit low
$B$-band luminosities down to $L_{\rm B} \sim 10^{6} L_{\odot}$ while for the HS model
there are no sub-DLA galaxies with luminosities $L_{\rm B} \sim 10^{6} L_{\odot}$.
This difference is attributable to the fact that, for the LS model, the number fractions of sub-DLA
galaxies with low SFRs are larger than those for the HS model (Figure 12(b)).
In addition to the H$\alpha$ luminosities, the $B$-band luminosities of sub-DLA galaxies
are a good probe to investigate the SFRs in less massive galaxies. Together with
previous results, we conclude that sub-DLA galaxies, which typically comprise less massive
systems ($\langle M_{\rm HI} \rangle = 2 \times 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ and
$\langle \log (M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot}) \rangle \sim 7.5$),
are compact ($\langle b \rangle \sim 4 h^{-1}$ kpc) and
optically faint ($\langle L_{\rm B} \rangle \sim 4 \times 10^{8} L_{\odot}$).
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{HI Mass Functions}
Our models produce a good match to the HIMFs given by various blind radio surveys
as shown in Figure 2. However, it appears that the HS model slightly underpredicts the
number densities at the low-mass end. A different model that adopts a different threshold
for the halo circular velocity of less than $V_{\rm circ,th} = 30$ km s$^{-1}$ may
provide better agreement with the observations.
As argued in Section 5, the suppression of forming dwarf galaxies in halos with small
circular velocities may be caused by the ionizing background radiation. Because the
radiation intensity remains uncertain at low redshift, this may allow to adopt a threshold
smaller than $V_{\rm circ,th} = 30$ km s$^{-1}$ for calculating the HIMF.
The circular velocity threshold $V_{\rm circ, th}$, which gives the lowest circular
velocity for galactic halos, sensitively depends on the intensity of UV radiation and the
reionization process. Thus, the threshold $V_{\rm circ,th}$ should affect the number of
less massive galaxies and the shape of HIMFs. For example, Somerville (2002)
investigated the effect of suppressing the formation of less massive galaxies due to
the squelching of gas infall by the ionizing background radiation in order to resolve the
excess number of dwarf galaxies predicted by a semi-analytic model.
They find that halos with $V_{\rm circ,th} < 30$ km s$^{-1}$ are not able to
accrete gas. This suggests that photoionization squelching suppresses formation
of less massive galaxies in halos with $V_{\rm circ,th} < 30$ km s$^{-1}$.
However, Okamoto et al. (2008) argued that, in Somerville (2002), the fitting
function, concerning accreted gas in a halo, overestimates the mass of the halo within
which gas can cool. On the basis of the result obtained by the numerical simulation,
the authors require the threshold $V_{\rm circ,th}$ to be less than $20$ km s$^{-1}$.
For the HS model in our calculation, adopting a small threshold of $V_{\rm circ,th}$
$< 30$ km s$^{-1}$ may produce an increase of less massive galaxies and give better
agreement with the observed abundance at the low-mass end of HIMFs.
The underestimate of HIMFs at low-mass end might also be caused by the shape of
the adopted halo mass function used here. In this calculation, we adopt a mass function
of dark halo progenitors given by an extended Press--Schechter formalism. The results
of the numerical simulations show some discrepancies between the mass function of
dark halos and those given by the extended Press-Schechter formalism, in particular
for those at the low mass end (e.g., Somerville et al. 2000; Yahagi, Nagashima \& Yoshii
2004; Li et al. 2007). Although no definite conclusion has yet been reached regarding
which mass functions should be adopted here, this may cause an underestimation of
the number densities of less massive galaxies at $M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{7} M_{\odot}$.
It should be noted that there are uncertainties in the determination of the HIMF slope from
observations. The low-mass end of the HIMF suffers from statistical uncertainties due to the
small sample size. For example, the ADBS sample includes only a dozen galaxies and the
HIPASS does $\sim 40$ galaxies with $M_{\rm HI} < 10^{8} M_{\odot}$.
Additionally, there are also uncertainties in the distance estimation \citep{MHG04}.
However, the HIMF slope should place stringent constraints on the formation of dwarf galaxies
as well as the optical luminosity function. This is a clear point that deserves further investigation.
It is also valuable to note the total HI mass density parameter, that is the HI mass density of
galaxies as a fraction of the cosmic critical density. We find $\Omega_{\rm HI}=5.55$
$\times$ $10^{-4}$ for the HS model and $1.04$ $\times$ $10^{-3}$ for the LS model.
In comparison to the observations, we find that the HI mass density parameter for the HS model
is consistent with the HIPASS measurement $\Omega_{\rm HI}=3.5 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.4$
$\times$ $10^{-4}$ \citep{Z05a}.
\subsection{Number Densities}
Here we address the number density per unit redshift $dN/dz$. Our results present
$dN/dz$ of DLA galaxies $\sim 4.0 \times 10^{-2}$ at $z=0$ for the HS model and
$6.3 \times 10^{-2}$ for the LS model. The LS model produces larger $dN/dz$ than
the HS model because, for the LS model the low SFRs in DLA galaxies cause high HI
column densities above the DLA threshold. In observations, the ADBS sample for DLA
galaxies at $z=0$ yields $dN/dz = (5.3 \pm 1.3) \times 10^{-2}$ \citep{RS03},
the HIPASS $ \sim (5.8\pm 0.6 ) \times 10^{-2}$ \citep{Ryan03} and
$(4.5 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-2}$ \citep{Z05b}. These are consistent with our
results.
Because our models reproduce the $dN/dz$ and cross sections, our result suggests
that, even in the case that less-massive DLA galaxies
($M_{\rm HI}\sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$) are taken into account, DLA systems
at $z=0$ arise primarily in galactic disks rather than tidal gas caused by galaxy interactions
or gas driven by galactic winds.
Furthermore, our models predict $dN/dz$ of sub-DLA galaxies: $dN/dz \sim 0.15$ for
the HS model and $\sim 0.17$ for the LS model. These are roughly $2-3$ times larger
than those of DLA galaxies. We also find that there is no difference between the sub-DLA
$dN/dz$ for the two models. The reason is considered as follows. At a given redshift, the
$dN/dz$ is described as $dN/dz \propto f n_{\rm gal} \sigma$, where $f$ is the number
fraction of sub-DLA galaxies to galaxies, $n_{\rm gal}$ is the number density of galaxies,
and $\sigma$ is the cross section of the galactic disk. We showed that there is little difference
in the cross-sections $\sigma$ between the models.
However, for the HS model, the number fractions of sub-DLAs $f$ are larger than those for
the LS model, while the LS model produces the number densities $n_{gal}$ higher than those of
the HS model. This results in no significant difference between the values $f n_{\rm gal}$
and $dN/dz$ for the two models. Our result is also consistent with an estimation of
$dN/dz = 0.21$ at redshift $z < 2$ on the basis of an analysis of the HI column density
distributions of high-redshift sample \citep{Peroux05}.
\subsection{Further Implications}
Many ideas concerning the nature of DLA systems have been proposed through
observational/theoretical studies: large, massive spiral galaxies (e.g., Wolfe et al. 1986),
gas-rich dwarf galaxies (e.g., York et al. 1986), proto-galactic infalling gas that
is not virialized (e.g., Haehnelt et al. 1998), and so on. Although it is not clear which
scenarios are valid, a dramatic change in the nature of DLAs may occur at redshift $z \sim 2$
from the results of the numerical simulations (e.g., Gardner et al. 2001; Nagamine et al.
2004, 2007) and semi-analytic models (e.g., Kauffmann 1996; Maller et al. 2001;
Okoshi et al. 2004; Okoshi and Nagashima 2005; Johansson and Efstatiou 2006).
At redshift $z \sim 0$, the radio observations suggest that compact HI objects
($M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8} M_{\odot}$) mainly exhibit the HI column densities
comparable to those of DLA systems. They are consistent with our results showing that
compactly bound systems including less massive ones
($M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$) show the basic properties of DLA systems.
If the compactly bound objects also comprise sub-DLA galaxies, how can they be
detected in the observations?
In future, when the large samples including less massive galaxies
at $M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{7} M_{\odot}$ become available, it is probable
to identify them as sub-DLA galaxies rather than DLA ones. The HI-selected samples have
an advantage in terms of detectability of the optical counterparts over those of quasar
absorption systems, sub-DLA systems. Because the HI-selected samples provided by the
blind surveys are not behind bright background quasars, they do not suffer from the masking
effect. No glare of background quasars does not prevent from the detection of weak optical
emission lines from the HI-selected galaxies if their surface brightness is very low. If the host
galaxies of sub-DLA systems are compact, the masking effect would be serious in the searches
particularly for the optical counterparts of sub-DLA systems just as much as DLA systems.
In the optical surveys for less massive galaxies ($M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$),
it would be quite valuable to pay attention to some of the difficulties in detecting the sub-DLA
hosts due to the compactness and the faintness.
Some observations suggest that a sub-DLA host comprises compact and less massive
systems ($M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$). For example, Tripp et al. (2005)
explored a nearby sub-DLA system with $\log N_{\rm HI}=19.32 \pm 0.03$ at $z_{abs}=0.006$
on the periphery of the Virgo Cluster by using the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph on
board the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}. They argue that they could not find any bright galaxies in the
proximity of the line of sight toward the background quasar PG1216+019. The nearest galaxy is a
sub-$L^{*}$ galaxy with a projected distance of $\sim 86 h_{\rm 75}^{-1}$ kpc.
However, a radio observation successfully detected the radio emissions using the Westerbrock
Synthesis Radio Telescope \citep{BB06}. The emission feature is very compact; it is located
within $30$ arcsec ($\la 4$ kpc) of the quasar sight line. They argue that, because the
velocity spread of the emission line is between $20$ and $60$ km s$^{-1}$, the radio emission
feature indicates the HI masses, $5 \times 10^{6} \le M_{\rm HI} / M_{\odot}$
$\le 1.5 \times 10^{7}$. The result also suggests that compactly bound objects will be identified
as the host galaxies of sub-DLA systems. Indeed, it may not be surprising that sub-DLA galaxies
are very optically faint, consistent with our result, e.g., the mean luminosity in the $B$ band is
$L_{\rm B} \sim 10^{6.1 \pm 0.8} L_{\odot}$ at $M_{\rm HI} \sim $
$10^{7} M_{\odot}$ for the LS model. This observation agrees with our prediction that sub-DLA
galaxies with low HI-masses are very faint and compactly bound objects.
Sub-DLA systems may be associated with high velocity clouds (HVCs).
Some radio observations show that the HVCs near M31 and M33 have typical HI column densities
of $10^{19}$-$10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, HI masses of $10^{5}$-$10^{6} M_{\odot}$
and sizes of $\sim 1$ kpc \citep{WBT05, G08}. On the basis of estimates of the dynamical and
virial masses, the HVCs are likely gravitationally bounded systems. For HI clouds in the Milky-Way
halo, some of the absorption features in the spectra toward the background quasars are similar to
those of intervening quasar absorption systems \citep{Ben08}.
These properties are consistent with those of sub-DLA systems predicted by our models.
It is probable that these systems are the sub-DLA hosts. To reveal the sub-DLA hosts, it needs
to statistically compare the radio characteristics of the HVCs with the properties of intervening HI
absorption systems toward quasar/gamma-ray burst.
Further investigation of the sub-DLA hosts requires a large sample of less massive objects
($M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$), which would be the candidates for
sub-DLA galaxies. Indeed, a program aimed at obtaining a census of such less massive objects in a
radio survey is now on going. A recent HI blind survey, the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA (ALFALFA)
Survey, aims to detect on the order of $20,000$ extragalactic HI emission sources out to $z \sim 0.06$
including ones with HI masses $M_{\rm HI} < 10^{7.5} M_{\odot}$ by covering $7000$
deg$^{2}$ of sky \citep{G05}. This survey is specifically designed to determine the basic properties
of HI-selected galaxies statistically, including the determination of the HIMF, particularly at the faint end
($M_{\rm HI} < 10^{8} M_{\odot}$). In conjunction with optical studies, the ALFALFA
survey will provide us with the basic properties of the optically faint and less massive galaxies including
several results presented here: the SFR-$M_{\rm HI}$ relation, the relationship between HI cross section
and $M_{\rm HI}$, and the HI diameter function. The ALFALFA survey is able to map the peripheries of
HI-selected galaxies to a HI column-density limit on the order of $5 \times 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$ that
corresponds to the threshold of the sub-DLA systems. This means that the survey also provides
valuable opportunities for exploring the nature of quasar absorption systems, e.g., sub-DLA systems.
In the near future, comprehensive studies based on large samples of low HI-mass objects will reconcile
the local galaxy population with the quasar absorption systems.
\section{Conclusion}
We have investigated the properties of HI-selected galaxies in comparison with quasar absorption systems
at redshift $z=0$ within a hierarchical galaxy formation scenario using a semi-analytic model.
By drawing a detailed comparison between the properties of the HI-selected galaxies and the HI absorption
systems, we find that DLA galaxies consist primarily of optically-faint, compactly bound-systems.
Furthermore, for the purpose of reconciling the quasar absorption system with the galaxy population, we
have investigated the properties of local HI-selected galaxies. The main conclusions are summarized as follows.\\
1. The SFRs in HI-selected galaxies correlate tightly with the HI masses, SFR
$\propto$ $M_{\rm HI}^{\alpha}$, $\alpha=1.25-1.40$ in the range of HI mass
$10^{6} \le M_{\rm HI}/M_{\odot} \le 10^{11}$ (Figure 7). The SFR ranges widely from
$10^{-6}$ to $10^{2}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ with the mean logarithmic SFR
$ \langle \log $SFR [$M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}] \rangle$ $\sim -3$ (Figure 8). In contrast, the relationship
between the $J$-band luminosity and the HI mass is quite broad (Figures 5 and 6). \\
2. There is no statistically significant difference between HI mass functions of DLA galaxies and galaxies at
$M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$ (Figure 2). This suggests that DLA galaxies correspond
primarily to HI-selected galaxies detected in blind radio surveys at
$M_{\rm HI} \ga 10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$ (Figure 4).\\
3. Sub-DLA galaxies will replace DLA ones as the dominant population (Figure 9) at the low-mass end
($M_{\rm HI} \la 10^{8} M_{\odot}$). The number fractions of sub-DLA galaxies to galaxies are
between $40\%$ and $60 \%$ at $M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{8} M_{\odot}$ and between $30\%$ and $80 \%$ at
$M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$. If the detection limits on the HI mass in the blind radio surveys
are low enough to detect less massive systems ($M_{\rm HI} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$), the
population detected by the surveys will switch to being dominated by sub-DLA galaxies instead of DLA ones.
In addition to being a good probe of DLA systems, the HI-selected galaxies can be a strong probe of sub-DLA
systems. \\
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\acknowledgments
We thank Jessica Rosenberg for kindly providing us with the observational data
and the referee for a careful reading of this manuscript and for suggestions that
have improved the clarity of this presentation. We also thank Alan Hatakeyama
for improving the paper in English. This calculation is in part carried out
on the general computer system at the Astronomical Data Analysis Center (ADAC)
of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. This work has been supported
in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No. 21540245 ).
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The Witten-Dijkgraaf-Verlinde-Verlinde (WDVV) equations, which arises
in the study of 2d topological field theory in the
beginning of 90's of the last century, are given by the following system of PDEs
for a function $F=F(v^1,\dots, v^n)$ :
\begin{enumerate}
\item The variable $v^1$ is specified so that
\begin{equation}\label{wdvv-1} \eta_{\alpha\beta}:=\frac{\p^3 F}{\p v^1\p v^\alpha\p
v^\beta}=\rm{constant},\quad \det(\eta_{\alpha\beta})\ne 0. \end{equation}
\item The functions $c^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}:=\eta^{\alpha\nu} c_{\nu\beta\gamma}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{wdvv-2}
c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}=\frac{\p^3 F}{\p
v^\nu\p v^\beta\p v^\gamma}, \quad
(\eta^{\alpha\beta})=(\eta_{\alpha\beta})^{-1} \end{equation} yield the structure
constants of an associative algebra for given $v=(v^1,\dots,v^n)$,
i.e, they satisfy \begin{equation} c_{\alpha\beta}^\lambda
c_{\lambda\gamma}^\nu=c_{\gamma\beta}^\lambda c_{\lambda\alpha}^\nu\quad \rm{for\ any\
fixed} \ 1\le \alpha, \beta, \gamma, \nu\le n. \end{equation}
Here and in what follows summation with respect to repeated upper and lower
indices is assumed.
\item The function $F$ satisfies the quasi-homogeneity condition
\begin{equation}\label{quasi} \p_E F=(3-d) F+\frac12 A_{\alpha\beta}\, v^\alpha
v^\beta+ B_\alpha v^\alpha+C, \end{equation} here the Euler vector field has the
form \begin{equation}\label{euler} E=\sum_{\alpha=1}^n \left((1-\frac{d}2-\mu_\alpha)
v^\alpha+r_\alpha\right) \frac{\p}{\p v^\alpha}, \end{equation} and $d,
A_{\alpha\beta}=A_{\beta\alpha}, B_\alpha, C$, $\mu_\alpha, r_\alpha$ are some
constants with $\mu_1=-\frac{d}2$.
\end{enumerate}
These equations are satisfied by the primary free energy $F$ of the matter
sector of a 2d topological field theory with $n$ primary fields as a function of the
coupling constants \cite{Dij2, Dij3, Witten1}. In \cite{D3, D1} Dubrovin reformulated the WDVV equations in a coordinated free form by introducing the
notion of Frobenius manifold structure on the space of the
parameters $v^1,\dots, v^n$, and revealed rich
geometric structures of the WDVV equations which are
important in the study of several different areas of mathematical research,
such as the theory of Gromov -
Witten invariants, singularity theory and nonlinear integrable systems \cite{D1, weyl, DZ, DZ2}. In
particular, such geometrical structures enable one to associate a
solution of the WDVV equations with a hierarchy of bihamiltonian
integrable PDEs of hydrodynamic type which is called the principal
hierarchy \cite{DZ2}. This hierarchy of integrable systems plays
important role in the procedure of reconstructing a 2D topological
field theory(TFT) from its primary free energy as a solution of the
WDVV equations. In this construction, the tau function that
corresponds to a particular solution of the principal hierarchy
serves as the genus zero partition function, and the full genera
partition function of the 2D TFT is a particular tau function of an
integrable hierarchy of evolutionary PDEs of KdV type which is
certain deformation of the principal hierarchy, such a deformation of the
principal hierarchy is
call the {\em{topological deformation}} \cite{DZ2}.
In this paper we are to interpret certain symmetries of the WDVV
equations in term of the associated principal hierarchy and its
tau functions. The symmetries we consider here are given by Dubrovin
in Appendix B of \cite{D1}, where they are called symmetries of
type-1 and type-2 respectively\footnote{In \cite{CKS}
the Lie algebra of general infinitesimal symmetries of the WDVV equations without the homogeneity condition is considered.}. These symmetries are obtained from the
Schlesinger transformations of the system of linear ODEs with rational coefficients
which are associated to the Frobenius manifolds (see
Remark 4.2 of \cite{D2} for details). It turns out that in terms of the
principal hierarchies and their tau functions these symmetries have
a simple and natural interpretation. On the principal
hierarchy these symmetries act as reciprocal transformations, and
on the associated tau functions these two types of symemtries
either keep the tau functions unchanged or act as Legendre transformations.
Recall that a symmetry of the WDVV equations consists of
transformations
\begin{equation} v^\alpha\mapsto \hat{v}^\alpha,\quad
\eta_{\alpha\beta}\mapsto\hat{\eta}_{\alpha\beta},\quad F\mapsto \hat{F}
\end{equation}
that preserve the WDVV equations. The two types of symmetries
given in \cite{D1} have the following form:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Type-1 symmetries: they are given by the transformations defined by
\begin{equation}\label{zh-8}
{\hat v}^\alpha=\eta^{\alpha\gamma}\frac{\p^2 F(v)}{\p
v^\gamma\p v^\kappa},\quad {\hat\eta}_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}, \quad
\frac{\p^2 \hat{F}(\hat{v})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\alpha\p {\hat{v}}^\beta}= \frac{\p^2
{F(v)}}{\p v^\alpha\p v^\beta}
\end{equation}
for any given $1\le\kappa\le n$
such that the matrix $(c^\alpha_{\beta\kappa})$ is invertible. Note
that in this case the transformed function $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ satisfies
the WDVV equations with ${\hat{v}}^\kappa$ as the specified variable, and
the equations in \eqref{wdvv-1} is replaced by
\begin{equation}\label{zh-1-28}
\hat{\eta}_{\alpha\beta}:=\frac{\p^3 \hat{F}}{\p {\hat{v}}^\kappa\p
{\hat{v}}^\alpha\p {\hat{v}}^\beta}=\rm{constant},\quad
\det(\hat{\eta}_{\alpha\beta})\ne 0. \end{equation}
\item Type-2 symmetries: they are given by the transformation defined by
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{type-2t}
&{\hat v}^1=-\frac12\,\frac{\eta_{\sigma\gamma} v^\sigma
v^\gamma}{v^n},\quad
{\hat v}^\alpha=\frac{v^\alpha}{v^n}\ \ \mbox{for}\ \alpha\ne 1, n,\quad {\hat v}^n=\frac1{v^n},\\
& {\hat\eta}_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta},\quad \hat{F}(\hat v) =
(v^n)^{-2}\left(-F(v)+\frac{1}{2} \eta_{\sigma\gamma}v^1 v^\sigma
v^\gamma\right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here in this case we assume that we can normalize the coordinates $v^1,\dots, v^n$ such that the functions $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ take the values
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha+\beta,n+1},
\end{equation}
and in the expression of the Euler vector field $E$ given in \eqref{euler} the constants $r_\alpha=0$ whenever $\mu_\alpha\ne 1-\frac{d}2$.
We also impose the additional conditions that in the cases
when $d=1$ and $d=2$ the constants $r_n$ and $B_1$ that appear in \eqref{euler} and \eqref{quasi} vanishes respectively. Note that the transformation \eqref{type-2t}
is obtained from the one given in Append B of \cite{D1} by changing the signs of ${\hat{v}}^1, {\hat{v}}^n$ and of
$\hat{F}$, we make this modification so that the above transformation is an involution.
\end{enumerate}
We arrange the content of the paper as follows. We first recall in
Sec. \ref{sec-2} the definition of the principal hierarchy and its
tau function associated to a solution of the WDVV equations, or
equivalently, to a Frobenius manifold. In Sec. \ref{sec-3} and Sec.
\ref{sec-4} we show respectively that the actions of the type-1 and
type-2 symmetries on the principal hierarchies are given by certain
reciprocal transformations, and we give the transformation rule
of the associated tau functions. In Sec. \ref{sec-5} we consider the
transformation rule of the Virasoro constraints for the tau functions of the principal hierarchy. We conclude the paper with a discussion on actions of the symmetries
of the WDVV equation on the topological deformations of the principal hierarchy.
\section{The principal hierarchy}\label{sec-2}
Given a solution of the WDVV equations, the associated principal
hierarchy consists of Hamiltonian systems of the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{zh-9}
\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p t^{\beta,q}}=\eta^{\alpha\gamma}
\p_x\left(\frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q+1}}{\p v^\gamma}\right),\quad
\alpha,\beta=1,\dots,n,\ q\ge 0.
\end{equation}
Here the densities $\theta_{\beta,q+1}$ of the Hamiltonians
$H_{\beta,q}=\int\theta_{\beta,q+1}(v(x)) dx$ are given by the flat
coordinates of the deformed flat connection of the corresponding
Frobenius manifold \cite{D1}. Denote
\begin{equation} \theta_\alpha(z)=\sum_{p\ge 0} \theta_{\alpha,p}(v) z^p,\quad \alpha=1,\dots,n,
\end{equation}
then the functions
$\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)$ are determined by the equations
\begin{align}
&\label{zh-2} \p_\alpha\p_\beta\theta_{\nu}(z)=z\,
c^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}\p_\gamma\theta_{\nu}(z),
\quad \p_\alpha=\frac{\p}{\p v^\alpha},\quad \alpha, \beta, \nu=1,\dots,n.\\
&\p_E\,\p_\beta\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)=\left( p +\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta\right)
\p_\beta\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)+\sum_{k=1}^p\p_\beta
\theta_{\varepsilon,p-k}(v)\,\left(R_k\right)^\varepsilon_\alpha\label{zh-4}
\end{align}
and are normalized by the conditions
\begin{align}\label{zh-7}
&\theta_{\alpha,0}=\eta_{\alpha\gamma} v^\gamma:=v_\alpha,\\
&\p_\gamma\theta_\alpha(z) \eta^{\gamma\nu}
\p_\nu\theta_{\beta}(-z)=\eta_{\alpha\beta}.\label{zh-3}
\end{align}
Where the constant matrices $R_1, R_2, \dots$ have the properties
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(R_k)^\alpha_\beta\ne 0$ only if $\mu_\alpha-\mu_\beta=k$,
\item $ \eta_{\alpha\gamma} (R_k)^\gamma_\beta=(-1)^{k+1} \eta_{\beta\gamma}
(R_k)^\gamma_\alpha $.
\end{enumerate}
From the first property we see that we have only finitely many
nonzero matrices $R_1,\dots, R_m$, the number $m$ is determined by
the particular solution of the WDVV equations. These matrices are
defined up to conjugations \begin{equation}\label{cong} R=R_1+\dots+R_m\mapsto
\tilde{R}=G R G^{-1} \end{equation} given by nondegenerate constant matrices
$G$ that satisfy certain conditions, see \cite{D1, D2, DZ2} for
details. These matrices form part of the monodromy data
\[(V, [R], \mu, <\,,\,>, e_1)\] of the Frobenius manifold at $z=0$.
Here $V$ is the n-dimensional vector space spanned by $e_1,\dots,
e_n$, $[R]$ is the equivalence class (w.r.t. the above conjugation)
represented by the operator $R$ that acts on $V$ by $R e_\alpha=
R^\gamma_\alpha e_\gamma$, the action of the operator $\mu$ on $V$ is given
by the diagonal matrix $\mu={\mbox{diag}}(\mu_1,\dots, \mu_n)$,
and the bilinear form is given by $<e_\alpha,e_\beta>=\eta_{\alpha\beta}$.
Note that the matrix $\mu$ satsifies the anti-symmetry condition
\begin{equation} (\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta) \eta_{\alpha\beta}=0. \end{equation}
The functions $\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)$ satisfy the following tau-symmetry
condition:
\begin{equation} \frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p t^{\beta,q}}=
\frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}, \quad \alpha,
\beta=1,\dots,n.
\end{equation}
This property enables one to introduce the tau
function $\tau$ of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9}. It is
defined for any given solution $v^\alpha=v^\alpha(t)$ of the hierarchy
and required to satisfy the equations
\begin{equation} \frac{\p^2\log\tau}{\p x\p t^{\alpha,p}}=\theta_{\alpha,p}(v(t)),\quad \alpha=1,\dots,n,\ p\ge 0.
\end{equation}
Note that the flow $\frac{\p}{\p t^{1,0}}$ coincides with $\frac{\p}{\p x}$.
In order to fix $\tau$ up to a linear
function of $t^{\alpha,p}$, we are to use the functions
$\Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}(v)$ defined by the following identities
\cite{D1}: \begin{equation}\label{zh-11} \sum \Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}(v)\, z^p
w^q=\frac{\p_\gamma\theta_\alpha(z)\,\eta^{\gamma\xi}\p_\xi\theta_\beta(w)-\eta_{\alpha\beta}}{z+w}.
\end{equation}
Then for any solution $v(t)=(v^1(t),\dots, v^n(t))$ of the principal
hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} we can fix, up to a factor of the
form $e^{\sum a_\alpha t^\alpha+b}$, the tau function by the following
relations: \begin{equation}\label{zh-12} \frac{\p^2\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p}\p
t^{\beta,q}}=\Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}(v(t)),\quad \alpha,
\beta=1,\dots,n,\ p, q\ge 0. \end{equation}
\section{Actions of the type-1 symmetries}\label{sec-3}
The main results of this section were obtained in \cite{DZ2}, we recollect them
give the proofs here for the convenience of comparison of them with the results that are related to the type-2 symmetries of the WDVV equations.
Let $F=F(v^1,\dots, v^n)$ be a solution of the WDVV equations with
Euler vector field $E$ of the form \eqref{euler}. After the action
of a symmetry of type-1, we obtain a new solution
$\hat{F}=\hat{F}({\hat{v}}^1,\dots,{\hat{v}}^n)$. Here we note that the unity
vector field is $\frac{\p}{\p {\hat{v}}^\kappa}$ instead of $\frac{\p}{\p
{\hat{v}}^1}$, and the first set of equations \eqref{wdvv-1} of the WDVV
equations is changed to \eqref{zh-1-28}.
We first note that in the new coordinates ${\hat{v}}^1,\dots,{\hat{v}}^n$ the
Euler vector field $E$ given by \eqref{euler} has the expression \begin{equation} E=\sum_{\alpha=1}^n
\left(\left(1-\frac{{\hat{d}}}2-\hat\mu_\alpha\right)
{\hat{v}}^\alpha+\hat{r}_\alpha\right) \frac{\p}{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{zh-5}
\hat{d}=-2\mu_\kappa,\quad
\hat{\mu}_\alpha={\mu}_\alpha,\quad \hat{r}_\alpha=A_{\kappa\xi}
\eta^{\xi\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Let us show that the Euler vector field
$\hat{E}$ of the new solution $\hat{F}$ coincides with $E$. In fact,
by using \eqref{quasi}, \eqref{zh-8} we have
\begin{align}
&\p_{E}\frac{\p^2{\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})}{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha\p{\hat{v}}^\beta}=\p_{E}\frac{\p^2 F(v)}{\p v^\alpha\p v^\beta}=(1+\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta) \frac{\p^2 F(v)}{\p v^\alpha\p v^\beta}+A_{\alpha\beta}\nonumber\\
&\ = (1+\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta) \frac{\p^2 {\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\alpha\p
{\hat{v}}^\beta}+A_{\alpha\beta},
\end{align}
This yields the identity \begin{equation} \p_E \hat{F}({\hat{v}})=(3-\hat{d})
\hat{F}({\hat{v}})+\frac12 \hat{A}_{\alpha\beta} {\hat{v}}^\alpha{\hat{v}}^\beta+\hat{B}_\alpha
{\hat{v}}^\alpha+\hat{C} \end{equation} for some constants $\hat{A}_{\alpha\beta},
\hat{B}_\alpha, \hat{C}$.
Now we consider the relations of the densities
$\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$ of the Hamiltonians of the principal
hierarchy associated to $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ with the ones that are associated to
the original solution $F(v)$ of the WDVV equations.
\begin{lem}\
i)\ The functions $\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$ for ${\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})$ can be
determined by the relations \begin{equation}\label{zh-6}
\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\beta}=
\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^\beta},\quad \alpha,\beta=1,\dots,n,\ p\ge
0
\end{equation}
and the normalization conditions
\begin{equation}\label{zh-10-12}
\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,0}({\hat{v}})=\eta_{\alpha\gamma} {\hat{v}}^\gamma,\ \alpha=1,\dots,n.
\end{equation}
ii)\ The monodromy data $(\hat{V}, [\hat{R}], \hat{\mu}, <\,,\,>,
\hat{e}_\kappa)$ at $z=0$ of the Frobenius manifold associated to
${\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})$ coincide with that of the Frobenius manifold associated to
$F(v)$. Here $\hat{V}$ is the n-dimensional vector space spanned by
$\hat{e}_1,\dots, \hat{e}_n$, $[\hat{R}]$ is the equivalence class
represented by the operator $\hat{R}$ that acts on $\hat{V}$ by
$\hat{R} \hat{e}_\alpha= R^\gamma_\alpha \hat{e}_\gamma$, the action of the
operator $\hat{\mu}$ on $\hat{V}$ is given by the diagonal matrix
$\hat{\mu}=\mu={\mbox{diag}}(\mu_1,\dots, \mu_n)$, and the bilinear
form is given by $<\hat{e}_\alpha,\hat{e}_\beta>=\eta_{\alpha\beta}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
From the definition of the monodromy data \cite{D1, D2}, it follows that in order to
prove the lemma we only need to verify that the functions $\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$
determined by the conditions \eqref{zh-6} and
\eqref{zh-10-12} satisfy \eqref{zh-2}--\eqref{zh-3}.
By using
\eqref{zh-8}, \eqref{zh-2} and \eqref{zh-6} we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{\p^2\hat{\theta}_{\gamma}(z)}{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha\p{\hat{v}}^\beta}
=\frac{\p}{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}\left(\frac{\p\theta_\gamma(z)}{\p
v^\beta}\right) =\frac{\p^2\theta_\gamma(z)}{\p v^\beta\p
v^\lambda}\frac{\p v^\lambda}{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}
=z c^\nu_{\beta\lambda} \frac{\p\theta_\gamma(z)}{\p v^\nu}\frac{\p v^\lambda}{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}\nonumber\\
&&=z{\hat{c}}^\nu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\p\theta_\gamma(z)}{\p v^\nu}
=z{\hat{c}}^\nu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_\gamma(z)}{\p {\hat{v}}^\nu}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
So we prove that the functions $\hat\theta_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$ satisfy the recursion relation \eqref{zh-2}.
Similarly, from \eqref{zh-4} and \eqref{zh-6} it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\p_{\hat{E}}\,\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\beta}=\p_E\,\frac{\p {\theta}_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^\beta}\nonumber\\
&&=\left( p+{\mu}_\alpha +{\mu}_\beta\right)
\frac{\p{\theta}_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^\beta}+\sum_{k=1}^p \frac{\p{\theta}_{\varepsilon,p-k}(v)}{\p v^\beta}\,\left(R_k\right)^\varepsilon_\alpha\nonumber\\
&&=\left( p+\hat{\mu}_\alpha +\hat{\mu}_\beta\right)
\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\beta}+\sum_{k=1}^p
\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\varepsilon,p-k}({\hat{v}})}{\p
{\hat{v}}^\beta}\,\left(\hat R_k\right)^\varepsilon_\alpha,
\end{eqnarray}
which proves the validity of \eqref{zh-4} for the functions $\hat\theta_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$.
The relations
\eqref{zh-7} and \eqref{zh-3} hold true obviously. The lemma is
proved.
\end{prf}
Let us proceed to consider the relation between the principal hierarchies
associated to the
solutions $F(v)$ and $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV equations. In the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} we have $\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p
t^{1,0}}=\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p x}$, so we may identify the time
variable $t^{1,0}$ with the spatial variable $x$ and forget the flow
$\frac{\p}{\p t^{1,0}}$ in the hierarchy. Similarly, for the
principal hierarchy
\begin{equation}\label{zh-10}
\frac{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}{\p
\hat{t}^{\beta,q}}=\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\gamma}
\frac{\p}{\p\hat{x}}\left(\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\beta,q+1}}{\p
{\hat{v}}^\gamma}\right),\quad \alpha, \beta=1,\dots, n,\ q\ge 0
\end{equation}
we have $\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p \hat{t}^{\kappa,0}}=\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p \hat{x}}$,
so we may also identify $\hat{t}^{\kappa,0}$ with the new spatial variable
$\hat{x}$ and forget the flow $\frac{\p}{\p \hat{t}^{\kappa,0}}$ in
the hierarchy. We will assume such an identification henceforth.
\begin{prop}\label{prp-zh-1}
The principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-10} associated to the solution ${\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV
equation is obtained from the principal hierarchy
\eqref{zh-9} by the following reciprocal transformation
\begin{align}\label{zh-9-b}
&\hat{x}=t^{\kappa,0},\quad \hat{t}^{1,0}=x,\\
& \hat{t}^{\alpha,p}=t^{\alpha,p},\quad (\alpha,p)\ne (1,0),\
(\kappa,0).\label{zh-13}
\end{align}
i.e. the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-10} is
obtained from \eqref{zh-9} simply by exchange the role of the spatial
variable $x$ and the time variable $t^{\kappa,0}$.
Moreover, any tau function $\tau(t)$ of the principal hierarchy
\eqref{zh-9} yields a tau function $\hat{\tau}(\hat{t})$ of \eqref{zh-10} by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{zh-14} \hat{\tau}(\hat{t})=\tau(t)|_{t^{\kappa,0}\to
\hat{x}, x\to \hat{t}^{1,0},
t^{\alpha,p}\mapsto \hat{t}^{\alpha,p},\ (\alpha,p)\ne (1,0),\ (\kappa,0)}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
Assume that $(\beta,q)\ne (1,0), (\kappa,0)$. Let $v^1(t),\dots,
v^n(t)$ satisfy the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9}, and ${\hat{v}}^\alpha,
\hat{\theta}_{\beta, q}({\hat{v}})$ be defined as in \eqref{zh-8},
\eqref{zh-6}, \eqref{zh-10-12}. Then after the reciprocal
transformation \eqref{zh-9-b} we have
\begin{align}
&\frac{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}{\p \hat{t}^{\beta,q}}=\frac{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}{\p
t^{\beta,q}} =c^\alpha_{\kappa\lambda}\frac{\p v^\lambda}{\p
t^{\beta,q}}
=c^\alpha_{\kappa\lambda} c^{\lambda\nu}_\xi \frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q}}{\p v^\nu} v^\xi_x\nonumber\\
&=c^{\alpha\lambda}_{\kappa} c^\nu_{\xi\lambda}
\frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q}} {\p v^\nu} v^\xi_x=c^{\lambda}_{\kappa\xi}
c^{\alpha\nu}_{\lambda} \frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q}}{\p v^\nu} v^\xi_x
= c^{\alpha\nu}_{\lambda} \frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q}}{\p v^\nu} \frac{\p v^\lambda}{\p t^{\kappa,0}}\nonumber\\
&=\hat \eta^{\alpha\nu}\frac{\p}{\p v^\lambda}\left(\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\beta,q+1}}{\p
{\hat{v}}^\nu}\right)
\frac{\p v^\lambda}{\p t^{\kappa,0}}=\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\nu} \frac{\p}{\p\hat{x}}\left(\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\beta,q+1}}{\p {\hat{v}}^\nu}\right).
\end{align}
In a similar way we can prove the validity of the above equation for
$(\beta,q)=(1,0), (\kappa,0)$. So the reciprocal transformation
\eqref{zh-9-b}, \eqref{zh-13} transforms the principal
hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} to the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-10}.
From the definition \eqref{zh-11} of the functions
$\Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}$ we see that the functions
$\hat{\Omega}_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}({\hat{v}})$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Omega}_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}({\hat{v}})=\Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}(v), \end{equation}
where ${\hat{v}}^1,\dots, {\hat{v}}^n$ are related to $v^1,\dots, v^n$ by the
relation \eqref{zh-8}. Then the relation \eqref{zh-14} follows from
\eqref{zh-12}. Thus we proved the Proposition.
\end{prf}
The principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} possesses a bihamiltonian
structure given by the following compatible Hamiltonian operators
\begin{equation}\label{zh-10-13} P_1^{\alpha\beta}=\eta^{\alpha\beta}\p_x,\quad
P_2^{\alpha\beta}=g^{\alpha\beta}(v) \p_x+\Gamma^{\alpha\beta}_\gamma(v)
v^\gamma_x. \end{equation} Here $(g^{\alpha\beta})$ is the intersection form of
the Frobenius manifold \cite{D1} associated to $F(v)$ and is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{metric2}
g^{\alpha\beta}(v)=E^\gamma(v) c^{\alpha\beta}_\gamma(v),\quad \alpha, \beta=1,\dots,n,
\end{equation}
$\Gamma^{\alpha\beta}_\gamma=-g^{\alpha\xi} \Gamma_{\xi\gamma}^\beta$
are the contravariant components of the Levi-Civita connection of
the metric $(g_{\alpha\beta})=(g^{\alpha\beta})^{-1}$.
In a similar way, the flat metric $\hat{\eta}$ and the intersection
form $\hat{g}$ of the Frobenius manifold associated to the new
solution $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV equations give in the same way a bihamiltonian
structure for the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-10}. In the flat
coordinates ${\hat{v}}^1,\dots, {\hat{v}}^n$, the compatible Hamiltonian
operators \begin{equation}
\hat{P}_1^{\alpha\beta}=\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\beta}\p_{\hat{x}}, \quad
\hat{P}_2^{\alpha\beta}=\hat{g}^{\alpha\beta}({\hat{v}})
\p_{\hat{x}}+\hat{\Gamma}^{\alpha\beta}_\gamma({\hat{v}})
{\hat{v}}^\gamma_{\hat{x}} \end{equation}
have the following relation with
the Hamiltonian operators \eqref{zh-10-13}:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\beta}=\eta^{\alpha\beta},\quad
\hat{g}^{\alpha\beta}({\hat{v}})=g^{\alpha\beta}(v),\quad
\Gamma^{\alpha\beta}_\gamma(v)=c^{\xi}_{\kappa\gamma}(v)
\hat{\Gamma}^{\alpha\beta}_\xi({\hat{v}}). \end{equation}
In general a bihamiltonian system of hydrodynamic type may not be
related to Frobenius manifold, in such cases we can still
perform the reciprocal transformation that exchanges the role of the
spatial and time variables. It was shown in \cite{XTZ} that such a transformation
preserves the bihamiltonian property of the system,
and the transformation rule of the
bihamiltonian structure is similar to the one given above.
Such transformations are applied in \cite{DZ2} to certain bihamiltonian hierarchies
so that the transformed ones are associated to Frobenius manifolds.
Note that for a Hamiltonian system of hydrodynamic type the
transformation rule of the Hamiltonian structure under linear
reciprocal transformations was given by Pavlov in \cite{pavlov}. An
interesting problem is whether we still have similar transformation
rules when we apply linear
reciprocal transformations to a Hamiltonian or bihamiltonian system
which is certain deformation of a system of hydrodynamic type.
\section{Actions of the type-2 symmetries}\label{sec-4}
As we did in the last section, we denote by $\hat{F}({\hat{v}}^1,\ldots,{\hat{v}}^n)$ the solution of the WDVV equations that is obtained from a solution $F(v)$ by the action of the type-2 symmetry \eqref{type-2t}. Note that in general the operator given by the gradient of the Euler vector field $\hat{E}$ for $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ is non-diagonalizable, for the convenience of the presentation of the results on the transformation rule of the principal hierarchies and their tau functions under the action of the type-2 symmetries, we assume that the in expression \eqref{euler} of the Euler vector field $E$ the constants $r_\alpha,\, \alpha=1,\dots, n$ vanish. Under this assumption the Euler vector field for $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ has the expression (see Lemma B.1 of \cite{D1})
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}=\sum_{\alpha=1}(1-\frac{\hat{d}}{2}-\hat{\mu}_\alpha){\hat{v}}^\alpha\frac{\p}{\p\hat{v}^\alpha},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{d}=2-d,\ \hat{\mu}_1=\mu_n-1,\
\hat{\mu}_n=\mu_1+1,\ \hat{\mu}_\alpha=\mu_\alpha \ \alpha\neq 1,n.\label{zh-1-16a}
\end{equation}
In fact it coincides with the Euler vector field $E$ for the function $F(v)$.
The function $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ satisfies the following quasi-homogeneity condition:
\begin{equation} \p_{\hat{E}} \hat{F}=(3-\hat{d})
\hat{F}+\frac12 \hat{A}_{\alpha\beta}\, {\hat{v}}^\alpha{\hat{v}}^\beta+\hat{B}_\alpha
{\hat{v}}^\alpha+\hat{C}.
\end{equation}
Here $\hat{A}_{\alpha\beta},
\hat{B}_\alpha, \hat{C}$ are some constants.
It was shown in \cite{D1} that the functions
\[\hat\eta_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\p^3\hat{F}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^1{\hat{v}}^\alpha{\hat{v}}^\beta},\quad\hat{c}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}=\frac{\p^3 \hat{F}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\alpha \p{\hat{v}}^\beta{\hat{v}}^\gamma}\]
have the following relations with the functions $\eta_{\alpha\beta}, c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$
defined in \eqref{wdvv-1}, \eqref{wdvv-2}:
\begin{align}
&\hat\eta_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta},\\
&\hat{c}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}({\hat{v}})=-(v^n)^{-2}\frac{\p
v^\lambda}{\p \hat{v}^\alpha}\frac{\p v^\mu}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}\frac{\p
v^\nu}{\p \hat{v}^\gamma}c_{\lambda\mu\nu}(v). \label{identity1}
\end{align}
By taking $\gamma=1$ in \eqref{identity1} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{identity2}
{\eta}_{\alpha\beta}=(v^n)^{-2}\,\eta_{\lambda\mu} \frac{\p v^\lambda}{\p\hat{v}^{\alpha}}\frac{\p v^\mu}{\p\hat{v}^{\beta}}.
\end{equation}
We also have the following identities which will be used below:
\begin{equation}\label{zh-16}
-v^n\delta_{\alpha}^n\frac{\p v^{\mu}}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}-v^n\delta^n_\beta\frac{\p v^\mu}{\p \hat{v}^\alpha}
=\frac{\p^2 v^\mu}{\p \hat{v}^\alpha\p \hat{v}^\beta}+\eta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_1^\mu v^n.
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}
i)\ The functions $\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$ for the solution $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV equations are given by the following formulae:
\begin{align}\label{zh-18}
&\hat{\theta}_{1,0}({\hat{v}})=\frac{1}{v^n},\quad \hat{\theta}_{1,p}({\hat{v}})=(-1)^p\frac{\theta_{n,p-1}(v)}{v^n},\quad p>0,\nonumber \\
&\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})=(-1)^p\frac{\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{v^n},\quad 2\le\alpha\le n-1,\quad\ p\geq 0, \\
&\hat{\theta}_{n,p}({\hat{v}})=(-1)^{p+1}\frac{\theta_{1,p+1}(v)}{v^n},\quad p\geq 0.\nonumber
\end{align}
ii)\ Let $(\hat{V}, [\hat{R}], \hat{\mu}, <\,,\,>,
\hat{e}_1)$ be the monodromy data at $z=0$ of the Frobenius manifold associated to
${\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})$ with $\hat V$ being the linear space spanned by $\hat{e}_1,\dots, \hat{e}_n$. Then the operator $\hat{R}$ is given by the matrix elements
\begin{equation}\label{zh-15}
(\hat{R}_{k})^{\alpha}_{\beta}=(-1)^{k+\delta^\alpha_n+\delta^n_\beta}
\left(R_{k+\delta(\alpha)-\delta(\beta)}\right)^{\alpha+(n-1)\delta(\alpha)}_{\beta+(n-1)\delta(\beta)}\, ,
\end{equation}
here we denote by $\delta(\alpha)$ the difference of two Kronecker delta functions
\begin{equation}
\delta(\alpha):=\delta^1_\alpha-\delta^n_\alpha \label{dlt},
\end{equation}
and we assume that $R_l=0$ whenever $l\le 0$.
The operator $\hat\mu$ is given
by \eqref{zh-1-16a} and the bilinear form is defined by $<\hat{e}_\alpha, \hat{e}_\beta>=\eta_{\alpha\beta}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
We need to verify that the functions $\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$ satisfy
the equations (\ref{zh-2})--(\ref{zh-3}). The validity of the normalization conditions
(\ref{zh-7}), (\ref{zh-3}) is easy to see from the definition \eqref{type-2t} of the new flat coordinates $\hat v^1,\dots, \hat v^n$, the identity \eqref{identity2} and
the relations
\begin{align}
&\theta_{1,1}(v)=\frac{\p F(v)}{\p v^1}=\frac12\,\eta_{\alpha\beta} v^\alpha v^\beta,\\
& \frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^1}=\theta_{\alpha,p-1}(v)+\delta_{\alpha,n}\delta_{p,0}
\quad \mbox{with}\ \theta_{\alpha,-1}(v)=0. \label{zh-1-19a}
\end{align}
The recursion relations \eqref{zh-2} for $\hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})$ can be verified by
using the identities \eqref{identity1}--\eqref{zh-16}
and \eqref{zh-1-19a}.
To prove the validity of the quasihomogeneity condition \eqref{zh-4}, let us first assume that $\alpha, \beta\ne 1, n$, then by using \eqref{zh-18} and \eqref{zh-15} we get
\begin{align}
& \p_{\hat{E}}\,\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p {\hat{v}}^\beta}=E^\varepsilon\frac{\p}{\p v^\varepsilon}\left(\frac{\p v^1}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}\frac{\p}{\p v^1}+v^n\frac{\p}{\p v^\beta}\right)
\left(\frac{(-1)^p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{v^n}\right)\nonumber\\
=&E^\varepsilon\frac{\p}{\p v^\varepsilon}\left(\frac{(-1)^{p+1} v^{n+1-\beta}}{v^n}\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^1}\right)
+E^\varepsilon\frac{\p}{\p v^\varepsilon}\left((-1)^p\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^\beta}\right)\nonumber\\
=&(-1)^{p+1}\hat{E}^{n+1-\beta}\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^1}
+\frac{(-1)^{p+1}v^{n+1-\beta}}{v^n}E^\varepsilon\frac{\p}{\p v^\varepsilon}\left(\frac{\p \theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^1}\right)\nonumber\\
&+(-1)^p(p+\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta)\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^\beta}+(-1)^p\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p\theta_{\varepsilon,p-k}(v)}{\p v^\beta}(R_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon\nonumber\\
=&(-1)^{p+1}(1-\frac{\hat{d}}{2}-\hat{\mu}_{n+1-\beta})\frac{v^{n+1-\beta}}{v^n}\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^1}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{(-1)^{p+1}v^{n+1-\beta}}{v^n}
\left((p+\mu_\alpha+\mu_1)\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^1}+\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p\theta_{\varepsilon,p-k}(v)}{\p v^1}(R_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon\right)\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&+(-1)^p(p+\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta)\frac{\p\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{\p v^\beta}+(-1)^p\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p\theta_{\varepsilon,p-k}(v)}{\p v^\beta}(R_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon\nonumber\\
=&(p+\mu_\alpha+\mu_\beta)\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}+
\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p}{\p\hat{v}^\beta}\left(\frac{(-1)^p\theta_{\varepsilon,p-k}(v)}{v^n}\right)(R_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon
\nonumber\\
=&(p+\hat{\mu}_\alpha+\hat{\mu}_\beta)\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}
+\sum_{k=1}^p\sum_{\varepsilon\neq 1,n}\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\varepsilon,p-k}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}(\hat{R}_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p}{\p\hat{v}^\beta}\left(\frac{(-1)^p\theta_{1,p-k}(v)}{v^n}\right)(R_k)_\alpha^1
+\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p}{\p\hat{v}^\beta}\left(\frac{(-1)^p\theta_{n,p-k}(v)}{v^n}\right)(R_k)_\alpha^n
\nonumber\\
=&(p+\hat{\mu}_\alpha+\hat{\mu}_\beta)\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}
+\sum_{k=1}^p\sum_{\varepsilon\neq 1,n}^p\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\varepsilon,p-k}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}(\hat{R}_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{n,p-k-1}({\hat{v}})}{\p\hat{v}^\beta}(\hat{R}_{k+1})_\alpha^n
+\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{1,p-k+1}({\hat{v}})}{\p\hat{v}^\beta}(\hat{R}_{k-1})_\alpha^1\nonumber\\
=&(p+\hat{\mu}_\alpha+\hat{\mu}_\beta)\frac{\p \hat{\theta}_{\alpha,p}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}
+\sum_{k=1}^p\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\varepsilon,p-k}({\hat{v}})}{\p \hat{v}^\beta}(\hat{R}_k)_\alpha^\varepsilon.\nonumber
\end{align}
The proof for the cases when $\alpha, \beta=1, n$ are similar. The lemma is proved.
\end{prf}
As we explained in the last section, we identify the time variable $t^{1,0}$ of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} with the spatial variable $x$. For the principal hierarchy that is associated to the solution ${\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV equations (see
\eqref{zh-20} below) we also identify the time variable $\hat{t}^{1,0}$ with the
spatial variable $\hat{x}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prp-zh-2}
The principal hierarchy
\begin{equation}\label{zh-20}
\frac{\p{\hat{v}}^\alpha}{\p \hat{t}^{\beta,q}}
=\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\gamma}\frac{\p}{\p\hat{x}}\left(\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\beta,q+1}({\hat{v}})}
{\p{\hat{v}}^\gamma}\right),\quad \alpha,\beta=1,\dots,n,\ q\ge 0
\end{equation}
associated to the solution ${\hat{F}}={\hat{F}}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV
equation is related to the principal hierarchy
\eqref{zh-9} by the following reciprocal transformation:
\begin{align}
&d \hat{x}=-v^n dx-\sum_{(\alpha,p)\ne (1,0)}\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)dt^{\alpha,p},\label{zh-24-1}\\
\begin{split}\label{zh-24-2}
&\hat t^{1,0}=\hat{x},\quad \hat{t}^{1, p}=(-1)^p\, t^{n,p-1},\quad p\geq 1,\\
&\hat{t}^{n,p}=(-1)^{p+1} t^{1,p+1},\quad \hat{t}^{\alpha,p}=(-1)^p\, t^{\alpha,p},\quad \alpha\neq 1,n, \ p\ge 0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
From the definition of the reciprocal transformation we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{zh-19}
\frac{\p}{\p\hat x}&=
-\frac{1}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x},\\
\frac{\p}{\p\hat{t}^{1,p}}&=(-1)^p \left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{n,p-1}}-\frac{\theta_{n,p-1}(v)}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right),\quad p\geq 1,\\
\frac{\p}{\p\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}}&=(-1)^p \left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}-\frac{\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right),\quad \alpha\ne 1,n,\ p\geq 0,\\
\frac{\p}{\p\hat{t}^{n,p}}&=(-1)^{p+1}\left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{1,p+1}}-\frac{\theta_{1,p+1}(v)}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right),\quad p\geq 0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Let $v^1(t),\ldots,v^n(t)$ be a solution of the principal hierarchy (\ref{zh-9}), and $\hat{v}^\alpha,\hat{\theta}_{\beta,q}({\hat{v}})$
be defined as in (\ref{type-2t}), (\ref{zh-18}). Then for $\alpha,\beta\neq 1,n$
we have
\begin{align}
&\frac{\p\hat{v}^\alpha}{\p\hat{t}^{\beta,q}}
=(-1)^q\left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{\beta,q}}-\frac{\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right) \left(\frac{v^\alpha}{v^n}\right) \nonumber\\
&=(-1)^q\left(\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p t^{\beta,q}}\frac{1}{v^n}-\frac{\p v^n}{\p t^{\beta,q}}\frac{v^\alpha}{(v^n)^2}-
\frac{\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{(v^n)^2}\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p x}+\frac{\theta_{\beta,q}(v)v^\alpha}{(v^n)^3}\frac{\p v^n}{\p x}\right)\nonumber\\
&=(-1)^q\left(\eta^{\alpha\gamma} \frac{1}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\left(\frac{\p \theta_{\beta,q+1}(v)}{\p v^\gamma}\right)
-\frac{v^\alpha}{(v^n)^2}\frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{\p x}-\frac{\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{(v^n)^2}\frac{\p v^\alpha}{\p x}\right.\nonumber\\
&\qquad \qquad\left.
+\frac{v^\alpha \,\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{(v^n)^3}\frac{\p v^n}{\p x}\right)\nonumber \\
&=(-1)^q\eta^{\alpha\gamma}\frac{1}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\left(\frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q+1}(v)}{\p v^{\gamma}}
-\frac{v_\gamma\theta_{\beta,q}(v)}{v^n}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\eta^{\alpha\gamma}\left(-\frac{1}{v^n}\right)\frac{\p}{\p x}
\left(\frac{1}{v^n}\frac{\p v^\varepsilon}{\p\hat{v}^\gamma}\frac{\p (-1)^{q+1}\theta_{\beta,q+1}(v)}{\p v^\varepsilon}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\gamma}\frac{\p}{\p \hat{x}}\left(\frac{\p\hat{\theta}_{\beta,q+1}({\hat{v}})}{\p\hat{v}^\gamma}\right).\nonumber
\end{align}
In a similar way we can prove the validity of the above equation for other cases of $\alpha,\beta$. The proposition is proved.
\end{prf}
\\
From the definition \eqref{zh-11} of the functions $\Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}$ it follows that the functions $\hat{\Omega}_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}=\hat{\Omega}_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}({\hat{v}})$ which are defined by the solution $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ of the WDVV equations have the following expressions:
\begin{align}
\hat{\Omega}_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}=&(-1)^{p+q+1+\delta^n_\alpha+\delta^n_\beta}
\left(\Omega_{\alpha+(n-1)\delta(\alpha),p-\delta(\alpha);\beta+(n-1)\delta(\beta),q-\delta(\beta)}(v)\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad -\left.{\hat{v}}^n \theta_{\alpha+(n-1)\delta(\alpha),p-\delta(\alpha)}(v) \,
\theta_{\beta+(n-1)\delta(\beta),q-\delta(\beta)}(v) \right),\label{relation}
\end{align}
where $\delta(\alpha), \delta(\beta)$ are defined in \eqref{dlt}.
\begin{lem}\label{zh-21}
The tau function of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} defined by \eqref{zh-12}
satisfies the following equations:
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial}{\partial\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\log \tau=0,
\quad \forall (\alpha,p)\neq (1,0),\label{zh-20a}\\
&\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{x}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\log\tau=-1.
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}
We first consider the case when $\alpha=1, p\ge 1$. By using the relations
(\ref{zh-19})
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\hat{t}^{1,p}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\log\tau &=&
(-1)^p(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{n,p-1}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\log\tau-
\frac{\theta_{n,p-1}}{v^n}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\log\tau)\\
&=&(-1)^p(\theta_{n,p-1}-\theta_{n,p-1})=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we used the relation \eqref{zh-12} and the fact that $\Omega_{\alpha,p;1,0}
=\theta_{\alpha,p}$ which follows from \eqref{zh-11}.
For the cases when $\alpha\ne 1, p\ge 1$ the proof of the equation \eqref{zh-20a} is similar. When $(\alpha,p)=(1,0)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{x}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\log\tau
&=&
-\frac{1}{v^n}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\log\tau=-\frac{v^n}{v^n}=-1.
\end{eqnarray*}
The lemma is proved.
\end{prf}
It follows from the above lemma that up to the addition of a constant we have
\begin{equation}
\hat{x}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\log\tau.\label{zh-20b}
\end{equation}
The constant can be absorbed by a translation of $\hat{x}$ in the definition of the reciprocal transformation \eqref{zh-24-1}, \eqref{zh-24-2}, so we will assume from now on the
validity of \eqref{zh-20b}.
\begin{prop}\label{prp-zh-3}
Any tau function $\tau(t)$ of the principal hierarchy (\ref{zh-9}) defined by
\eqref{zh-12} yields a tau function $\hat{\tau}(\hat{t})$
of the transformed principal hierarchy (\ref{zh-20}) by the following Legendre transformation:
\begin{equation}\label{legendre}
\log\hat{\tau}= x\frac{\partial\log\tau}{\partial x}-\log \tau .
\end{equation}
together with the change of independent variables \eqref{zh-24-2} and \eqref{zh-20b}.
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
We only need to prove the validity of the equation \eqref{zh-12} for $\hat\tau$ w.r.t.
its independent variables $\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}$.
For $\alpha, \beta\ne 1, n$, by using (\ref{zh-18}), (\ref{zh-19}) and \eqref{relation}
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\p^2\log\hat{\tau}}{\partial \hat{t}^{\alpha,p}\partial \hat{t}^{\beta,q}}
&=& \frac{\p}{\p\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}}(-1)^q\left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{\beta,q}}-\frac{\theta_{\beta,q}}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right)
(-\log\tau+x\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p x})\\
&=& (-1)^{p+q+1}\left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}-\frac{\theta_{\alpha,p}}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right)\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\beta,q}}\\
&=& (-1)^{p+q+1}(\Omega_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}-\frac{\theta_{\alpha,p}\theta_{\beta,q}}{v^n})=\hat{\Omega}_{\alpha,p;\beta,q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For other values of $\alpha, \beta$ we can verify the validity of the same equation,
so the proposition is proved.
\end{prf}
Note that the transformation \eqref{zh-24-2}, \eqref{zh-20b}, \eqref{legendre} is an involution, its inverse is given by \eqref{zh-24-2} and
\begin{equation}
x=-\frac{\p}{\p\hat{x}}\log\hat\tau,\quad \log\tau=\hat{x} \frac{\p\log\hat\tau}{\p\hat{x}}-\log\hat\tau.
\end{equation}
The flat metric $\hat{\eta}$ and the
intersection form $\hat{g}$ of the Frobenius manifold associated to
$\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ give a
bihamiltonian structure for the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-20}.
In the flat coordinates ${\hat{v}}^1,\dots, {\hat{v}}^n$, due to the
identities (\ref{identity1}), (\ref{identity2}) and \eqref{metric2}, the compatible Hamiltonian operators
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}_1^{\alpha\beta}=\hat{\eta}^{\alpha\beta}\p_{\hat{x}}, \quad
\hat{P}_2^{\alpha\beta}=\hat{g}^{\alpha\beta}({\hat{v}})
\p_{\hat{x}}+\hat{\Gamma}^{\alpha\beta}_{\gamma}({\hat{v}})
{\hat{v}}^\gamma_{\hat{x}}
\end{equation}
have the following relation with the Hamiltonian operators
given in \eqref{zh-10-13}:
\begin{align
&\hat\eta_{\alpha\beta}\, d{\hat{v}}^\alpha d{\hat{v}}^\beta=(v^n)^{-2} \eta_{\alpha\beta}\,
dv^\alpha dv^\beta,\nonumber\\
&\hat g_{\alpha\beta}({\hat{v}})\, d{\hat{v}}^\alpha d{\hat{v}}^\beta=-(v^n)^{-2} g_{\alpha\beta}(v)\,
dv^\alpha dv^\beta.\nonumber
\end{align}
Here $(g_{\alpha\beta})=(g^{\alpha\beta})^{-1}, (\hat g_{\alpha\beta})=(\hat g^{\alpha\beta})^{-1}$.
Such transformation rule for Hamiltonian structures of hydrodynamic
type is given in \cite{Fer}, and for more general type of Hamiltonian
structures is recently given in \cite{SZ}.
\section{Virasoro constraints of the tau functions }\label{sec-5}
In this section, we consider the problem of how the actions of the symmetries of the WDVV equations change the Virasoro constraints of the tau functions.
It was shown in \cite{DZ3} that the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} possesses an infinite number of Virasoro symmetries. In terms of its tau function these symmetries
can be represented in the form
\begin{align}
\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p s_m}=&
\sum a_m^{\alpha,p;\beta,q} \frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\beta,q}}+
\sum b_{m;\alpha,p}^{\beta,q} t^{\alpha,p} \frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\beta,q}}\nonumber\\
&+\sum c_{m;\alpha,p;\beta,q} t^{\alpha,p} t^{\beta,q},\quad m\ge -1.\label{zh-24-1b}
\end{align}
The coefficients that appear in the above expressions are some constants, they
define a set of linear differential operators
\begin{align}
L_m=&\sum a_m^{\alpha,p;\beta,q} \frac{\p^2}{\p t^{\alpha,p}\p t^{\beta,q}}+
\sum b_{m;\alpha,p}^{\beta,q} t^{\alpha,p} \frac{\p}{\p t^{\beta,q}}\nonumber\\
&+\sum c_{m;\alpha,p;\beta,q} t^{\alpha,p} t^{\beta,q}+\delta_{m,0}\, c
\end{align}
which give a representation of half of the Virasoro algebra
\begin{equation}
[L_i, L_j]=(i-j) L_{i+j}+n\frac{i^3-i}{12} \delta_{i+j,0},\quad i, j \ge -1.
\end{equation}
Here $c$ is a constant.
For a generic solution of the principal hierarchy its tau function satisfies the Virasoro constraints \cite{DZ2}
\begin{equation}\label{zh-24-2b}
A_m(\bar{t};\tau)=0,\quad m\ge -1.
\end{equation}
Here we denote the r.h.s. of \eqref{zh-24-1b} by $A(t; \tau)$, and the shifted variable $\bar{t}$ in the above expression is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{zh-1-26}
\bar{t}^{\alpha,p}=t^{\alpha,p}-c^{\alpha,p}
\end{equation}
for some constants $c_{\alpha,p}$. In particular
in 2d topological field theory the partition functions are given by the tau functions which are specified by the Virasoro constraints with $c^{\alpha,p}=\delta^\alpha_1 \delta^p_1$ \cite{DZ3, LT}, and the first Virasoro constraint is the string equation
\begin{equation}\label{string}
\sum_{p\ge
1}t^{\alpha,p}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p-1}}+\frac12 \eta_{\alpha\beta}
t^{\alpha,0} t^{\beta,0}= \frac{\p \log\tau}{\p x}.
\end{equation}
Let $F(v)$ and $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ be solutions of the WDVV equations that are related by a type-1 or type-2 symmetry. We denote by
\begin{align}
\hat{A}(\hat{t};\hat\tau)=&\sum \hat{a}_m^{\alpha,p;\beta,q} \frac{\p\log\hat\tau}{\p \hat{t}^{\alpha,p}}\frac{\p\log\hat\tau}{\p \hat{t}^{\beta,q}}+
\sum \hat b_{m;\alpha,p}^{\beta,q}\hat t^{\alpha,p} \frac{\p\log\hat\tau}{\p \hat t^{\beta,q}}\nonumber\\
&+\sum \hat c_{m;\alpha,p;\beta,q} \hat t^{\alpha,p} \hat t^{\beta,q},\quad m\ge -1
\end{align}
the r.h.s. of the Virasoro symmetries of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-10} or \eqref{zh-20} associated to $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$.
\begin{prop}
Let $\tau(t)$ be the tau function of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} associated to the solution $F(v)$ of the WDVV equations.
Then for the tau function $\hat\tau(\hat{t})$ obtained from $\tau(t)$ by applying the type-1 symmetry we have
\begin{equation}\label{zh-1-26-2}
\hat{A}_m(\hat{t};\hat\tau)= A_m(t;\tau),\quad m\ge -1,
\end{equation}
and for the tau function $\hat\tau(\hat{t})$ obtained from $\tau(t)$ by applying the type-2 symmetry we have
\begin{equation}\label{zh-1-26-3}
\hat{A}_m(\hat{t};\hat\tau)=(-1)^{m+1} A_m(t;\tau),\quad m\ge -1.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
The validity of \eqref{zh-1-26-2} follows from Proposition \ref{prp-zh-1} obviously. To verify the validity of \eqref{zh-1-26-3}, we note that
the relations \eqref{zh-19} and \eqref{legendre} yield
\begin{align}
\frac{\p \log\hat{\tau}}{\p\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}}
=&(-1)^p\left(\frac{\p}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}-\frac{\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{v^n}\frac{\p}{\p x}\right)
\left(-\log\tau+x\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p x}\right)\nonumber\\
=&(-1)^{p+1}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}+(-1)^p\left(x\frac{\p^2\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p}\p x}
-\frac{x\theta_{\alpha,p}(v)}{v^n}\frac{\p^2 log\tau}{\p x^2}\right)\nonumber\\
=&(-1)^{p+1}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p}}\nonumber
\end{align}
for $\alpha\neq 1,n, p\geq 0$, and
\begin{align}\label{zh-28}
&\frac{\p \log\hat{\tau}}{\p\hat{t}^{1,0}}=-t^{1,0},\quad \frac{\p\log\hat{\tau}}{\p\hat{t}^{1,p}}=(-1)^{p+1}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{n,p-1}},\ p\geq 1,\nonumber\\
& \frac{\p\log\hat{\tau}}{\p\hat{t}^{n,p}}=(-1)^p\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{1,p+1}},\ p\geq 0.\nonumber
\end{align}
From the above equations we obtain
\begin{align}
\hat{A}_{-1}(\hat{t};\hat\tau)=&
\sum_{p\geq 1}\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}\frac{\p \log \hat{\tau}}{\p \hat{t}^{\alpha,p-1}}
+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta} \hat{t}^{\alpha,0}\hat{t}^{\beta,0}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{p\geq 1,\alpha\neq 1,n}\hat{t}^{\alpha,p}\frac{\p\log\hat\tau}{\p \hat{t}^{\alpha,p-1}}
+\sum_{p\geq 1}\hat{t}^{1,p}\frac{\p\log\hat{\tau}}{\p \hat{t}^{1,p-1}}
+\sum_{p\geq 1}\hat{t}^{n,p}\frac{\p\log\hat{\tau}}{\p \hat{t}^{n,p-1}}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\alpha\neq 1,n}\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta} \hat{t}^{\alpha,0}\hat{t}^{\beta,0}
+\hat{t}^{1,0}\hat{t}^{n,0}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{p\geq 1,\alpha\neq 1,n}t^{\alpha,p}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p-1}}+\sum_{p\geq 2}t^{n,p-1}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{n,p-2}}
+\sum_{p\geq 1}t^{1,p+1}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{1,p}}\nonumber\\
&+\hat{t}^{1,1}\frac{\p\log\hat{\tau}}{\p \hat{t}^{1,0}}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\neq 1,n}\eta_{\alpha\beta} t^{\alpha,0}t^{\beta,0}
+t^{1,1}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{1,0}}\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{p\geq 1}t^{\alpha,p}\frac{\p\log\tau}{\p t^{\alpha,p-1}}+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta}t^{\alpha,0}t^{\beta,0}
=A_{-1}(t;\tau).\nonumber
\end{align}
The proof of the relation \eqref{zh-1-26-3} for $m\ge 0$ is similar, so we omit it here. The proposition is proved.
\end{prf}
From the above proposition we see that after the action of the tyep-1 and type-2 symmetries of the WDVV equations, the topological solution of the principal
hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} that is specified by the Virasoro constraints \eqref{zh-24-2b},
\eqref{zh-1-26} with $c^{\alpha,p}=\delta^\alpha_1 \delta^p_1$ is transformed to a tau function of the principal hierarchies \eqref{zh-10} and \eqref{zh-20} respectively, they satisfy the Virasoro constraints
\begin{equation}\label{zh-1-29}
\hat A_m(\bar{\hat t};\hat\tau)=0,\quad \bar{\hat t}^{\alpha,p}=\hat t^{\alpha,p}-\hat{c}^{\alpha,p}.
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\hat c^{\alpha,p}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \delta^{\alpha}_{1}\delta^p_1,\quad &\mbox{for the type-1 symmetry,}\\
-\delta^\alpha_n\delta^p_0,\quad &\mbox{for the type-2 symmetry.}
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
Note that the tau function $\hat\tau(\hat t)$ for the topological solution of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-10} satisfies the Virasoro constraints \eqref{zh-1-29}
with $\hat c^{\alpha,p}=\delta^\alpha_\kappa \delta^p_1$.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec-6}
For two solutions of the WDVV equations related by the type-1 or type-2 symmetries, we have shown that the associated principal hierarchies are related by certain reciprocal transformation, and their tau functions are either identical or related by a Legendre transformation. We also considered the relation of the Virasoro constraints for their tau functions.
It was shown in \cite{DZ2} that the principal hierarchy associated to a semisimple Frobenius manifold has a unique deformation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{zh-1-27}
\frac{\p w^\alpha}{\p t^{\beta,q}}= \eta^{\alpha\gamma}
\p_x\left(\frac{\p\theta_{\beta,q+1}(w)}{\p w^\gamma}\right)+
\sum_{g\ge 1} \varepsilon^{2 g} K^\alpha_{\beta,q;g}(w;w_x,\dots,w^{(2g+1)}).
\end{equation}
Here the $K^\alpha_{\beta,q;g}$ are polynomials of $w^\gamma_x,\dots,
\p_x^{2g+1} w^\gamma$ with coefficients depending smoothly on $w^1,\dots, w^n$.
Such a deformation is called the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy.
It preserves the tau structure of the principal hierarchy and has an infinite number of Virasoro symmetries. Moreover, in terms of the tau function the Virasoro symmetries are required to be linearized, i.e. they can be represented by
\[\frac{\p\tau(t;\varepsilon)}{\p s_m}=\varepsilon^2 L_m|_{t^{\alpha,p}\to \varepsilon t^{\alpha,p}} \tau(t;\varepsilon),\quad m\ge -1.\]
Here and in what follows we use $\tau(t;\varepsilon)$ to denote the tau function of the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy, and we redenote by
\[\tau^{[0]}(x,t)=e^{{\cal F}_0(x,t)}\]
the tau function of the principal hierarchy.
For a semisimple Frobenius manifold that is associated to a 2d topological field theory, the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy is supposed to determine the partition function of the model via its tau function specified by the Virasoro constraints
\begin{equation}
L_m|_{t^{\alpha,p}\to \varepsilon t^{\alpha,p}-\delta^\alpha_1\delta^p_1}\,\tau(t;\varepsilon)=0,\quad m\ge -1.
\end{equation}
When $m=-1$ the above constraint is just the string equation \eqref{string}.
We then have the following natural question: For any two semisimple Frobenius manifolds related by the type-1 or type-2 symmetries of the WDVV equations, what is the relationship between the topological deformations of their principal hierarchies?
From the construction of the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy given in \cite{DZ2} we know that
the deformed hierarchy \eqref{zh-1-27} is related to the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} via a so called qusi-Miura transformation of the form
\begin{equation}
w^\alpha=v^\alpha+ \eta^{\alpha\gamma}
\frac{\p^2}{\p x\p t^{\gamma,0}} \sum_{g\ge 1}\varepsilon^{2g} F_g(v;v_x,\dots,\p_x^{3g-2}v),\quad \alpha=1,\dots,n.
\end{equation}
Here the functions $F_g$ are determined by the loop equation associated to the semisimple Frobenius manifold \cite{DZ2}. In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{f-tp}
F_1(v,v_x)=\frac1{24}\det{\left(c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(v) v^\gamma_x\right)}+G(v),
\end{equation}
where $G(v)$ is the G-function of the Frobenius manifold \cite{DZ}.
The tau function $\tau(t;\varepsilon)$ of the deformed hierarchy
is related to a solution of the deformed hierarchy by the formula
\[w^\alpha(t)=\varepsilon^2 \eta^{\alpha\gamma}\frac{\p^2\log\tau(t;\varepsilon)}{\p x\p t^{\gamma,0}},\]
and the tau function has the genus expension
\begin{equation}\label{gep-1}
\tau(t;\varepsilon)=e^{\sum_{g\ge 0} \varepsilon^{2g-2} {\cal{F}}_g(t)}.
\end{equation}
Here ${\cal{F}}_g(t)=F_g(v(x,t),\dots, \p_x^{3g-2} v(x,t))$.
For the type-1 symmetry of the WDVV equations, we see from the above mentioned construction that the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy associated to $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ is obtained from that of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} by using $t^{\kappa,0}$ as the new spatial variable $\hat{x}$.
The time variables are given by $\hat t^{\alpha,p}=t^{\alpha,p}$ for $ (\alpha,p)\ne (\kappa,0)$ and $\hat{t}^{\kappa,0}=\hat{x}$, and the tau functions of these topological deformations of the principal hierarchies are related by $\hat\tau(\hat x,\hat t)=\tau(x,t)$.
Based on the results of Propositions \ref{prp-zh-2}, \ref{prp-zh-3} we have the following conjecture for the type-2 symmetry of the WDVV equations.
\begin{conj}
For the type-2 symmetry of the WDVV equations, the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-20} associated to $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ is obtained, up to a Miura type transformation, from that of the principal hierarchy \eqref{zh-9} by the following Legendre transformation of the tau function:
\begin{align}\label{transform2}
\begin{split}
&\log\hat{\tau}(\hat{t};\varepsilon)=\log\tau(t;i\varepsilon)-x\frac{\p\log\tau(t;i\varepsilon)}{\p x}\\
&\hat{x}=\varepsilon^2\frac{\p\log{\tau}(t;i\varepsilon)}{\p x},\quad \hat{t}^{1,p}=(-1)^{p}t^{n,p-1},\quad p\ge 1\\
&\hat{t}^{n,p}=(-1)^{p+1}t^{1,p+1},\quad \hat{t}^{\alpha,p}=(-1)^p t^{\alpha,p}, \quad \alpha\neq 1,n,\ p\ge 0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{conj}
Let us explain the validity of this conjecture at the approximation up to $\varepsilon^2$. To this end we perform a genus expansion of $\hat\tau(\hat t;\varepsilon)$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\hat\tau(\hat t;\varepsilon)=e^{\sum_{g\ge 0} \varepsilon^{2g-2} \hat{\cal{F}}_g(\hat t)}.
\end{equation}
Then by using the genus expansion \eqref{gep-1} of the tau function $\tau(t;\varepsilon)$ we can rewrite the first equation of \eqref{transform2} in the form
\begin{align}
&\varepsilon^{-2} \left(\hat{\cal F}_0(\hat t_0)+\varepsilon^2 \frac{\hat{\cal F}_0(\hat t_0)}{\p \hat x_0}\frac{\p{\cal F}_1(t)}{\p x} \right)+\hat{\cal F}_1(\hat t_0)+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^2)\nonumber\\
&=-\varepsilon^2 {\cal F}_0(t)+{\cal F}_1(t)-x\left(-\varepsilon^{-2}\frac{\p{\cal F}_0(t)}{\p x}+
\frac{\p{\cal F}_1(t)}{\p x}\right)+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^2) .\label{exp-1}
\end{align}
Here we expand $\hat t^{\alpha,p}=\hat t^{\alpha,p}(t;\varepsilon)$ that are defined in \eqref{transform2} in the form
\[\hat t^{1,0}=\hat x=\hat x_0+\varepsilon^2\hat x_1+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^4)=-\frac{\p {\cal F}_0(t)}{\p x}+\varepsilon^2 \frac{\p{\cal F}_1(t)}{\p x}+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^4),\]
and $\hat t^{\alpha,p}=\hat t^{\alpha,p}_0$ for $(\alpha,p)\ne (1,0)$.
By comparing the coefficients of $\varepsilon^{-2}$ of the left and right sides of \eqref{exp-1} we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal{F}}_0(\hat{t}_0)=-\mathcal{F}_0(t)
+x\frac{\p \mathcal{F}_0(t)}{\p x}.\label{freeeng0}
\end{equation}
From this it follows that
\[x=-\frac{\p \hat {\cal F}_0(\hat t_0)}{\p \hat x_0}.\]
Then the coefficients of $\varepsilon^0$ of the equation \eqref{exp-1} yields
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal{F}}_1(\hat{t}_0)=\mathcal{F}_1(t).\label{freeeng1}
\end{equation}
The formula \eqref{freeeng0} coincides with the Legendre transformation \eqref{legendre} between the tau functions of the
principal hierarchies. From the formula \eqref{freeeng1} we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal{F}}_1(\hat t_0)=F_1(v,v_x)|_{v=v(t)}=(\frac{1}{24} \det\left(c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(v) v^\gamma_x\right)+G(v))|_{v=v(t)}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, from \eqref{identity1} it follows that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{24}\log \det(\hat{c}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\hat{v})\hat{v}_{\hat{x}_0}^\gamma)
=\frac{1}{24}\log \det(c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(v)v_{x}^{\gamma})-\frac{n}{24}\log v^n.
\end{equation}
And by using the result of \cite{STR} the G-function of the Frobenius manifold associated to $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{G}(\hat{v})=G(v)+(\frac{n}{24}-\frac{1}{2})\log v^n.
\end{equation}
Thus we arrive at
\begin{align}
\hat{\cal{F}}_1(\hat t_0)&=(\frac{1}{24}\log \det(\hat{c}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\hat{v})\hat{v}_{\hat{x}_0}^\gamma)+\hat{G}({\hat{v}})+\frac12 \log v^n)|_{v=v(t)}\nonumber\\
&=(\frac{1}{24}\log \det(\hat{c}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\hat{v})\hat{v}_{\hat{x}_0}^\gamma)+\hat{G}({\hat{v}})-\frac12 \log {\hat{v}}^n)|_{{\hat{v}}={\hat{v}}(\hat t_0)}.
\end{align}
Then from the formula \eqref{f-tp} for the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy and the
equations
\begin{equation}
\frac{\p\hat{v}^n}{\p \hat{t}^{\gamma,0}}=\eta_{\gamma\sigma} {\hat{v}}^\sigma_{\hat x},\quad \alpha=1,\dots,n
\end{equation}
we see that the hierarchy of equations satisfied by
\begin{equation}
\hat w^\alpha=\varepsilon^2 \eta^{\alpha\gamma} \frac{\p^2 \log\hat\tau(\hat t;\varepsilon)}{\p\hat x \p \hat t^{\gamma,0}},\quad \alpha=1,\dots,n
\end{equation}
is related, at the approximation up to $\varepsilon^2$, to the topological deformation of the principal hierarchy associated to $\hat{F}({\hat{v}})$ by the following Miura type transformation
\begin{equation}
\hat w^\alpha\mapsto \hat w^\alpha+
\varepsilon^2 \frac{{\hat w}^\alpha_{\hat x \hat x} {\hat w}^n-{\hat w}^\alpha_{\hat x}{\hat w}^n_{\hat x}}{2 (\hat w^n)^2}+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^4),\quad \alpha=1,\dots, n.
\end{equation}
We will return to the extension of the Legendre transformation to the topological deformation of a principal hierarchy in seperate publications.
\vskip 0.5truecm
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgments.}
The authors thank Boris Dubrovin and Si-Qi Liu for helpful discussions and comments.
The work is partially supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) No.2007CB814800 and the NSFC No.10631050.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{}
The construction of a working quantum computer is
one of the most fascinating aims of modern science.
The building block of a quantum computer is
qubit, a quantum bit. During recent years, several proposals
for a qubit have been studied experimentally and theoretically.
One of the most popular candidates has been electron spin in
semiconductor nanostructures.
The control of a two-electron double quantum dot has been realized
experimentally by using electric fields \cite{petta05}
and has also been studied theoretically \cite{murgida:036806,sarkka:245315}.
When the electron density is concentrated over a certain radial
distance from the dot center, the quantum dot is transformed
to a quantum ring.
The tuning of the quantum states of quantum rings by electric
fields has been demonstrated experimentally \cite{fuhrer:206802},
the energy structure of two-electron quantum rings
has been focus of theoretical investigations
\cite{climente2005,malet:1492,xie2008},
and feasible qubit operations for the quantum ring
have also been discussed \cite{waltersson:115318}.
The decoherence caused by the interaction between the confined electron
spin and the hyperfine spins of surrounding nuclei
has been widely studied \cite{deng:241303,taylor:035315,nepstad:125315}.
Recently, the control of two-electron double quantum dot
by time-dependent external magnetic field has been
addressed \cite{sarkka:045323}. Here we apply this
control method in a quantum ring.
In our analysis, the electrons are
confined by a harmonic radial potential.
In addition, there is a Gaussian potential
at the dot center. This causes the
electron density to concentrate in a ring-shaped
area around the origin, making a quantum ring.
In this paper, we study the control of a two-electron
quantum ring using magnetic field. The lowest-lying energy
states of this system are the singlet state $|S \rangle$
and three triplet states $|T_{-} \rangle$, $|T_{0} \rangle$,
and $|T_{+} \rangle$. The hyperfine interaction couples the singlet and triplet
states. When the singlet and triplet states are degenerate,
singlet-triplet transitions are possible. We show that the
time-dependent external magnetic field can be used to control
the singlet and triplet energies in order to induce
transitions from singlet to triplet state.
The rest of the manuscript is organized as follows.
The physical model is discussed in Section 2.
In Section 3 the numerical results are presented
and conclusions are made in Section 4.
\section{Model}
We model the two-electron system with the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{i=1}^{2} \Bigg(\frac{\Big(-i\hbar \nabla_{i}
-\frac{e}{c}\mathbf{A}_{i}\Big)^{2}}{2m^{*}}
+V(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{s}_{i}) \Bigg)
+\frac{e^{2}}{\epsilon r_{12}},
\end{equation}
where the effective mass $m^*$=$0.067m_e$
and permeability $\epsilon$=12.7
are material parameters for GaAs.
The external potential $V$ consists of
two parts,
\begin{equation}
V=V_{Z}+V_{C}.
\end{equation}
The first part, $V_{Z}$, is the potential caused by the
Zeeman interaction
\begin{equation}
V_{Z}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{s})=g^{*}\mu_{B}\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})\cdot
\mathbf{s},
\end{equation}
where the Land\'e factor of GaAs is $g^{*}$=-0.44.
The magnetic field can be divided into a homogeneous
external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_{ext}=\nabla \times \mathbf{A}$ and an inhomogeneous random
hyperfine field $\mathbf{h}(\mathbf{r})$.
The hyperfine field strength is determined
from a fit to experimental data \cite{sarkka:245315}.
The second part in the external potential is
the confinement potential $V_{C}$, that depends only on the
radial coordinate. In our case it has two parts, harmonic potential
and Gaussian peak at the center of the ring, resulting
to the expression \cite{gustav}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ringpot}
V_{C}(r)=\frac{1}{2}m^{*}\omega_{0}^{2}r^2
+V_0 \exp(-r^2/{r_0}^2),
\end{equation}
where the Gaussian peak has
height $V_0$=34 meV, width $r_0$=20 nm, and the
the strength of the harmonic potential is $\hbar \omega_{0}$=3.0 meV.
The radial potential is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:potential}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{ringpotential}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{fig:potential}
The potential of the quantum ring,
given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:ringpot})}
\end{figure}
We solve the lowest-energy singlet and
triplet states using finite difference method
with Lanczos diagonalization.
The density of the singlet state of quantum
ring is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:density}. The maximum of
the singlet density is attained at the radius
$r \approx 40$ nm, where the confining potential has
its minimum value.
The Gaussian peak added to the confinement
potential at the center of the dot creates
a hole in the singlet density of the quantum ring.
The singlet density vanishes for radii
larger than 60 nm.
\begin{figure}[hb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{ringdensity}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{fig:density}
Electron density of the singlet state
in a quantum ring. Unit of the $x$ and $y$
coordinates is nm. Magnetic field strength is 1.3 T.}
\end{figure}
The energies of the two lowest energy states as
a function of the external magnetic field
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:energy}. In the
calculation, the hyperfine field and the
Zeeman term in the Hamiltonian are not taken
into account, because these terms bring
at most 0.1 meV contribution to the total energy
for magnetic fields smaller than 5 T.
Hence, the two lowest states are singlet state
and triplet state. For zero magnetic field
singlet is the ground state. As the magnetic
field increases, singlet and triplet states
alternate in ground state and excited state.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{energy}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{fig:energy}
Energies of the ground state (solid) and first excited state
(dashed) of the quantum ring as a function of the external
magnetic field. In the calculation of
these energies, the hyperfine field is set to zero and
the Zeeman term is neglected.}
\end{figure}
The singlet-triplet transitions are possible
only for such magnetic field values when
the singlet and triplet become degenerate.
Thus, the relevant energy for the following
analysis is the difference $\Delta E=E_T-E_S$
between singlet and triplet energies $E_S$ and $E_T$.
The energy differences between
the three triplet states and the singlet state
as a function of magnetic field are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:enedif}.
Here the Zeeman term is included in the Hamiltonian,
but hyperfine term is omitted, as it does not
contribute significantly to the energy difference.
The mechanism of the quantum ring control is
based on the fact that the energy differences change
sign when the magnetic field increases.
When the magnetic field is increased,
the singlet and triplet states are degenerate for certain
magnetic field values. The degeneracies of the
three triplet states occur at differing magnetic fields,
and the differences between the degeneracy points
increase for larger magnetic fields due to the
Zeeman energy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{excring}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{fig:enedif}
The energy difference $\Delta E$ between the singlet state
$S$ and triplet states $T_-,T_0$ and $T_+$ of a double
quantum dot as a function
of the external magnetic field. In the calculation of
these energies, the hyperfine field is set to zero.}
\end{figure}
There are several singlet-triplet degeneracies for
different magnetic field values, enabling the control of
the speed of the singlet-triplet transition not
only by changing the sweeping time of the magnetic field,
but also by choosing different magnetic field intervals,
as the energy changes more slowly as a function of magnetic
field for larger magnetic field values and the three
degeneracy points are further apart from each other.
If the confining potential is stronger than the one used
in our analysis, the maximum of the energy difference
increases. In such case, the singlet-triplet degeneracies
are closer to each other. Hence, the interval of
the magnetic field values used in the switching would
need to be much smaller.
The energy difference $\Delta E$ depends linearly on the magnetic
field under many intervals. If the magnetic field is changed linearly as a
function of time inside such an interval, $\Delta E$ depends
linearly on time. If $\Delta E $ changes sign in the interval,
the occurring transition is a Landau-Zener transition.
For a two-level quantum system, the probability of a
diabatic transition depends only on the off-diagonal
element of the two-level Hamiltonian $\alpha$, and on
the time derivative of the energy difference $K$,
according to the Landau-Zener formula \cite{landau32,zener32}
\begin{equation}
P=\exp\Bigg(-\frac{2 \pi \alpha^{2}}{|K|}\Bigg).
\end{equation}
If the hyperfine field coupling the two states is random,
one has to integrate the probability over Gaussian
distributed $\alpha$, resulting to a more complicated expression \cite{sarkka:045323}.
In our setup, the energies of the states above
the four lowest-lying states are considerably larger than their coupling
with the lowest-lying states induced by the hyperfine field.
Hence, we approximate the quantum dynamics of the system using a
4 $\times$ 4 Hamiltonian, constructed in the basis of
the singlet and three triplet states \cite{coish:125337}.
The system is initialized in the singlet states.
The time dependence of the quantum states is obtained
from the relation $\psi(t)=\exp(-iHt/\hbar)\psi(0)$.
The randomness of the hyperfine field is taken into
account by averaging $\psi(t)$ over 1000 different realizations
of the hyperfine field. The probabilities of the singlet and
triplet states are obtained from the squares of the
expansion coefficients of the wave function in the singlet-triplet basis.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{step100}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{step275}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{step4000}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{step17000}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{fig:steps}
Probabilities $P$ of the
singlet state $S$ and triplet
states $T_-,T_0$ and $T_+$ of a quantum ring
as a function of time averaged over
1000 realizations.
The time used to switch the magnetic field from
1.2 T to 1.5 T is 100 microseconds in (a),
275 microseconds in (b), 3.85 milliseconds in (c),
and 17 milliseconds in (d).}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
In the control scheme we use, the magnetic field is changed
linearly from 1.2 T to 1.5 T. All three triplet states have degeneracies with
the singlet state inside this interval, see Fig.~\ref{fig:enedif}.
Hence, the singlet probability decreases three times, resulting
in a graph where the singlet probability has a step function form with
three steps. In Fig.~\ref{fig:steps} are shown the probabilities of the
singlet and triplet states as a function of time,
averaged over 1000 random hyperfine field realizations, for four
different magnetic field switching times: 100 $\mu$s (a), 275 $\mu$s (b),
3.85 ms (c), and 17 ms (d). All four figures indicate that the
singlet-triplet transitions occur at the close neighborhood
of the degeneracy points, as the probabilities stay constant
until the degeneracy point is reached.
The oscillations of singlet and triplet states are so rapidly damped
that they are not visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:steps}. Only peaks at
the transition points remain as traces of the oscillations.
Hence, the behavior of the probabilities resembles step function.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:steps} (a), the switching is done in 100 $\mu$s.
Now the switching is so fast that the singlet probability
does not change considerably at the degeneracy points, hence the triplet
probabilities are quite small in the end. When the switching takes
275 $\mu$s in Fig.~\ref{fig:steps} (b), we observe that the steps
of the singlet probability are now larger, but still the singlet probability is
in the end larger than the triplet probabilities. If the switching time
is increased to 3.85 ms, see Fig.~\ref{fig:steps} (c),
we denote that the singlet probability changes considerably
already at the first singlet-triplet transition. The
following two transitions are thus smaller, as the singlet
probability has a diminished value before the transitions take place.
Finally in the Fig.~\ref{fig:steps} (d), the switching time is increased
to 17 ms. Now the slow switching process enables a large singlet-triplet
transition at the first degeneracy point and $T_+$ state gains
a probability close to 1. Thus, the other triplet states can only
have small probabilities in the end.
These differences in these four figures are caused by
the exponential dependence of the singlet-triplet transition
probability on the switching speed.
For a single hyperfine field realization,
the behavior of the singlet probability gives a qualitatively similar step
function graph, where the transition probabilities are given exactly
by the Landau-Zener formula.
For slower switching speeds in Figs.~ \ref{fig:steps} (c) and (d)
the $T_-$ state has a large probability after the transition.
This limits the probabilities of the $T_0$ and $T_+$ states
due to the conservation of the total probability.
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusion, we analyzed the use of an external
time-dependent magnetic field for the control
of a two-electron quantum ring.
The energy structure of the singlet and triplet
states allows singlet-triplet transitions
for certain magnetic field values. By
initializing the system in the singlet state and
changing the external magnetic field value continuously,
so that singlet-triplet degeneracy points are crossed,
all three triplet states have nonzero probabilities.
By choosing
different switching times for the magnetic field,
one obtains a variety of final states,
as they are different superpositions
of the singlet and three triplet states.
In the present analysis, the speed of
the magnetic field change was constant
during the switching process.
This speed could be changed between different
singlet-triplet transitions. Thus,
the probabilities of the different triplet
states can be easily adjusted, making this
setup feasible for the construction of a qubit.
Our results give the relevant time scales
and magnetic field values for the
experimental realization of quantum ring control.
The singlet-triplet energy behaves piecewise
linearly as a function of the external magnetic field.
The Landau-Zener formula, valid for linear energy crossings,
can be used for accurate description
of singlet-triplet transition processes.
The time scale of the magnetic field
change from 1.2 T to 1.5 T in this control
scheme is of the order of 0.1 -1 ms. For
the time being, such a magnetic field control
is quite demanding to do experimentally,
but the development of experimental techniques
may solve this problem in the near future.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This study has been supported by the Academy of Finland through
its Centers of Excellence Program (2006-2011).
|
\section{Introduction}
Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are thought to be the products of a
thermonuclear explosion of a white dwarf reaching the Chandrasekhar
mass - the mass limit allowed by the supporting electron degeneracy
pressure. This requires the white dwarf to accrete mass from a binary
companion, though the nature of this companion and the timescale of
the accretion are hotly debated. The {\it single degenerate} model
proposes the companion to be a main sequence or giant star with mass
transfer by Roche lobe overflow, while the {\it double degenerate}
scenario proposes that the companion is also a white dwarf and the two
objects merge. While the connection between these two scenarios and
the delay time from progenitor birth to SN Ia explosion is unclear,
knowledge of this delay would constrain the initial masses of SN Ia
progenitors.
Interest in SNe Ia has greatly increased since their use as
standardized candles led the discovery of the accelerated expansion of
the Universe
\citep{RiessEtAl98, PerlmutterEtAl99}. The latest
generation of SN Ia surveys, including SNLS \citep{AstierEtAl06},
ESSENCE \citep{Wood-VaseyEtAl07}, and
SDSS-SN \citep{KesslerEtAl09}, however, are limited by the
possibility of
systematic uncertainties in their calibration of SN Ia luminosities.
This has sparked great interest in any physical properties that could
alter the peak luminosity/light curve width relation
\citep{Phillips93} used to calibrate SNe Ia. In particular, it has
highlighted our incomplete knowledge of SN Ia progenitor systems.
Due to their low luminosities, SN Ia progenitors have never been
directly observed. Constraints on their nature and rates of explosion
must therefore come from studies of SN Ia environments, and a variety
of techniques have been used to carry out such studies.
\cite{SullivanEtAl06}, \cite{MannucciEtAl06}, and others use host galaxy
photometry and \cite{Gallagheretal05} use spectra to derive stellar
populations and metallicities, and correlate these luminosity-weighted
average values against SN Ia rates and properties.
\citeauthor{SullivanEtAl06} and \citeauthor{MannucciEtAl06} see higher
SN Ia rates in star-forming galaxies, while
\citeauthor{Gallagheretal05} find that spirals host more luminous
SNe. To derive constraints on the ages of the progenitor
systems, \cite{NeillEtAl06} and \cite{Gal-YamMaoz04} compare
the evolution of the supernova rate with the evolution of the cosmic
star formation rate. Because this rate changes slowly with redshift
in the local universe, the method places only weak constraints on the
progenitor ages. \cite{CooperEtAl09} have used host galaxy
clustering as a proxy for the metallicities of SN Ia environments and
found a significant correlation with supernova rate or luminosity.
\cite{BadenesEtAl09} have measured the {\it local} stellar
populations for four historical SNe Ia in the Large Magellanic Cloud,
finding that three of the supernovae live in regions with little star
formation over the last several Gyr.
Over the past decade and a half, analyses of SN Ia environments
(including several papers cited above) have produced evidence that
there are at least two distinct populations of SNe Ia: blue,
star-forming galaxies have higher supernova rates and host more
luminous, slower-declining
supernovae than do red, passive galaxies \citep[][but see
\citealt{Schawinski09}]{HamuyEtAl96, Howell01,
VanDenBerghEtAl05, MannucciEtAl05}. More recently, this conclusion
has been confirmed in large, local SN Ia samples by
\cite{HickenEtAl09a} and \cite{MaozEtAl10} and in a higher
redshift sample by \cite{SullivanEtAl10}. The observation of at
least two populations has led to the so-called
$A+B$ model \citep{ScannapiecoBildsten05}, in which the supernova
rate is modeled as the sum of a term proportional to total
stellar mass (the delayed component) and a term proportional to recent
star formation (the prompt component):
\begin{equation}
\mathit{SNR} = AM_* + B\dot{M}_*.
\label{eq:AB_model}
\end{equation}
Values of $A$ and $B$ have been determined by \cite{SullivanEtAl06},
\cite{NeillEtAl06}, \cite{MannucciEtAl05} and others, with significant
scatter between the
groups due to different SN Ia samples, methods for deriving $A$ and
$B$, definitions of stellar masses and proxies for the star formation
rates. \cite{AubourgEtAl08} used host galaxy spectra and found
that the supernova rate per unit mass for young stars is $\sim 500$ times
higher than for old stellar populations, a factor of $\sim 5$ higher than
earlier results. They also found evidence that the time scale of the
prompt component is $\lesssim 180$ Myr.
Unfortunately, the $A+B$ model provides only weak constraints on the
ages associated with the prompt and delayed components. Because of
the strong dependence of stellar evolution timescales on initial mass,
more precise ages can powerfully constrain the main-sequence masses
of the progenitors. This will require a better approximation to the
full delay-time distribution (DTD), the explosion rate as a function
of progenitor age. The DTD, $\epsilon(t)$, has units of number of
supernovae per unit stellar mass per year, and relates a galaxy's
supernova rate to its star formation rate $\psi(t)$:
\begin{equation}
\mathit{SNR}(t) = \int_0^{t} \epsilon(t-t') \psi(t')\,\mathrm{d}t'.
\end{equation}
Thus, $\epsilon(t)$ represents
the probability per year that a unit of stellar mass will produce a
Type Ia supernova a time $t$ after its formation. The DTD sets the
rates and timescales of SN Ia production that must be matched by
progenitor models.
There have been several attempts to parametrize and measure the
DTD. \cite{PritchetEtAl08} assume a continuous, power-law DTD
($\epsilon(t) \propto t^{-p}$) and find that the SNLS survey constrains
$p$ to lie in the range $0.3 \leq p \leq 0.7$. Roughly speaking, this
is required for consistency with measurements of $A$ and $B$ from,
e.g., \cite{SullivanEtAl06}. Using
a theoretical argument to calculate the rate of white dwarf formation
per unit stellar mass, they find that a single-degenerate model can
yield a power law DTD of this form only if the fraction of white
dwarfs which explode as SNe Ia is
independent of progenitor mass. Because less massive progenitors
should produce less massive remnants, \citeauthor{PritchetEtAl08}
conclude that there must be another, possibly double degenerate,
route to SNe Ia. \cite{TotaniEtAl08} constrain the DTD in old stellar
populations by selecting SN candidates in passive galaxies from the
Subaru/XMM-Newton Deep Survey \citep[SXDS,][]{FurusawaEtAl08}. Combining these high redshift
observations with the local observed SN Ia rate in
ellipticals, they find $\epsilon(t) \propto t^{-1}$ in the
range $0.1 < t < 10$ Gyr. \citeauthor{TotaniEtAl08} argue that a
DTD of this form supports a double-degenerate origin for delayed SNe
Ia.
In this paper, we aim to provide better constraints on the DTD and to
determine whether luminous SNe Ia (with temporally ``stretched''
light curves) and less luminous events have different progenitors from
one another.
Any attempt to measure the DTD relies on the intrinsic range of galaxy
properties, and in particular, the differences between supernova hosts
and non-hosts. It is therefore essential to have a supernova sample
with a well-understood selection function and a well-defined control
group of galaxies monitored for SNe. Otherwise, differences between
hosts and non-hosts may be attributed to biases or survey systematics
rather than to supernova rates. Nearby surveys often comprise
SNe discovered by many different techniques, making it difficult to
define or build a control sample. High redshift searches are
often blind (i.e.~sensitive to SNe in all galaxies in the field), but
lack spectra of the field galaxies.
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Supernova Survey \citep[SDSS-SN,
][]{FriemanEtAl08, SakoEtAl08} satisfies both
criteria. It is the only controlled, blind, difference
imaging supernova search at low redshift, with most supernovae in the
range $0.05 \lesssim z \lesssim 0.35$. SDSS
\citep{YorkEtAl00} also has a large spectroscopic
catalog of galaxies, of which about 83,000 lie in the stripe of sky
monitored for supernovae. SDSS-SN is therefore the ideal survey with
which to perform a statistical comparison of the spectroscopic
properties of hosts and non-hosts.
For our study we select 101 SNe Ia from the SDSS-SN sample with
acceptable light curves and SDSS host galaxy spectra. We then use VErsatile
SPectral Analysis \citep{TojeiroEtAl07} - VESPA - to derive star
formation histories for all galaxies in the control sample. Given
any assumed delay time distribution, these star formation histories
allow us to simulate a population of hosts. We then use the spectra
themselves to compare these mock hosts to the observed SN Ia host
galaxies. We compute likelihoods for a large number of assumed delay
time distributions, thereby constraining the DTD.
We have organized this paper as follows: in Section \ref{sec:data} we
describe our datasets; in Sections \ref{sec:method} and
\ref{sec:constrain} we describe our
methodology; in Section \ref{sec:results} we present our results and
we finally discuss and conclude in Section \ref{sec:discussion}.
\section{Data: SDSS-SN} \label{sec:data}
The SDSS Supernova Survey (SDSS-SN) was carried out along ``Stripe
82'' \citep{YorkEtAl00}, a
region of sky 2.5 degrees wide centered on the Celestial Equator,
stretching from $20.7$ hours to $3.9$ hours ($-50^\circ$ - $+59^\circ$)
Right Ascension for a total area of 270 deg$^2$. It was observed up
to 80 times with the SDSS imaging camera \citep{GunnEtAl98};
supernova candidates were identified by difference imaging, and
followed up with spectroscopy on other telescopes, and photometry from
the SDSS telescope \citep{GunnEtAl06} and other telescopes as
well.
SDSS-SN is described in detail in \cite{FriemanEtAl08} and
\cite{SakoEtAl08}. Operating for three months of the year
from 2005 to 2007, SDSS-SN has identified
over 400 spectroscopically confirmed SNe Ia in the redshift range $0.05
\lesssim z \lesssim 0.35$, of which 146 from the 2005 season have
$ugriz$ light curves published in \cite{HoltzmanEtAl08}.
Preliminary data for the remainder were kindly provided to us by the
SDSS supernova team. We have selected definitive and probable SNe Ia
this catalog of preliminary photometry using the types reported
through the Central Bureau for Astronomical
Telegrams\footnote{http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html}.
We have further excluded two objects listed as peculiar SNe Ia,
2005hk and 2007qd.
The preliminary photometric data lack errorbars, which we have
estimated using the observed correlation between errors and magnitudes
in each band in the published 2005 data \citep{HoltzmanEtAl08}.
Because our final analysis only uses the light curves to divide our
sample into two broad subsamples, our results are insensitive to the
details of these error estimates. We have also checked the
reliability of the preliminary flux measurements using objects from
the 2005 season for which final data are also available.
The differences between preliminary and final published fluxes are
approximately Cauchy distributed, with a mean offset from zero of
$\sim 0.5~\mu{}\mathrm{Jy}$ and a full width at half maximum of $\sim
2.5~\mu{}\mathrm{Jy}$. These are much fainter than a typical SDSS
supernova peak magnitude of $\lesssim 20$, or a peak flux of $\gtrsim
40~\mu{}\mathrm{Jy}$.
The SDSS carried out spectroscopy of galaxies on Stripe 82, using the
standard selection algorithms used throughout the SDSS survey. These
include the Main Galaxy selection described in
\cite{StraussEtAl02}, consisting of all galaxies with
\cite{Petrosian76} $r$-band magnitudes brighter than
17.77 and with a median redshift of order 0.13, and the Luminous Red
Galaxy (LRG) sample of \cite{EisensteinEtAl01}, which selects the most
luminous red ellipticals to $z\sim 0.55$. Because of the limited
imaging carried out by SDSS in the Fall months, however, additional
spectroscopy was carried out on Stripe 82 using a variety of
algorithms that went beyond the main spectroscopic sample
\citep{Adelman-McCarthyEtAl06}, including a sample designed to calibrate
photometric redshifts, a sample of low-luminosity galaxies, an
extension of the LRG sample to fainter and bluer objects, and a sample
flux-limited in the $u$-band. In all, there are about 83,000 unique
galaxies on Stripe 82 with spectroscopic data, of which only 23,000
were selected using the main survey algorithms. We have further
excluded all galaxies with bad redshifts and, because we are
interested in differences only in the {\it stellar} populations
between SN Ia hosts and non-hosts, galaxies flagged as AGNs or QSOs by
the SDSS pipeline. This leaves about 77,000 unique galaxies from the
Seventh Data Release of SDSS \citep{AbazajianEtAl09}, of which 22,000
are in the Main Galaxy Sample.
We have matched the SDSS-SN sample with this spectroscopic sample,
yielding a total of 133 SNe with host spectra in SDSS. The
light curves of these supernovae range in quality, but 101 are
sufficiently good to measure parameters such as the peak flux and decline
rate (see \S\ref{sec:stretch} and Figure \ref{fig:lc_samples} for
examples). The 77,000 unique galaxies in Stripe 82 were not uniformly
selected, and do not represent a flux-limited sample. However, our
subsample of 101 SN hosts was selected from these 77,000 galaxies
based solely on the occurrence of a detectable SN Ia. These 101 SNe
with SDSS hosts form the sample used in the rest of our analysis.
\section{Methodology: Initial Data Analysis} \label{sec:method}
To measure the delay time distribution, we need to be able to derive
star formation histories for galaxies from their SDSS spectra.
Because of the strong association of luminous (high stretch) SNe Ia
with recent star formation seen by \cite{SullivanEtAl06} and others,
we also investigate the dependence of the delay time distribution on
supernova stretch. We begin by describing how we derive the star
formation history and stretch from host galaxy spectrum and SN light
curve, respectively. We then discuss
the division of SNe Ia into a high stretch and a low stretch subgroup,
and finally introduce the average spectra of Type Ia supernova hosts.
\subsection{A star formation history in three age bins} \label{sec:vespa}
We use VESPA \citep{TojeiroEtAl07}
to model the observed spectrum of a galaxy as a
linear combination of up to sixteen single stellar populations (SSPs) of
different ages and metallicities shielded by a common dust screen.
The resulting ages, stellar masses formed, metallicities, and dust
values for roughly 800,000 individual galaxies in SDSS's Seventh Data
Release \citep{AbazajianEtAl09} have been published in
\cite{TojeiroEtAl09}. This public
database currently holds only the SDSS Main Galaxy and LRG samples; the
additional Stripe 82 galaxies used in this paper will be added
soon.
While VESPA recovers the star formation history in up to sixteen
logarithmically spaced age bins, the number and temporal width of
these bins vary according to the quality of a given galaxy's
spectrum. VESPA's analysis and solutions are also
model-dependent, particularly for recent star formation
\citep{TojeiroEtAl09}. The recovered mass of stars formed in the most
recent age bins, more recently than 70 Myr ago (in the
rest-frame of the galaxy) with our choice of bins, is particularly
sensitive to the dust modeling. The mass formed in the next group of
age bins, between 70 and 420 Myr, is sensitive to the choice of
SSP \citep[see Figures 15 and 20 of][]{TojeiroEtAl09}. To deal with
these limitations, we:
\begin{itemize}
\item select the stellar models that give the most physically
reasonable answer, and
\item limit our recovered star formation histories to three age bins.
\end{itemize}
Over a typical ensemble of galaxies, the recovered star formation rate
from 70 to 420 Myr is anticorrelated with and significantly lower than
the rate up to 70 Myr. The difficulty of determining the abundance of
a few hundred Myr old stars in the presence of very recent star
formation is less pronounced with the \cite{Maraston05} SSP models.
To limit the impact of this, we combine all age bins younger than 420
Myr into a single bin. With these choices, the recovered star
formation rate becomes a smooth function of lookback time. We seek
the star formation histories of all galaxies in the same bins, and
therefore degrade the age bins older than 420 Myr into two broad bins.
We thus recover the star formation histories for all galaxies in the
three age bins detailed in Table \ref{tab:bin_info}. For each galaxy,
we obtain the stellar mass formed over each age range, the
mass-weighted metallicity in each bin, and an average value for the
optical depth of interstellar dust.
The boundaries between the age bins in Table \ref{tab:bin_info} are
chosen for convenience and to correspond to the main sequence
lifetimes of stellar spectral classes: we take them as given and
estimate stellar masses. This does not imply that the exact age
boundaries have any physical significance; they are simply
logarithmically spaced divisions.
\begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{TABLE \ref{tab:bin_info} \\ The three VESPA age bins. }
\tablehead{
\colhead{Bin} & \colhead{Age Range (Gyr)} & \colhead{MS Spectral
Types\tablenotemark{a}}
}
\startdata
1 & 0.002 -- 0.42 & O and B \\
2 & 0.42 -- 2.4 & A \\
3 & 2.4 -- 14 & F and later
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{The main
sequence (MS) spectral types that dominate the galaxy spectra in
this age range.}
\label{tab:bin_info}
\end{deluxetable
\subsection{Stretch measurements} \label{sec:stretch}
We have refitted all the light curves from SDSS-SN
(\S\ref{sec:data}) with the SALT II algorithm \citep{GuyEtAl07}.
This template-based routine takes the redshift and all measured fluxes
in several bands as input, and performs a four-parameter fit. We fit
to the SDSS-SN light curves in the $g$, $r$, and $i$ bands. We
exclude the $u$ band data from all analyses because of its poor
signal-to-noise ratio, and exclude the $z$ band data because
Type Ia near-infrared light curves are often double-peaked and poorly
fit by the SALT II templates. The SALT II outputs consist of
a stretch-like parameter ($x_1$ in \citealt{GuyEtAl07}), color $c$
($B-V$ at $B$ band maximum relative to \citeauthor{GuyEtAl07}'s sample average),
rest-frame peak B magnitude $m_B$, and time of maximum light. For this
work, we convert $x_1$ back to the traditional stretch $s$ using the
relation given in \cite{GuyEtAl07}:
\begin{equation}
s = 0.98 + 0.091x_1 + 0.003x_1^2 - 0.00075x_1^3.
\label{eq:x1_s_def}
\end{equation}
Stretch $s$ is a dimensionless parameter that describes the temporal
width of the Type Ia light curve relative to a fiducial average.
In our sample, $s$ ranges from $0.70$ to $1.31$ with a median of
$0.94$. The color parameter $c$ is a degenerate combination of
host galaxy extinction and intrinsic color, which for our SNe ranges
from $-0.14$ to $0.90$ with a median of $0.06$.
While SALT II estimates the errors of all of its fitted
parameters, we have assigned subjective quality ratings to each
object as an independent error metric, based on our confidence in the
best-fit value of the stretch parameter $s$. We have excluded
objects with poorly determined stretches (32 of the 133 with host-galaxy
spectra) from all further analysis. Four sample light curves in $g$,
$r$, and $i$, including one that was rejected in this fashion, are
shown in Figure \ref{fig:lc_samples}. We thus
arrive at our sample of 101 SNe selected from about 77,000 control
galaxies with spectra.
The selection of these 101 SNe Ia by inspection of the light curves
could possibly introduce a bias in our results. To minimize the
likelihood of this, we made all assessments of light curve quality
blindly, with no knowledge of the host galaxy properties. Only after
all of our supernova light curves were fitted and rated did we perform
any analysis on their hosts. We stress that we do not calibrate SNe
as standard candles (which would require the recovery of three
parameters from the light curve fit), but only use the light curves to
divide our sample in two (\S\ref{sec:stretchdiv}). Because of this,
our light curves need not be as well-sampled as for cosmological
analyses. We present details of this final sample of 101 SNe in Table
\ref{tab:sne}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\fullfigwidth]{Figures/samples.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Light curves in $g$, $r$, and $i$ (top to bottom) for four
objects with host galaxies in the SDSS spectroscopic
sample; the bands are offset for clarity. The object shown in the
upper right panel has little data near peak light and was therefore
excluded as having an uncertain stretch. The other three objects
entered our final sample of 101 SNe. Even though the object shown
in the top left panel, 2005ex, has no data before maximum light, it
is very well-sampled and well-fit. Because we only use these fits
to divide our sample in two (\S\ref{sec:stretchdiv}), we want to
maximize our sample size by including SNe like 2005ex.}
\label{fig:lc_samples}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable*}{llllllll}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablenum{2}
\tablecolumns{7}
\tablecaption{TABLE \ref{tab:sne} \\ The Restricted SDSS-SN Sample}
\tablehead{\colhead{IAU ID} &
\colhead{Host} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{RA (J2000) Dec\,\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{Stretch} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{VESPA Host Stellar Mass (M$_\odot$)} \\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{Redshift} &
\colhead{{h}\phn{m}\phn{s}} &
\colhead{\phn{\arcdeg}~\phn{\arcmin}~\phn{\arcsec}} &
\colhead{} &
\colhead{2 - 420 Myr} &
\colhead{0.42 - 2.4 Gyr} &
\colhead{2.4 - 14 Gyr} }
\startdata
2004hz & 0.1427 & 02 05 03.0 & +0 50 11.9 & high & $8.8 \times 10^{8}$ & 0 & $1.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2004ia & 0.1437 & 02 18 02.3 & +0 33 32.4 & high & $7.2 \times 10^{10}$ & 0 & $2.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2004ie & 0.0513 & 22 01 46.6 & +1 14 12.0 & high & $3.7 \times 10^{7}$ & $9.9 \times 10^{8}$ & $2.9 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2004ig & 0.1830 & 00 05 51.8 & +0 59 45.1 & high & $3.2 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ed & 0.0865 & 00 02 49.4 & +0 45 04.3 & low & 0 & $8.8 \times 10^{9}$ & $4.0 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ef & 0.1077 & 00 58 22.9 & +0 40 44.4 & low & $3.5 \times 10^{8}$ & $9.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $3.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005eg & 0.1914 & 01 02 08.5 & +0 52 44.4 & high & $1.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $4.6 \times 10^{10}$ & $3.8 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ex & 0.0935 & 01 41 51.2 & +0 52 35.0 & high & $1.8 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ez & 0.1298 & 03 07 11.0 & +1 07 10.4 & low & $3.4 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.5 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005fa & 0.1615 & 01 39 36.1 & +0 45 31.5 & high & 0 & $1.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $6.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005fh & 0.1190 & 23 17 29.7 & +0 25 45.8 & high & 0 & $4.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $2.0 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005fv & 0.1181 & 03 05 22.4 & +0 51 30.1 & high & $4.4 \times 10^{8}$ & $4.7 \times 10^{10}$ & $2.5 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005gb & 0.0864 & 01 16 12.6 & +0 47 31.0 & low & $4.3 \times 10^{8}$ & $1.3 \times 10^{10}$ & $3.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005gh & 0.2591 & 20 50 36.4 & +0 21 14.8 & high & $1.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $7.4 \times 10^{10}$ & $7.5 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005gp & 0.1266 & 03 41 59.3 & +0 46 57.6 & low & $7.4 \times 10^{8}$ & $4.6 \times 10^{9}$ & $7.3 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2005hc & 0.0459 & 01 56 47.9 & +0 12 49.2 & high & 0 & $7.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $3.9 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005hj & 0.0574 & 01 26 48.3 & $-$1 14 16.8 & high & $9.8 \times 10^{7}$ & $6.0 \times 10^{8}$ & $1.9 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2005hn & 0.1085 & 21 57 04.2 & +0 13 24.5 & low & $6.2 \times 10^{8}$ & 0 & $1.1 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2005ho & 0.0628 & 00 59 24.1 & +0 00 09.4 & high & $2.3 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $2.3 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2005if & 0.0670 & 03 30 12.9 & +0 58 28.5 & low & $3.1 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.1 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ij & 0.1245 & 03 04 21.3 & $-$1 03 46.6 & high & $2.7 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.2 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ir & 0.0763 & 01 16 43.8 & +0 47 40.4 & high & $3.1 \times 10^{9}$ & $9.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.9 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005je & 0.0939 & 02 35 26.6 & +1 04 29.6 & low & 0 & $1.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $8.1 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005js & 0.0796 & 01 34 41.5 & +0 36 19.3 & low & 0 & $1.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $5.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005kt & 0.0653 & 01 10 58.0 & +0 16 34.1 & low & 0 & $1.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2005ku & 0.0454 & 22 59 42.6 & +0 00 49.3 & high & $3.0 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $5.3 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2005lj & 0.0777 & 01 57 43.0 & +0 10 46.0 & high & $5.9 \times 10^{8}$ & 0 & $5.2 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2005lk & 0.1042 & 21 59 49.4 & $-$1 11 37.3 & low & $7.1 \times 10^{8}$ & $4.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $7.9 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006eq & 0.0494 & 21 28 37.1 & +1 13 41.2 & low & $9.4 \times 10^{7}$ & $8.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.1 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006er & 0.0843 & 00 21 37.5 & $-$1 00 35.9 & low & 0 & $1.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ex & 0.1472 & 20 38 43.9 & +0 28 28.3 & high & $1.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{11}$ & $2.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006fb & 0.2451 & 23 35 51.5 & +0 10 37.6 & high & $1.0 \times 10^{9}$ & $4.2 \times 10^{10}$ & $3.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006fd & 0.0799 & 20 37 53.2 & +1 13 16.1 & low & 0 & $2.2 \times 10^{10}$ & $2.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ff & 0.2353 & 00 26 35.6 & +0 18 07.5 & high & $2.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $6.6 \times 10^{9}$ & $3.2 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006fi & 0.2306 & 22 19 50.3 & +0 01 27.8 & high & $4.1 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.8 \times 10^{10}$ & $2.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006fl & 0.1717 & 22 11 27.7 & +0 45 21.5 & high & $8.7 \times 10^{8}$ & $9.1 \times 10^{9}$ & $6.2 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006fs & 0.0991 & 21 09 59.0 & +0 24 31.6 & high & $2.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $4.1 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006fu & 0.1985 & 23 51 08.4 & +0 44 46.9 & high & $1.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.5 \times 10^{8}$ & $4.0 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006fv & 0.1319 & 01 21 37.9 & +0 24 52.2 & low & 0 & $8.9 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006fy & 0.0827 & 23 26 40.2 & +0 50 24.9 & high & $2.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.2 \times 10^{9}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006fz & 0.1047 & 00 16 41.4 & +0 25 28.3 & low & 0 & $2.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $9.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006gb & 0.2660 & 23 59 16.5 & $-$1 15 01.3 & low & $4.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $6.5 \times 10^{10}$ & 0 \\
2006gx & 0.1807 & 02 48 14.1 & +0 20 49.3 & high & $6.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $8.7 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.3 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006hd & 0.2983 & 21 44 03.5 & +0 43 34.6 & high & $2.0 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $6.7 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006hh & 0.2374 & 02 42 27.0 & +0 47 38.9 & low & $2.9 \times 10^{8}$ & $6.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.2 \times 10^{12}$ \\
2006hr & 0.1576 & 01 50 15.6 & +0 53 14.1 & high & $1.4 \times 10^{10}$ & 0 & $8.4 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006hw & 0.1394 & 03 13 03.4 & +0 28 17.9 & high & $2.4 \times 10^{10}$ & 0 & $3.9 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006hx & 0.0454 & 01 13 57.3 & +0 22 18.0 & high & $1.3 \times 10^{8}$ & $1.6 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ia & 0.1749 & 02 07 19.2 & +1 15 07.5 & low & $1.5 \times 10^{8}$ & $4.5 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.9 \times 10^{12}$ \\
2006ib & 0.1811 & 03 16 11.8 & +0 36 03.4 & low & 0 & 0 & $1.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ju & 0.1486 & 23 24 39.0 & +0 43 06.0 & low & $3.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $4.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $8.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006jw & 0.2495 & 02 23 22.3 & +0 49 08.4 & high & $9.7 \times 10^{8}$ & $8.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $2.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006jz & 0.1994 & 00 11 24.8 & +0 42 09.8 & low & 0 & $1.1 \times 10^{11}$ & $1.7 \times 10^{12}$ \\
2006kd & 0.1363 & 01 07 50.0 & +0 49 41.5 & high & $7.7 \times 10^{8}$ & 0 & $1.2 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006kq & 0.1983 & 21 15 36.6 & +0 19 17.1 & high & $2.0 \times 10^{9}$ & $4.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006kw & 0.1854 & 02 14 58.0 & +0 36 09.0 & high & $9.6 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $6.2 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006kx & 0.1599 & 03 42 14.7 & +0 28 41.8 & high & $4.8 \times 10^{7}$ & $8.2 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.5 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006lb & 0.1819 & 03 19 28.2 & +0 19 04.9 & high & $3.0 \times 10^{9}$ & $8.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.1 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006nd & 0.1288 & 22 44 59.1 & $-$1 00 23.8 & high & $2.4 \times 10^{10}$ & 0 & $5.5 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ne & 0.0466 & 01 13 37.8 & +0 25 25.9 & low & $1.6 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ni & 0.1750 & 20 54 52.4 & +0 11 41.4 & low & 0 & $6.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $9.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006nn & 0.1969 & 01 45 41.0 & $-$1 03 15.8 & high & $1.3 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006nz & 0.0381 & 00 56 29.2 & $-$1 13 36.1 & low & 0 & $1.6 \times 10^{9}$ & $7.6 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006oa & 0.0625 & 21 23 42.9 & +0 50 36.5 & high & 0 & $1.7 \times 10^{7}$ & $8.8 \times 10^{7}$ \\
2006ob & 0.0592 & 01 51 48.1 & +0 15 48.3 & low & 0 & $2.1 \times 10^{11}$ & $8.8 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2006ol & 0.1191 & 23 28 07.2 & +0 51 22.9 & low & 0 & $3.3 \times
10^{10}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{12}$ \\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
& & & & & &
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Position of SN; data available from
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html and
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html.}
\label{tab:sne}
\end{deluxetable*
\begin{deluxetable*}{llllllll}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablenum{2}
\tablecolumns{7}
\tablecaption{TABLE \ref{tab:sne}--{\it Continued}}
\tablehead{\colhead{IAU ID} &
\colhead{Host} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{RA (J2000) Dec\,\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{Stretch} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{VESPA Host Stellar Mass (M$_\odot$)} \\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{Redshift} &
\colhead{{h}\phn{m}\phn{s}} &
\colhead{\phn{\arcdeg}~\phn{\arcmin}~\phn{\arcsec}} &
\colhead{} &
\colhead{2 - 420 Myr} &
\colhead{0.42 - 2.4 Gyr} &
\colhead{2.4 - 14 Gyr} }
\startdata
2006on & 0.0719 & 21 55 58.5 & $-$1 04 12.7 & high & 0 & $9.8 \times 10^{9}$ & $4.7 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006op & 0.0341 & 21 21 31.9 & +0 59 35.9 & low & $2.4 \times 10^{8}$ & $3.7 \times 10^{9}$ & $2.8 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2006pe & 0.1611 & 00 23 09.2 & +0 03 13.1 & low & 0 & $3.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{12}$ \\
2006py & 0.0578 & 22 41 42.0 & +0 08 12.9 & low & 0 & $3.1 \times 10^{9}$ & $9.5 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007ht & 0.0727 & 00 34 33.8 & $-$1 13 03.1 & low & $1.4 \times 10^{8}$ & $1.6 \times 10^{10}$ & $6.8 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007hx & 0.0794 & 02 06 27.1 & +0 53 58.3 & high & $5.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.8 \times 10^{10}$ & $3.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007hy & 0.1814 & 03 39 42.3 & +1 05 32.2 & high & 0 & $2.2 \times 10^{10}$ & $5.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007hz & 0.1393 & 21 03 08.9 & $-$1 01 45.1 & high & $7.1 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $6.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ia & 0.1310 & 03 43 10.1 & +0 06 08.9 & low & $1.6 \times 10^{9}$ & $6.0 \times 10^{10}$ & $5.1 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007id & 0.1603 & 21 46 00.5 & $-$1 13 03.9 & high & 0 & $4.2 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.8 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ie & 0.0934 & 22 17 36.7 & +0 36 48.0 & low & $7.9 \times 10^{8}$ & 0 & 0 \\
2007jk & 0.1829 & 02 55 05.6 & +0 08 50.8 & high & $3.7 \times 10^{8}$ & $6.3 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007js & 0.1464 & 20 36 48.7 & +0 05 54.4 & high & $9.4 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & 0 \\
2007jt & 0.1447 & 02 28 32.8 & $-$1 02 31.6 & low & $1.7 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.8 \times 10^{10}$ & $9.0 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007kl & 0.2571 & 02 44 50.9 & +0 21 53.4 & high & $9.6 \times 10^{8}$ & $5.7 \times 10^{10}$ & $8.5 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007kv & 0.3295 & 01 10 15.8 & +0 28 19.3 & high & $3.6 \times 10^{8}$ & $3.3 \times 10^{10}$ & $3.0 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007lr & 0.1562 & 00 49 00.3 & +0 19 26.4 & high & $6.1 \times 10^{8}$ & $2.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $7.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ma & 0.1073 & 00 44 53.8 & +0 59 49.3 & high & $1.6 \times 10^{9}$ & $6.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.4 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007mh & 0.1278 & 03 14 31.8 & +0 16 11.4 & high & $8.9 \times 10^{8}$ & 0 & $4.5 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007mi & 0.1322 & 03 23 31.5 & +0 39 60.0 & low & 0 & $1.6 \times 10^{10}$ & $5.2 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007mj & 0.1232 & 03 34 44.4 & +0 21 19.9 & high & $2.5 \times 10^{8}$ & $2.5 \times 10^{10}$ & $1.5 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007mm & 0.0665 & 01 05 46.7 & +0 45 31.8 & low & 0 & $1.5 \times 10^{9}$ & $6.8 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007mn & 0.0769 & 02 05 04.0 & +0 10 28.4 & high & $2.8 \times 10^{9}$ & $3.7 \times 10^{10}$ & $4.4 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007nj & 0.1540 & 02 52 27.4 & +0 15 06.6 & low & $4.7 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.7 \times 10^{10}$ & $3.8 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ok & 0.1655 & 02 28 24.3 & +0 11 04.8 & high & $3.0 \times 10^{8}$ & $3.6 \times 10^{10}$ & $4.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ol & 0.0560 & 01 37 23.7 & +0 18 43.2 & low & 0 & $7.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.7 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007om & 0.1052 & 23 54 20.7 & +0 55 03.4 & high & $3.9 \times 10^{8}$ & $7.9 \times 10^{10}$ & $7.6 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ou & 0.1132 & 02 23 42.7 & +0 49 33.6 & high & $2.2 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.2 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007ph & 0.1294 & 20 51 13.4 & +0 57 20.9 & low & 0 & $1.1 \times 10^{10}$ & $9.2 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007pt & 0.1752 & 02 07 38.5 & +0 19 26.4 & high & $1.8 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $7.6 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007px & 0.1080 & 00 22 44.0 & +0 28 44.4 & high & $2.6 \times 10^{10}$ & 0 & $5.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007py & 0.2094 & 03 29 31.6 & +0 30 56.0 & low & $1.6 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007qa & 0.1085 & 01 52 33.9 & +1 14 38.7 & high & $1.6 \times 10^{9}$ & 0 & $1.3 \times 10^{11}$ \\
2007qr & 0.1359 & 02 52 29.2 & $-$1 08 22.3 & high & $6.0 \times 10^{8}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{9}$ & $5.7 \times 10^{10}$ \\
2007rs & 0.1241 & 00 46 27.4 & $-$1 03 44.1 & low & 0 & $6.6 \times
10^{10}$ & $1.8 \times 10^{12}$
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Position of SN; data available from
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html and
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html.}
\end{deluxetable*
\subsection{The High/Low Stretch Division} \label{sec:stretchdiv}
We wish to quantify the correlation between SN Ia stretch and host
galaxy stellar populations using the VESPA analysis. Given our
limited sample size, we seek to split our SNe into two
populations based on their stretches.
We weight each of our 101 supernovae by $M_{i, j}$, the stellar
mass in its host galaxy $j$ in a given VESPA age bin $i$.
We then define the total $M_i$ for supernovae with stretch $s$
lying in the interval $[a, a + \Delta s]$ (taking $\Delta s = 0.04$,
slightly larger than a typical error in the stretch parameter) as
\begin{equation}
M_i (s) \equiv \sum_{s_j \in [a, a + \Delta s]}
M_{i,j}
\end{equation}
with $j$ running over our 101 objects. This quantifies the total star
formation rate in a given age bin associated with the SNe Ia in our
sample. Note that $M_{i,j}$ is equal to the mass of {\it possible},
not actual, SN Ia progenitor systems. Because galaxies are composed
of a mix of stellar populations of different ages, we cannot derive
the delay time distribution directly from these associated stellar
masses.
With this caveat in mind, the resulting distributions of stellar mass
as a function of stretch in different mass bins are shown in Figure
\ref{fig:stretchcut}. The top panel is a histogram of stretches,
while the second, third, and fourth panels weight each SN by its
host stellar mass in young, middle, and old age bins, respectively.
The second and fourth panels, in particular, show that lower
stretch SNe live in hosts with large quantities of old stars but little
recent star formation, while higher stretch SNe are in hosts with
abundant recent star formation. Given the rough bimodality shown
here, we call Type Ia supernovae
\emph{high stretch} if they have $s > 0.92$, and \emph{low stretch}
otherwise. In SDSS-SN, this division yields 60 high stretch and 41
low stretch SNe; the binnings are listed in Table \ref{tab:sne}.
This result confirms the work of \cite{SullivanEtAl06},
\cite{NeillEtAl09}, \cite{Gallagheretal05}, and others:
that high stretch SNe are associated with star-forming galaxies.
We now seek to study this association in more detail and to derive a
quantitative delay time distribution for high and low stretch SNe Ia.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\medfigwidth]{Figures/data_hists_rev.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Histograms of stellar mass of supernovae Ia hosts binned by
SN stretch. Objects in the top panel are unweighted, while SNe in
the lower three panels are weighted by the stellar mass of their
host galaxy in young (top), middle-aged (middle) and old (bottom)
stars. SNe with $s \gtrsim 0.92$ (to the right of the dotted line)
are associated with young stars, while lower stretch SNe are not.
To further explore this distinction, we define supernovae with $s >
0.92$ as \emph{high stretch} SNe Ia.
}
\label{fig:stretchcut}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Average Spectra} \label{sec:averagespectra}
The difference in stellar populations indicated by Figure
\ref{fig:stretchcut} should manifest itself in the spectra of the
hosts. To examine this, we constructed average spectra of the high
stretch and low stretch hosts. We corrected the spectra for Milky
Way extinction using the dust maps of
\cite{SchlegelEtAl98} and a \cite{Fitzpatrick99} $R_V = 3.1$
extinction law. We scaled each spectrum to a common $r$ band fiber
magnitude, shifted the spectra to $z=0$, masked bad pixels flagged by
the SDSS pipeline, and weighted by the inverse variance in coadding.
To obtain robust estimates of the mean and variance of the average
spectra, we have used bootstrap resampling on the samples of 60 high
stretch and 41 low stretch hosts.
The results, shown in Figure
\ref{fig:sdss_spectra}, are striking. The average spectrum of a
high stretch host shows exceptionally strong nebular emission lines
such as the Balmer series, $[\textsc{Oiii}]$, $[\textsc{Oii}]$,
$[\textsc{Nii}]$, and $[\textsc{Sii}]$ and a strong blue continuum, all
clearly indicative of recent and ongoing star formation. The average
spectrum of low stretch supernova hosts, by contrast, shows absorption
lines characteristic of old stellar populations and little evidence of
interstellar gas. The difference spectrum (lower panel) looks
much like the spectrum of a main-sequence B type star with nebular
emission lines superimposed. Intriguingly, a single B3 spectrum from
\cite{1992ApJS...81..865S} fits the continuum and absorption lines of
the difference spectrum better than models of either a 50
Myr-old single stellar population, or 400 Myr of continuous star
formation. While the bootstrap errors are too large to exclude either
of these possibilities, Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} tantalizingly
suggests very young progenitors for some SNe Ia, as the difference
spectrum appears to require a population $\lesssim 50$ Myr old (B3
stars live for about 30 Myr). Note that we cannot be absolutely
certain that the progenitors are this young, if bursts of star
formation typically last long enough so that a somewhat older
population is likely to be associated with ongoing star formation.
Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} confirms the difference in host galaxies
indicated in Figure \ref{fig:stretchcut} by the VESPA-derived star
formation histories. High stretch, luminous Type Ia's are
associated with young O and B stars, while lower stretch SNe
are found in galaxies with much older stellar populations. Figure
\ref{fig:sdss_spectra} offers a clear and dramatic confirmation of the
association between high stretch SNe and star formation. The
average spectra change imperceptibly when the high/low stretch
boundary is varied from 0.90 to 0.92, representing a typical stretch
error as reported by SALT II. Our results are therefore unlikely to
be affected by measurement errors in the stretch parameter.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\fullfigwidth,height=\fullfigheight]{Figures/bootstrap_2panelvert.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Coadded SDSS spectra of hosts of 60 high stretch ($s > 0.92$
- blue) and 41 low stretch ($s < 0.92$ - red) supernovae (upper
panel); the shading shows the $1 \sigma$ error range derived from
bootstrap resampling. Note the strong blue continuum and nebular
emission lines, indicative of recent and ongoing star formation, in
the high stretch hosts. The low stretch host spectrum has features
characteristic of much older stellar populations. The difference
(lower panel) looks remarkably similar to the spectrum of a typical
B star (note the strong Balmer series in absorption), suggesting
young progenitors for high stretch Type Ia SNe. The stellar
spectrum is from \cite{1992ApJS...81..865S}.}
\label{fig:sdss_spectra}
\end{figure}
\section{Towards a DTD} \label{sec:constrain}
While Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} is compelling on its own, we can
do better. With a well-controlled survey, spectra for all galaxies in
the control sample, and VESPA star formation histories for all of
these galaxies, we now seek to calculate a delay time distribution in
the three age bins of Table \ref{tab:bin_info}. We do not assume any
functional form for the efficiency of making SNe as a function of
progenitor age, but simply see what constraints the data alone
can provide.
Our method is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Parametrize the DTD as an explosion rate per unit stellar mass
$\epsilon_i$ for stars in each of three age bins $i$,
\item Assume a prior probability distribution on the DTD explosion rates,
\item Select DTDs from this prior,
\item Generate samples of mock hosts from the DTDs and VESPA star
formation histories of our control sample,
\item Compare the average spectra of the mock hosts and observed hosts to
calculate a likelihood for each DTD realization,
\item Repeat steps 3 - 5 many times to explore the $\epsilon_i$
space and obtain a posterior probability distribution on the DTD.
\end{enumerate}
We now discuss the general form of the delay time distribution and then
each of these steps.
\subsection{The Delay Time Distribution}
Our star formation histories consist of the total stellar mass formed
in each of three age bins for each host galaxy. The most general
delay time distribution is
therefore a set of three efficiencies, $\epsilon_i$,
representing the mean number of SNe per unit stellar mass per year
from progenitors in age bin $i$ (Table \ref{tab:bin_info}). We treat
high stretch and low stretch SNe separately in this analysis, giving
two sets of efficiencies $\epsilon_{h,i}$ and $\epsilon_{l,i}$.
We may effectively remove two of these six parameters by requiring that
the sets of efficiencies be appropriately normalized, i.e.~that the
total number of expected SNe times their probability of detection
equal the number of SNe observed,
\begin{equation}
N_\mathit{SN, h} = \sum_{\mathrm{gals}~j} p_{h,j} (\mathit{detect}) t
\sum_i \epsilon_{h,i} M_{i,j},
\label{eq:snrate}
\end{equation}
where $p_{h,j}(\mathit{detect})$ is the probability that a supernova of
high stretch in galaxy $j$ enters the sample, $M_{i,j}$ is the amount
of stellar mass formed in age bin $i$ in galaxy $j$, $N_\mathit{SN,
h}$ is the number of high stretch SNe Ia observed, and $t$ is the
duration of the survey. An identical constraint applies to low
stretch supernovae.
For future use, we also introduce normalized explosion efficiencies
corresponding to the fraction of high or low stretch supernovae
produced by stars in a given age bin, e.g.
\begin{equation}
\epsilon'_{h,i} \equiv \epsilon_{h,i} \frac{1}{N_\mathit{SN, h}}
\sum_{\mathrm{gals}~j} p_{h,j}(\mathit{detect}) M_{i,j}.
\label{eq:rescale}
\end{equation}
Thus, $\epsilon'_{h,i}$ and $\epsilon'_{l,i}$ each sum to unity.
\subsection{Priors}
In order to use a Bayesian analysis to constrain the $\epsilon_{h,i}$
and $\epsilon_{l,i}$, we need to choose a prior distribution. Following
\cite{LaPlace1824} and general practice in the literature, we seek a
uniform prior. However, due to the normalization constraint, we cannot
place uniform priors simultaneously on all of the $\epsilon_{h,i}$ or
$\epsilon_{l,i}$. An alternative would be to
choose our priors to be uniform in area over the two dimensional plane
defined by Equation \eqref{eq:snrate}. However, the projection
of this prior onto any of the $\epsilon'_{h,i}$ yields a probability
distribution strongly peaked towards low values. Physically, this
biases us against a DTD in which one age bin is responsible for a
large fraction of the SNe (see Figure \ref{fig:priors}).
To avoid these combinatorial effects, we use a Monte Carlo
sampling that places a uniform prior on \emph{one} of the
$\epsilon'_{h,i}$ and \emph{one} of the $\epsilon'_{l,i}$ in each
realization. By choosing $i$ randomly in each iteration, we retain
the symmetry between all of the $\epsilon'_{h,i}$ and
$\epsilon'_{l,i}$.
We note that there are many possible priors that look qualitatively
similar to that shown in Figure \ref{fig:priors}. We do not argue
that our choice is optimal, only that it is reasonable. We have also
tested the dependence of our constraints on the choice of prior and
found little variation, as long the prior probability
density does not approach zero for any values of $\epsilon'_i$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/priors.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Projected prior distributions for each $\epsilon'_i$, the
fraction of high/low stretch SNe with progenitors in age bin $i$.
The normalized $\epsilon'_i$ are related to the physical explosion
rates $\epsilon_i$ by Equation \eqref{eq:rescale}. A prior uniform in
the 2-D plane defined by Equation \eqref{eq:snrate} would be
strongly biased against DTDs concentrated in one age bin.}
\label{fig:priors}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Creating a Mock Sample}
Given a model delay time distribution (i.e., sets of
$\epsilon_{h,i}$ and $\epsilon_{l,i}$),
we compute the expected number of high and low stretch supernovae
($\ll 1$) observed in each galaxy in the control sample. For a galaxy
$j$, this is the sum of the explosion efficiencies times the mass in
each stellar age bin weighted by the detection probability:
\begin{equation}
\langle n_\mathit{SN,h,j} \rangle = p_{h,j}(\mathit{detect}) \sum_i
\epsilon_{h,i} M_{i,j}.
\label{eq:mean_sn}
\end{equation}
Our code thus generates realizations of $\{\epsilon'_i\}$ for both
high and low stretch, converts to
$\{\epsilon_i\}$ using Equation \eqref{eq:rescale}, and computes the
number of SNe Ia in each control galaxy as a Poisson random number
with a mean given by Equation \eqref{eq:mean_sn}.
For the detection probability, we use a crude estimate of the
selection function and tweak the parameters to match the approximate
redshift range of the subset of SDSS-SN with host galaxy spectra. We
adopt the functional form
\begin{equation}
p(\mathit{detect}) = \left[1 + \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_\mathit{peak}
- m_\mathit{lim}}{a} \right) \right]^{-1},
\label{eq:detect}
\end{equation}
where $m_\mathit{peak}$ is the supernova's
peak SDSS $r$ band magnitude, $m_\mathit{lim}$ is an approximate
limiting magnitude of the survey, and $a$ is a softening parameter to
account for the dispersion in SN peak magnitudes and colors and the
survey detection efficiency. Because this model does not naturally
capture the fact that higher stretch SNe are above any threshold for a
longer period of time, we allow the parameters $m_\mathit{lim}$ and
$a$ to differ for high and low stretch objects. Fitting to the
observed redshift distribution, we adopt $m_\mathit{lim} = 19.5$ and
$a = 0.6$ for low stretch SNe, and $m_\mathit{lim} = 20.2$ and $a =
0.4$ for high stretch SNe. The peak supernova magnitude in $r$ is
given by
\begin{equation}
m_\mathit{peak} = M_\mathit{stand} - \alpha (s - 1) + \mu(z) +
K(s, z)+A_r
\label{eq:mag}
\end{equation}
where $M_\mathit{stand}$ is the standardized peak B absolute magnitude,
$\alpha$ is the \cite{Phillips93} parameter relating stretch and peak
luminosity, $s$ is a typical stretch,
$\mu(z)$ is the distance modulus, $A_r$ is the $r$ band Milky Way
extinction along the supernova's line of sight \citep{SchlegelEtAl98},
and $K(s,z)$ is an approximate \emph{K}-correction to the SDSS $r$
band at $z=0$ (see \cite{2002PASP..114..803N} for details on the
$K$-correction).
We adopt the values $M_\mathit{stand} = -19.41$ and $\alpha = 1.56$
\citep{GuyEtAl05}, and take the typical values of $s$ to be
our sample medians, $1.02$ for high stretch and $0.83$ for low stretch
SNe Ia. Since we fit for $m_\mathit{lim}$ and $a$ to
reproduce the observed redshift distribution {\it after} fixing all other
parameters, changing the standardized absolute magnitude $M_\mathit{peak}$
will not affect our results. Because we fit high and low stretch SNe
separately, the value of $\alpha$ similarly has no effect. Equation
\eqref{eq:mag} does not account for variation in
color ($B-V$ at peak $B$ magnitude), which is instead absorbed into
the softening parameter $a$. If color is correlated with stretch,
Equation \eqref{eq:mag} will not fully capture differences between the
detectability of high and low stretch SNe. However, as shown in
Figure \ref{fig:stretch_color}, we find no evidence of such a
correlation.
Figure \ref{fig:zhist} compares the redshift distribution of a mock
sample generated by Equations \eqref{eq:mean_sn}, \eqref{eq:detect},
and \eqref{eq:mag} with the observed redshift distribution. While
there are slight differences, the means and widths of the
distributions agree reasonably well for both high and low stretch SNe.
The detection probability given by Equation \eqref{eq:detect} is
intended only to be approximate and to set the redshift range of
galaxies that serve as potential hosts. Modest variations in
Equations \eqref{eq:detect} and \eqref{eq:mag} have almost no effect
on our results, particularly because we compare spectra weighted by
their inverse variances: the slight discrepancy at high redshift is
dominated by galaxies with poor signal-to-noise ratio spectra that
have a very small impact on the average spectrum. As an additional
check, we have verified that Equations \eqref{eq:mean_sn},
\eqref{eq:detect}, and \eqref{eq:mag} successfully reproduce the
observed range of host galaxy masses as derived from VESPA.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/stretch_color.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Stretch vs. color ($B-V$ at peak $B$ magnitude relative to a
fiducial average), as determined by SALT II. The two quantities
are not correlated, which allows us to fold the color variation into
the detection efficiency (Equation \ref{eq:detect}).}
\label{fig:stretch_color}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\medfigwidth]{Figures/zhist_2panel.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Redshift histograms of the observed SNe with SDSS host galaxy
spectra against the histograms of one realization of mock hosts with
the detection probability given by Equation \eqref{eq:detect}. We
adopt values of $m_\mathit{lim} = 20.2$ and $a = 0.4$ for high
stretch SNe, $m_\mathit{lim} = 19.5$ and $a = 0.6$ for low stretch
SNe.}
\label{fig:zhist}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A Likelihood Function}
To use Bayes' Theorem, we need to calculate the likelihood of observed
host properties given a sample of mock hosts selected with a specific
model for the $\{\epsilon_i\}$. We use a comparison metric based on
the average spectra of the host galaxies; essentially, with our Monte
Carlo realizations of delay time distributions, we seek to reproduce
the mean spectra shown in Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra}. We use a
$\chi^2$ statistic to compare the average spectra of our Monte Carlo
realizations to those of the observed hosts.
To obtain useful constraints, we
need both very high signal-to-noise ratio average spectra for the mock
samples, and reliable estimates of the mean and variance associated
with the average spectra of the observed hosts. The first requirement
is met by using a large mock sample drawn from our 77,000 control
galaxies. The second problem is solved using bootstrap resampling of
the 60 high stretch and 41 low stretch actual hosts, as described in
\S\ref{sec:averagespectra} and shown in Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra}.
As a check, we compared the bootstrap errors to the error-weighted
pixel-by-pixel scatter between spectra and found very good agreement.
With an average spectrum and bootstrap errors for the SN hosts,
we may assign a $\chi^2$ goodness-of-fit value to the mean spectrum of
the mock hosts by averaging the $\chi^2$ values over all pixels. We
then use this reduced $\chi^2$ to compute a rejection probability.
There are two reasons why we have not directly compared
the stellar populations of SN Ia hosts and non-hosts. First, such a
comparison would require us to apply VESPA to the SN hosts to derive
their star formation histories. We are limited by $\sqrt{N}$
statistics in the hosts, and errors in the VESPA outputs are much
larger than in the spectra. Second, the recovered stellar masses
would be used twice for the control galaxies: once to determine how
many supernovae to set off in the mock samples (Equation
\ref{eq:mean_sn}), and once to compare the resulting mock hosts to the
observed hosts. Any metric would therefore contain the sum of the
squares of the recovered stellar masses, so that random variances in
these masses would {\it add} and produce a bias. Our chosen metric,
by combining spectra rather than derived quantities, avoids both
drawbacks.
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
We have run 100,000 Monte Carlo realizations of the delay time
distribution from the prior shown in Figure \ref{fig:priors}. In
each realization, we draw a set of normalized explosion efficiencies
($\epsilon'$, Equation \ref{eq:rescale}), convert to the physical
explosion efficiencies ($\epsilon$, Equation \ref{eq:snrate}), and use
Equations \eqref{eq:mean_sn}, \eqref{eq:detect}, and \eqref{eq:mag} to
generate a sample of mock hosts. We then
construct the composite spectra for the mock high stretch and low
stretch hosts and compare them to the spectra of observed hosts shown
in Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} using a $\chi^2$ test. We take the
likelihood of each realization to be the rejection probability
($Q$ function) of its computed value of $\chi^2$. In
practice, our best-fit models do produce formally good fits, with
$\chi^2$ per pixel typically in the range 0.65 - 1.05. Normalizing these
likelihoods by their sum over all Monte Carlo realizations, we obtain
the posterior probability distributions for the explosion
efficiencies. The distribution for a single efficiency is computed by
integrating over the other variables.
The resulting probability distributions are shown in Figure
\ref{fig:results}. The lower horizontal axes give the explosion
efficiencies in physical units ($\epsilon_{h,i}$ and $\epsilon_{l,i}$,
Equation \ref{eq:snrate}), while the upper axes show the fraction
of all SNe Ia in the SDSS spectroscopic sample formed as high or low
stretch from a given progenitor age bin. These are computed from the
$\epsilon_{h,i}$ or $\epsilon_{l,i}$ as, e.g.,
\begin{equation}
f_{h,i} = \frac{\epsilon_{h,i}}{N_{\mathit{SN}}}
\sum_{\mathrm{gals}~j} p_{h,j} (\mathit{detect}) M_{i,j},
\label{eq:fractions}
\end{equation}
where $p_{h,j} (\mathit{detect})$ is the detection probability for
high stretch SNe in galaxy $j$, $M_{i,j}$ is the stellar mass formed
in age bin $i$ in galaxy $j$, $N_{\mathit{SN}}$ is the total (high and
low stretch) number of SNe detected, and the sum is taken over control
galaxies. Equation \eqref{eq:fractions} differs from Equation
\eqref{eq:rescale} only in the denominator: while $\epsilon'_{h,i}$
and $\epsilon'_{l,i}$ each sum to unity, $f_{h,i}$ and $f_{l,i}$ {\it
together} sum to unity. Note that because a volume-limited sample
of galaxies will have different properties from the SDSS spectroscopic
sample (in particular lower masses), $f_{h,i}$ or $f_{l,i}$ for the
full sample of SDSS supernovae may differ from the values we recover.
These same quantities, $f$ and $\epsilon$, are also plotted in Figure
\ref{fig:dtd_results}, with the top panel showing the supernova rate
in physical units ($\epsilon_{h,i}$ in blue and $\epsilon_{l,i}$ in
red) and the bottom panel showing the fraction of SNe from a given
range of progenitor ages ($f_{h,i}$ in blue and $f_{l,i}$ in red).
The dots show the median values, while the colored and black bars
represent the $68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence intervals, respectively.
For distributions peaked near zero, only upper limits and one-sided
confidence intervals are shown. The constraints on $f$ and $\epsilon$
are also listed in Table \ref{tab:results}.
The results are striking. We can constrain most high stretch
SNe Ia to have progenitors younger than $\lesssim 400$ Myr, and Figure
\ref{fig:sdss_spectra} tantalizingly suggests an even younger
characteristic age (B3 stars live for $\sim$30 Myr).
While young stars dominate the production of high stretch SNe Ia, they
make no significant contribution to the low stretch rate. Instead,
these supernovae have a characteristic delay time of at least 2-3
Gyr. Intermediate progenitors, evolving on the time scale of a Main
Sequence A star, contribute little to either the high or low stretch
rate. In the SDSS Stripe 82 galaxies, the prompt, high
stretch channel and the delayed, low stretch channel each account for
roughly half of all Type Ia supernovae.
The formal constraints we obtain for the low stretch rate from young
stars (Figure \ref{fig:results}) are especially stringent. Because
even blue galaxies have lots of old stars, we find it difficult to
reproduce a spectrum as quiescent as that shown in Figure
\ref{fig:sdss_spectra}: a sample selected purely by old stellar mass
will still include star-forming galaxies. Our measured spectra are
{\it only} consistent with a delay time distribution in which all (or
nearly all) low stretch SNe Ia are produced by old stars.
Nevertheless, we cannot rule out any progenitor channel expected to
produce $\lesssim 1$ detectable supernova over the entire population
of SDSS galaxies, and we have therefore set a floor on our SN
rate constraints from Poisson statistics. This floor determines the
limits on $\epsilon_{l,1}$ and $\epsilon_{l,2}$, the low stretch
rates from young and middle-aged stars, in Table \ref{tab:results} and
Figure \ref{fig:dtd_results}.
To compare our results with earlier work based on the $A+B$ model
(Equation \ref{eq:AB_model}), we need to interpret $A$ and $B$ in our
framework. We take $A$, the coefficient of the total
stellar mass, to be our supernova rate for old stars, $\epsilon_3$.
We convert $B$, the coefficient of current star formation (in
$\mathrm{SNe}\, M_\odot^{-1}$), to our rate for young stars
$\epsilon_1$ (in $\mathrm{SNe}\,M_\odot^{-1}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) by
multiplying by the temporal width of our first age bin, about 400 Myr.
Our results agree reasonably well with those of \cite{NeillEtAl06}
(young $\epsilon_1 = 200 \pm 50$, old $\epsilon_3 = 1.4 \pm 1.0$ in our
units of $10^{-14}~\mathrm{SNe}\,M_\odot^{-1}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$), but
less well with those of \cite{SullivanEtAl06} ($\epsilon_1 = 100 \pm
20$, $\epsilon_3 = 5.3 \pm 1.0$) or \cite{MannucciEtAl05} ($\epsilon_1
= 650 \pm 280$ or $300^{+180}_{-150}$, $\epsilon_3 =
4.4^{+1.6}_{-1.4}$). Much of the discrepancy is due to the definition
of stellar mass: \citeauthor{SullivanEtAl06} and
\citeauthor{MannucciEtAl05} apply a correction for dead stars,
decreasing stellar mass and correspondingly increasing $\epsilon$.
\cite{DildayEtAl08}, who measured these parameters using SDSS-SN
without correcting for dead stars, obtained $\epsilon_1 =
230^{+85}_{-78}$ and $\epsilon_3 = 2.8 \pm 1.2$ . In addition, the
values of $\epsilon_i$ depend on the authors' choice of stellar models
and proxies for recent star formation, and may therefore
be expected to disagree. Further, while our relative rates for
progenitors of different ages are extremely robust to the details of
the detection function (Equation \ref{eq:detect}), the normalization
of our rates is less so. A poor estimate of the detection function
would multiply all of the rates $\epsilon_{h,i}$ and $\epsilon_{l,i}$
in Table \ref{tab:results} by a constant of order unity.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/hist_1.ps}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/hist_2.ps}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/hist_3.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{The posterior probability distributions of the DTD. The
lower horizontal axes give the explosion efficiencies
$\epsilon_{h,i}$ and $\epsilon_{l,i}$, the supernova rates per unit
stellar mass per year for progenitors in age bin $i$ (Equation
\ref{eq:snrate}). The upper axes show $f_{h,i}$ and $f_{l,i}$, the
proportions of the current observed SN Ia rate in the SDSS Stripe 82
galaxies (Equation \ref{eq:fractions}). Nearly all high
stretch SNe have progenitors $\lesssim 400$ Myr old (top panel), while
Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} suggests that the typical age may be even
younger. Low stretch SNe have a characteristic delay time of at
least 2-3 Gyr (bottom panel), with essentially no contribution from young
progenitors. }
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/best_fit.ps}
\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{Figures/best_fit_frac.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{The recovered DTDs, expressed in physical units (Equation
\ref{eq:snrate}, top panel) and as a proportion of the total
SN Ia rate (Equation \ref{eq:fractions}, bottom panel) in
the SDSS spectroscopic sample. Upper limits are
shown for distributions peaking near zero, medians and two-sided
confidence intervals are shown otherwise. Points are drawn at the
midpoint of their relevant age ranges (see Table
\ref{tab:bin_info}), and the high and low stretch bars are offset
for ease of viewing.}
\label{fig:dtd_results}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
\tablecaption{TABLE \ref{tab:results}\\The DTD: results of the Monte Carlo}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Age Range (Gyr)} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{h}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{$f_{h}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{$\epsilon_{l}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{$f_{l}$\tablenotemark{b}}
}
\startdata
0.002 -- 0.42 & $75^{+16}_{-16}$ & $0.25^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $< 13$ &
$< 0.04$ \\
0.42 -- 2.4 & $< 13$ & $< 0.20$ & $< 2.2$ & $< 0.04$ \\
2.4 -- 14 & $< 0.48$ & $< 0.18$ & $1.58^{+0.06}_{-0.12}$ &
$0.58^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Defined in Equation \eqref{eq:snrate}, units are
$10^{-14}~\mathrm{SNe}\,M_\odot^{-1}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Defined in Equation \eqref{eq:fractions}.}
\tablecomments{The errors given are 95\% confidence intervals.}
\label{tab:results}
\end{deluxetable
\section{Discussion and Conclusions} \label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Robustness and Systematics}
SDSS-SN is a large, controlled, untargeted survey, and is therefore
largely free of systematics in target selection. The subset with host
galaxy spectra does have additional selection criteria that can lead
to systematics; however, the host galaxies were selected from the
entire Stripe 82 spectroscopic sample only through the occurrence of a
detectable SN Ia. Further, our comparison of Monte Carlo and observed
host galaxies is based not on derived quantities (like stellar
masses), but rather on the spectra themselves. We therefore believe
our results to be robust. Here, we address several possible sources
of bias and argue that all should be minor.
One possible source of systematics is VESPA and its input stellar
models (see \S\ref{sec:vespa}). We have chosen our models and the
resolution of our recovered star formation histories to minimize these
effects. More importantly, we have avoided any use of VESPA on the
actual hosts (other than in Figure \ref{fig:stretchcut}, which we use
solely to set the stage), and only use it to select our samples of
mock hosts. Therefore, the star formation histories from VESPA will
only bias our results if they are incorrect in the {\it mean}. The
clear evidence of young stars in Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra}
qualitatively supports the results in Figure \ref{fig:results}.
Our earlier paper, \cite{AubourgEtAl08}, used VESPA to show the
existence of a prompt component associated with the age bin to 180
Myr. \citeauthor{AubourgEtAl08} and the present manuscript use
different approaches to recover information about SN Ia progenitors.
While in this paper we aim at recovering the full DTD in the least
parametric possible way allowed by the data, in
\citeauthor{AubourgEtAl08} we focused on recovering the shortest age
of the prompt progenitor channel. It is possible that very young star
formation can mask the presence of older stars. This in itself does
not remove the requirement for the presence of a young population, as
implied by the analysis of \citeauthor{AubourgEtAl08}, but in order to
avoid this issue, we have taken a cautious approach and combined the
young bins into a broad bin. However, the difference spectrum in
Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} suggests that the youngest bin in our
study may be dominated by progenitors substantially younger than 400
Myr, which would give support to the \citeauthor{AubourgEtAl08}
findings. Note that we cannot with these data exclude the possibility
that the progenitors are older, as we have demonstrated only that very
recent star formation is required to be present. An older progenitor
population could be reconciled provided correlations in the star
formation rate mean that older star formation is, in the majority of
cases, accompanied by a very young population. We are limited by the
signal-to-noise ratio of the difference spectrum; with a larger
supernova host sample, we should be able to model better the age of
the stellar populations of the difference spectrum.
Systematic errors in the shape of the observed spectra will give
errors in the VESPA-derived star formation histories. In a sample of
physically identical galaxies, such an effect could, for example,
produce a subsample with bluer measured spectra and thus younger
inferred stellar populations. Selecting galaxies based on their
derived masses of young stars will therefore produce average spectra
that are too blue. In this way, differences in the average spectra of
mock hosts selected by Equation \eqref{eq:mean_sn} will be exaggerated
by using the VESPA-derived masses rather than the (unknown) physical
masses. However, this effect would make it {\it easier} to reproduce
the differences in average spectra seen in Figure
\ref{fig:sdss_spectra}, biasing us {\it against} the different
progenitor ages for high and low stretch SNe Ia seen in Figures
\ref{fig:results} and \ref{fig:dtd_results}. These effects are also
small: \cite{Adelman-McCarthy08} show that spectrophotometric
calibrations are accurate to about 4\% rms (see their Figures 4 and
5).
Another possible source of systematics is the variation in SN and host
galaxy properties. Galaxies with young stellar populations tend to
have more dust, which could render SNe associated with younger stellar
populations fainter. We have not taken host galaxy dust into account
other than by adding scatter to our selection function, through the
$a$ parameter in Equation \eqref{eq:detect}. However, the colors of
SNe are measurable and depend in part on host galaxy extinction. As
shown in Figure \ref{fig:stretch_color}, the color parameter recovered
by SALT II is uncorrelated with the stretch. Perhaps more
surprisingly, it is also uncorrelated with the mean interstellar dust
extinction as fit by VESPA. Any systematic variations of color with
host galaxy properties must therefore be small, and should have little
effect on our results.
\cite{KellyEtAl09} have found a hint of another systematic effect, a
correlation between peak SN Ia luminosity and host galaxy mass not
captured by the color or stretch variation. However, the magnitude of
this effect is too small ($\lesssim 0.1$ magnitude) to significantly
impact our study.
In addition to these systematics, we could suffer biases either from
our light curve ratings (\S\ref{sec:stretch}) or from our choice of
parameters in Equations \eqref{eq:detect} and \eqref{eq:mag}. To
eliminate the former, we did all of the light curve fits and ratings
blindly (\S\ref{sec:stretch}), with no knowledge of the host galaxies.
For the latter, we took all free parameters in Equation \eqref{eq:mag}
from \cite{GuyEtAl05} and fit the parameters $m_\mathit{lim}$ and $a$
in our detection efficiency (Equation \ref{eq:detect}) to match the
observed redshift distributions of both high and low stretch SNe.
Changing $m_\mathit{lim}$ and $a$ could multiply all of the recovered
explosion efficiencies $\epsilon$ by a constant of order unity, but
our results are otherwise insensitive to the details of the selection
function.
Finally, we measure the SN Ia rates in the SDSS spectroscopic sample,
which contains fewer low-mass, metal-poor galaxies than a
volume-limited sample would. Should SN Ia production be suppressed in
low metallicity environments as \cite{KobayashiEtAl98} and others have
suggested, SN Ia rates could be lower in a volume-limited sample than
our results would indicate.
\subsection{Connection to Progenitor Models}
It is remarkable how cleanly our observational cut in stretch divides
the sample into groups with distinct progenitors. The choice of
$0.92$ as a division is somewhat arbitrary; it was a guess motivated
by Figure \ref{fig:stretchcut} and \cite{SullivanEtAl06}. The
observed distribution of stretches does not show a clear bimodality
(see Figure \ref{fig:stretch_color}) and indeed appears continuous.
It is of course possible that SNe Ia have {\it more} than two
progenitor channels, each distinguished by a range of stretches.
However, Figure \ref{fig:stretchcut} provides little guidance on where
to split either the high or low stretch sample, and in any case, our
sample sizes of 60 high stretch and 41 low stretch SNe are too small
to profitably subdivide further.
Given the division by stretch into two samples, we can test the
compatibility of our DTD with predictions of various progenitor
models. We find that many can explain the prompt channel but have
extreme difficulty reproducing our low stretch DTD, in which nearly
all systems take more than $\sim$$2.4$ Gyr to explode. The
theoretical single degenerate DTD calculated by \cite{WangEtAl10} is
compatible with our high stretch sample but falls short of our low
stretch rates by at least an order of magnitude (see their Figures 8
and 9). All of the DTDs published by \cite{Greggio05} have too high a
rate from young stars to match our low stretch sample, though several
are compatible with our high stretch rates. \cite{RuiterEtAl09}
calculate two-peaked theoretical DTDs for various common envelope
scenarios, but with the exception of one semidetached double white
dwarf binary model, find rates in young stars inconsistent with our
low stretch constraints. It is possible that a single progenitor
channel could produce luminous, high stretch objects with a short
delay time and subluminous, low stretch objects with a long delay
time, perhaps because of different compositions at white dwarf birth.
Though recent progress has been made \citep{WoosleyEtAl07}, we still
lack an understanding of the dependence of SN Ia stretch on the
progenitor composition, and do not attempt to address the likelihood
of this scenario in this paper.
\subsection{Conclusions}
We have used SDSS-SN, the only large untargeted supernova survey at
low redshift, to constrain the progenitor populations of Type Ia
supernovae. The blind nature of the survey renders it free of most
systematics, while our use of spectra of both hosts and a large
control sample has allowed us to minimize the impact of stellar
population models on our results. We dramatically confirm the two
populations seen by \cite{SullivanEtAl06}, \cite{MannucciEtAl06},
\cite{ScannapiecoBildsten05}, \cite{AubourgEtAl08} and others, finding
a ``prompt'' component of luminous, high stretch SNe with a
characteristic delay time $\lesssim 400$ Myr (the difference spectrum
in Figure \ref{fig:sdss_spectra} hints at a time as short as tens of
Myr) and a ``delayed'' component of subluminous, low stretch SNe with
a delay time $\gtrsim 2.4$ Gyr. While our results are in broad
agreement with the $A+B$ model (Equation \ref{eq:AB_model}), they
place strong constraints on the progenitor ages and cause difficulties
for many extant theoretical delay time distributions. We caution
against any physical interpretation of the precise values of the age
boundaries, which serve only as limits of integration.
Type Ia supernovae have played a key role in our current understanding
of the cosmological model. In spite of our incomplete understanding
of Type Ia progenitors and explosions, SN Ia surveys like SNLS
\citep{AstierEtAl06}, ESSENCE \citep{Wood-VaseyEtAl07} and
SDSS-SN \citep{KesslerEtAl09} continue to provide the best
constraints on cosmological parameters. Further improvements, for
example with the JDEM candidate SuperNova Acceleration Probe
\citep{SNAP_collab04}, will require systematic effects in SN
Ia standardization to be controlled to $1-2\%$. The identification of
the stellar evolution paths that can yield SNe Ia is therefore a key
issue: the brightness of a supernova could depend on the nature
of its progenitor, and the demographics of SNe Ia would depend on
redshift through the evolution time. This could yield an effective,
non-cosmological, dependence of the mean ``standardized'' absolute
magnitude on redshift that would bias dark energy measurements. In
principle such an effect could be advantageous, as analyses of host
spectra could be used to determine the probabilities of each
progenitor route, and hence the use of the appropriate
\cite{Phillips93} stretch-luminosity relation. This will require both
better constraints on Type Ia progenitor models and an improved
understanding of the Phillips relation.
While Type Ia supernovae are most widely studied because of their use
as standard candles, they are also dynamically important in the
interstellar medium and are believed to be the main source of
iron-peak elements. A fast route to Type Ia supernovae therefore has
implications for the interpretation of alpha-enhancement. If most SNe
Ia are old, iron enrichment will be significantly delayed from the
onset of star formation, and alpha-enhancement will be associated
with short-lived periods of relatively recent star formation.
Significant early iron production by ``prompt'' SNe Ia would modify
this conclusion, making it more difficult to explain alpha-enhancement
and supporting alternative explanations such as a modification of the
initial mass function.
Future studies will certainly improve on our results; the Baryon
Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey \citep[BOSS,][]{SchlegelEtAl07}, part of
SDSS-III\footnote{http://www.sdss3.org/cosmology.php}, is perhaps the
most promising. BOSS is taking spectra of all supernova hosts from
SDSS-SN, expanding our sample by a factor of $\sim$3. While a control
sample is not naturally defined for these SN hosts, the untargeted
nature of SDSS-SN means that a control group could be built out of a
deep, volume-limited sample of galaxies like GAMA \citep{BaldryEtAl09}.
Such a sample could be used to significantly tighten our error
bars.
Increasing the temporal resolution of our recovered DTD may be more
challenging. This will require better spectra, both of SN hosts and
control galaxies, and especially better stellar population synthesis
models. The latter point is crucial: we had to combine all ages
younger than 420 Myr into a single bin because of biases introduced by
the modeling of dust and stellar spectra. Splitting this age bin will
allow us to better determine the timescale of ``prompt'' SNe Ia and
thus the initial masses of their progenitors.
With better stellar population synthesis models, BOSS, GAMA, and other
surveys would hold tremendous promise. They would allow us to
construct a sample several times as large as the one used here, and
with better recovered star formation histories. With such a sample,
we could improve both the precision and temporal resolution of our
DTD by a factor of $\sim$2, placing strict constraints on
theoretical SN Ia progenitor models.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho,
the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council
for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
We thank an anonymous referee for many corrections and helpful
suggestions. We would also like to thank the entire SDSS
collaboration and especially the SDSS Supernova Survey team for their
work in building the exceptional dataset used in this paper.
This material is based upon work supported under a National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to TDB. It was also supported in
part by DOE grant DE-FG02-07ER41514. RT thanks the UK Science and
Technology Facilities Council and the Leverhulme Trust for financial
support.
\bibliographystyle{apj_eprint}
|
\section{Introduction}
\hspace{5mm}It is obvious that our natural physical intuition distinguishes
four dimensions in a natural correspondence with the material reality.
Consequently, the four dimensionality plays special role in almost all
modern physical theories.
On the other hand, it is an well known fact that, in order to create the
Relativity Theory, Einstein was forced to use the Riemannian geometry
instead of the classical Euclidean geometry, the first one representing the
natural ma\-the\-ma\-ti\-cal model for the local \textit{isotropic}
space-time. But, there are recent studies of physicists which suggest a
\textit{non-isotropic} perspective of the space-time (for example, in
Pavlov's opinion \cite{Pavlov}, the concept of inertial body mass emphasizes
the necessity of study of local non-isotropic spaces). Obviously, for the
study of non-isotropic physical phenomena, the Finsler geometry is very
useful as ma\-the\-ma\-ti\-cal framework.
The studies of Russian scholars (Asanov \cite{Asanov[1]}, Mikhailov \cit
{Mikhailov}, Garas'ko and Pavlov \cite{Garasko-Pavlov}) emphasize the
importance of the Finsler geometry which is characterized by the total
equality of all non-isotropic directions. For such a reason, Asanov, Pavlov
and their co-workers underline the important role played by the Berwald-M
\'{o}r metric (whose Finsler geometry is deeply studied by Matsumoto and
Shimada in the paper \cite{Mats-Shimada}
\begin{equation*}
F:TM\rightarrow \mathbb{R},\mathbb{\qquad }F(y)=\left(
y^{1}y^{2}...y^{n}\right) ^{\frac{1}{n}},
\end{equation*
in the theory of space-time structure and gravitation, as well as in unified
gauge field theories. Because any of such directions can be related to the
proper time of an inertial reference frame, Pavlov considers that it is
appropriate as such spaces to be generically called \textit
"multi-dimensional time"} \cite{Pavlov}. In the framework of the $4
-dimensional linear space with Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (i.e. the
four-dimensional time), Pavlov and his co-workers \cite{Garasko-Pavlov},
\cite{Pavlov} offer some new physical approaches and geometrical
interpretations such as:
1. physical events = points in the 4-dimensional space;
2. straight lines = shortest curves;
3. intervals = distances between the points along of a straight line;
4. light pyramids $\Leftrightarrow $ light cones in a pseudo-Euclidian space.
For such geometrical and physical reasons, this paper is devoted to the
development on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$ of the
Finsler-like geometry (together with a theoretical-geometric gravitational
field theory) of the \textit{rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric
\begin{equation*}
\mathring{F}:J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})\rightarrow \mathbb{R},\qquad \mathring{
}(t,y)=\sqrt{h^{11}(t)}\sqrt[4]{y_{1}^{1}y_{1}^{2}y_{1}^{3}y_{1}^{4}},
\end{equation*
where $h_{11}(t)$ is a Riemannian metric on $\mathbb{R}$ and
(t,x^{1},x^{2},x^{3},x^{4},y_{1}^{1},y_{1}^{2},y_{1}^{3},y_{1}^{4})$ are the
coordinates of the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$.
The differential geometry (in the sense of distinguished (d-) connections,
d-torsions, d-curvatures, gravitational and electromagnetic geometrical
theories) produced by a jet rheonomic Lagrangian function $L:J^{1}(\mathbb{R
,M^{n})\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is now completely done in the author's paper
\cite{Neagu-Rheon}. We point out that the geometrical ideas from \cit
{Neagu-Rheon} are similar, but however distinct ones, with those exposed by
Miron and Anastasiei in the classical Lagrangian geometry \cite{Mir-An}. In
fact, the geometrical ideas from \cite{Neagu-Rheon} (the jet geometrical
theory of the \textit{rheonomic Lagrange spaces}) were initially stated by
Asanov in \cite{Asanov[2]} and developed further by the author of this paper
in the book \cite{Neagu Carte}.
In the sequel, we apply the general geometrical results from \cit
{Neagu-Rheon} to the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric\textit{\ }$\mathring{
}$.
\section{Preliminary notations and formulas}
\hspace{5mm}Let $(\mathbb{R},h_{11}(t))$ be a Riemannian manifold, where
\mathbb{R}$ is the set of real numbers. The Christoffel symbol of the
Riemannian metric $h_{11}(t)$ i
\begin{equation*}
\varkappa _{11}^{1}=\frac{h^{11}}{2}\frac{dh_{11}}{dt},\qquad h^{11}=\frac{
}{h_{11}}>0.
\end{equation*
Let also $M^{4}$ be a manifold of dimension four, whose local coordinates
are $(x^{1},x^{2},x^{3},x^{4})$. Let us consider the $1$-jet space $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},M^{4})$, whose local coordinates ar
\begin{equation*}
(t,x^{1},x^{2},x^{3},x^{4},y_{1}^{1},y_{1}^{2},y_{1}^{3},y_{1}^{4}).
\end{equation*
These transform by the rules (the Einstein convention of summation is used
throughout this work)
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{t}=\widetilde{t}(t),\quad \widetilde{x}^{p}=\widetilde{x
^{p}(x^{q}),\quad \widetilde{y}_{1}^{p}=\dfrac{\partial \widetilde{x}^{p}}
\partial x^{q}}\dfrac{dt}{d\widetilde{t}}\cdot y_{1}^{q},\qquad p,q
\overline{1,4}, \label{tr-rules}
\end{equation
where $d\widetilde{t}/dt\neq 0$ and rank $(\partial \widetilde{x
^{p}/\partial x^{q})=4$. We consider that the manifold $M^{4}$ is endowed
with a tensor of kind $(0,4)$, given by the local components $G_{pqrs}(x)$,
which is totally symmetric in the indices $p$, $q$, $r$ and $s$. Suppose
that the d-tensor
\begin{equation*}
G_{ij11}=12G_{ijpq}y_{1}^{p}y_{1}^{q},
\end{equation*
is non-degenerate, that is there exists the d-tensor $G^{jk11}$ on $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},M^{4})$ such that $G_{ij11}G^{jk11}=\delta _{i}^{k}.$
In this geometrical context, if we use the notation
G_{1111}=G_{pqrs}y_{1}^{p}y_{1}^{q}y_{1}^{r}y_{1}^{s}$, we can consider the
rheonomic Finsler-like function (it is $1$-positive homogenous in the
variable $y$)
\begin{equation}
F(t,x,y)=\sqrt[4]{G_{pqrs}(x)y_{1}^{p}y_{1}^{q}y_{1}^{r}y_{1}^{s}}\cdot
\sqrt{h^{11}(t)}=\sqrt[4]{G_{1111}(x,y)}\cdot \sqrt{h^{11}(t)}, \label{F}
\end{equation
where the Finsler function $F$ has as domain of definition all values
(t,x,y)$ which verify the condition $G_{1111}(x,y)>0.$ If we denote
G_{i111}=4G_{ipqr}(x)y_{1}^{p}y_{1}^{q}y_{1}^{r}$, then the $4$-positive
homogeneity of the "$y$-function" $G_{1111}$ (this is in fact a d-tensor on
J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$) leads to the equalities
\begin{equation*}
G_{i111}=\frac{\partial G_{1111}}{\partial y_{1}^{i}},\quad
G_{i111}y_{1}^{i}=4G_{1111},\quad G_{ij11}y_{1}^{j}=3G_{i111},
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
G_{ij11}=\frac{\partial G_{i111}}{\partial y_{1}^{j}}=\frac{\partial
^{2}G_{1111}}{\partial y_{1}^{i}\partial y_{1}^{j}},\quad
G_{ij11}y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}=12G_{1111}.
\end{equation*}
The \textit{fundamental metrical d-tensor} produced by $F$ is given by the
formul
\begin{equation*}
g_{ij}(t,x,y)=\frac{h_{11}(t)}{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}F^{2}}{\partial
y_{1}^{i}\partial y_{1}^{j}}.
\end{equation*
By direct computations, the fundamental metrical d-tensor takes the for
\begin{equation}
g_{ij}(x,y)=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\left[ G_{ij11}-\frac{1}{2G_{1111}
G_{i111}G_{j111}\right] . \label{g-(ij)-general}
\end{equation
Moreover, taking into account that the d-tensor $G_{ij11}$ is
non-degenerate, we deduce that the matrix $g=(g_{ij})$ admits the inverse
g^{-1}=(g^{jk})$. The entries of the inverse matrix $g^{-1}$ ar
\begin{equation}
g^{jk}=4\sqrt{G_{1111}}\left[ G^{jk11}+\frac{G_{1}^{j}G_{1}^{k}}{2\left(
G_{1111}-\mathcal{G}_{1111}\right) }\right] , \label{g+(jk)-general}
\end{equation
where $G_{1}^{j}=G^{jp11}G_{p111}$ and $2\mathcal{G
_{1111}=G^{pq11}G_{p111}G_{q111}.$
\section{The rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric}
\hspace{5mm}Beginning with this Section we will focus only on the \textit
rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric}, which is the Finsler-like metric (\ref{F
) for the particular cas
\begin{equation*}
G_{pqrs}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{1}{4!}, & \{p,q,r,s\}\text{ - distinct indices}\medskip \\
0, & \text{otherwise.
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
Consequently, the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric is given b
\begin{equation}
\mathring{F}(t,y)=\sqrt{h^{11}(t)}\cdot \sqrt[4]
y_{1}^{1}y_{1}^{2}y_{1}^{3}y_{1}^{4}}. \label{rheon-B-M}
\end{equation
Moreover, using preceding notations and formulas, we obtain the following
relations
\begin{equation*}
G_{1111}=y_{1}^{1}y_{1}^{2}y_{1}^{3}y_{1}^{4},\quad G_{i111}=\frac{G_{1111}}
y_{1}^{i}},
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
G_{ij11}=\left( 1-\delta _{ij}\right) \frac{G_{1111}}{y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}
\text{ (no sum by }i\text{ or }j\text{),}
\end{equation*
where $\delta _{ij}$ is the Kronecker symbol. Because we hav
\begin{equation*}
\det \left( G_{ij11}\right) _{i,j=\overline{1,4}}=-3\left( G_{1111}\right)
^{2}\neq 0,
\end{equation*
we fin
\begin{equation*}
G^{jk11}=\frac{(1-3\delta ^{jk})}{3G_{1111}}y_{1}^{j}y_{1}^{k}\text{ (no sum
by }j\text{ or }k\text{).}
\end{equation*
It follows that we have $\mathcal{G}_{1111}=(2/3)G_{1111}$ and
G_{1}^{j}=(1/3)y_{1}^{j}$.
Replacing now the preceding computed entities into the formulas (\re
{g-(ij)-general}) and (\ref{g+(jk)-general}), we ge
\begin{equation}
g_{ij}=\frac{\left( 1-2\delta _{ij}\right) \sqrt{G_{1111}}}{8}\frac{1}
y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}}\text{ (no sum by }i\text{ or }j\text{)}
\label{g-jos-(ij)}
\end{equation
an
\begin{equation}
g^{jk}=\frac{2(1-2\delta ^{jk})}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}y_{1}^{j}y_{1}^{k}\text{
(no sum by }j\text{ or }k\text{).} \label{g-sus-(jk)}
\end{equation}
Using a general formula from the paper \cite{Neagu-Rheon}, we find the
following geometrical result:
\begin{proposition}
For the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}), the \textit
energy action functional
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{\mathring{E}}(t,x(t))=\int_{a}^{b}\sqrt
y_{1}^{1}y_{1}^{2}y_{1}^{3}y_{1}^{4}}\cdot h^{11}\sqrt{h_{11}}dt
\end{equation*
produces on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$ the \textit
canonical nonlinear connection
\begin{equation}
\Gamma =\left( M_{(1)1}^{(i)}=-\varkappa _{11}^{1}y_{1}^{i},\text{
N_{(1)j}^{(i)}=0\right) . \label{can-nlc=0}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Because the canonical nonlinear connection (\ref{can-nlc=0}) has the spatial
components equal to zero, it follows that our subsequent geometrical theory
becomes trivial, in a way. For such a reason, in order to avoid the
triviality of our theory and in order to have a certain kind of symmetry, we
will use on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$, by an "a priori"
definition, the following nonlinear connection:
\begin{equation}
\mathring{\Gamma}=\left( M_{(1)1}^{(i)}=-\varkappa _{11}^{1}y_{1}^{i},\text{
}N_{(1)j}^{(i)}=-\frac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3}\delta _{j}^{i}\right) .
\label{nlc-B-M}
\end{equation}
\section{Cartan canonical connection. d-Torsions and d-curvatures}
\hspace{5mm}The importance of the nonlinear connection (\ref{nlc-B-M}) is
coming from the possibility of construction of the dual \textit{adapted base
} of distinguished (d-) vector field
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \frac{\delta }{\delta t}=\frac{\partial }{\partial t}+\varkappa
_{11}^{1}y_{1}^{p}\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{1}^{p}},\text{ }\frac{\delta
}{\delta x^{i}}=\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{i}}+\frac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{
}\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{1}^{i}},\text{ }\dfrac{\partial }{\partial
y_{1}^{i}}\right\} \subset \mathcal{X}(E) \label{a-b-v}
\end{equation
and distinguished covector field
\begin{equation}
\left\{ dt,\text{ }dx^{i},\text{ }\delta y_{1}^{i}=dy_{1}^{i}-\varkappa
_{11}^{1}y_{1}^{i}dt-\frac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3}dx^{i}\right\} \subset
\mathcal{X}^{\ast }(E), \label{a-b-co}
\end{equation
where $E=J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$. Note that, under a change of coordinates
\ref{tr-rules}), the elements of the adapted bases (\ref{a-b-v}) and (\re
{a-b-co}) transform as classical tensors. Consequently, all subsequent
geometrical objects on the $1$-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$ (as
Cartan canonical connection, torsion, curvature etc.) will be described in
local adapted components.
Using a general result from \cite{Neagu-Rheon}, by direct computations, we
can give the following important geometrical result:
\begin{theorem}
The Cartan canonical $\mathring{\Gamma}$-linear connection, produced by the
rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}), has the following
adapted local components
\begin{equation*}
C\mathring{\Gamma}=\left( \varkappa _{11}^{1},\text{ }G_{j1}^{k}=0,\text{
L_{jk}^{i}=\frac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3}C_{j(k)}^{i(1)},\text{
C_{j(k)}^{i(1)}\right) ,
\end{equation*
where, if we use the notatio
\begin{equation*}
A_{jk}^{i}=\frac{2\delta _{j}^{i}+2\delta _{k}^{i}+2\delta _{jk}-8\delta
_{j}^{i}\delta _{jk}-1}{8}\text{ (no sum by }i,\text{ }j\text{ or }k\text{),}
\end{equation*
the
\begin{equation*}
C_{j(k)}^{i(1)}=A_{jk}^{i}\cdot \frac{y_{1}^{i}}{y_{1}^{j}y_{1}^{k}}\text{
(no sum by }i,\text{ }j\text{ or }k\text{).}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Via the Berwald-Mo\'{o}r derivative operators (\ref{a-b-v}) and (\ref{a-b-co
), we use the general formulas which give the adapted components of the
Cartan canonical connection, namely \cite{Neagu-Rheon
\begin{equation*}
G_{j1}^{k}=\frac{g^{km}}{2}\frac{\delta g_{mj}}{\delta t},\quad L_{jk}^{i}
\frac{g^{im}}{2}\left( \frac{\delta g_{jm}}{\delta x^{k}}+\frac{\delta g_{km
}{\delta x^{j}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\delta x^{m}}\right) ,
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
C_{j(k)}^{i(1)}=\frac{g^{im}}{2}\left( \frac{\partial g_{jm}}{\partial
y_{1}^{k}}+\frac{\partial g_{km}}{\partial y_{1}^{j}}-\frac{\partial g_{jk}}
\partial y_{1}^{m}}\right) =\frac{g^{im}}{2}\frac{\partial g_{jm}}{\partial
y_{1}^{k}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The below properties of the d-tensor $C_{j(k)}^{i(1)}$ are true (see also
the papers \cite{At-Bal-Neagu} and \cite{Mats-Shimada})
\begin{equation}
C_{j(k)}^{i(1)}=C_{k(j)}^{i(1)},\quad C_{j(m)}^{i(1)}y_{1}^{m}=0,\quad
C_{j(m)}^{m(1)}=0\text{ (sum by }m\text{)}. \label{equalitie-C}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The coefficients $A_{ij}^{l}$ have the following values
\begin{equation}
A_{ij}^{l}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\dfrac{1}{8}, & i\neq j\neq l\neq i\medskip \\
\dfrac{1}{8}, & i=j\neq l\text{ or }i=l\neq j\text{ or }j=l\neq i\medskip \\
-\dfrac{3}{8}, & i=j=l
\end{array
\right. \label{A-(ijk)}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
The Cartan canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$ of the rheonomic
Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}) has \textbf{three} effective local
torsion d-tensors
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{c}
P_{(1)i(j)}^{(k)\text{ }(1)}=-\dfrac{1}{3}\varkappa
_{11}^{1}C_{i(j)}^{k(1)},\quad P_{i(j)}^{k(1)}=C_{i(j)}^{k(1)},\medskip \\
R_{(1)1j}^{(k)}=\dfrac{1}{3}\left[ \dfrac{d\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{dt
-\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}\right] \delta _{j}^{k}
\end{array
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A general $h$-normal $\Gamma $-linear connection on the 1-jet space $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},M^{4})$ is characterized by \textit{eight} effective d-tensors of
torsion (for more details, please see \cite{Neagu-Rheon}). For our Cartan
canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$ these reduce to the following
\textit{three} (the other five cancel)
\begin{equation*}
{P_{(1)i(j)}^{(k)\text{ }(1)}={\dfrac{\partial N_{(1)i}^{(k)}}{\partial
y_{1}^{j}}}-L_{ji}^{k}},\quad R_{(1)1j}^{(k)}={\dfrac{\delta M_{(1)1}^{(k)}}
\delta x^{j}}}-{\dfrac{\delta N_{(1)j}^{(k)}}{\delta t}},\quad
P_{i(j)}^{k(1)}=C_{i(j)}^{k(1)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The Cartan canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$ of the rheonomic
Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}) has \textbf{three} effective local
curvature d-tensors
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{c}
R_{ijk}^{l}=\dfrac{1}{9}\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa
_{11}^{1}S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)},\quad P_{ij(k)}^{l\text{ }(1)}=\dfrac{1}{3
\varkappa _{11}^{1}S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)},\medskip \\
S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}={{\dfrac{\partial C_{i(j)}^{l(1)}}{\partial y_{1}^{k}}
-{\dfrac{\partial C_{i(k)}^{l(1)}}{\partial y_{1}^{j}}
+C_{i(j)}^{m(1)}C_{m(k)}^{l(1)}-C_{i(k)}^{m(1)}C_{m(j)}^{l(1)}.
\end{array
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A general $h$-normal $\Gamma $-linear connection on the 1-jet space $J^{1}
\mathbb{R},M^{4})$ is characterized by \textit{five} effective d-tensors of
curvature (for more details, please see \cite{Neagu-Rheon}). For our Cartan
canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$ these reduce to the following
\textit{three} (the other two cancel)
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
\medskip {R_{ijk}^{l}={\dfrac{\delta L_{ij}^{l}}{\delta x^{k}}}-{\dfrac
\delta L_{ik}^{l}}{\delta x^{j}}}+L_{ij}^{m}L_{mk}^{l}-L_{ik}^{m}L_{mj}^{l},}
\\
\medskip {P_{ij(k)}^{l\;\;(1)}={\dfrac{\partial L_{ij}^{l}}{\partial
y_{1}^{k}}}-C_{i(k)|j}^{l(1)}+C_{i(m)}^{l(1)}P_{(1)j(k)}^{(m)\;\;(1)},} \\
S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}={{\dfrac{\partial C_{i(j)}^{l(1)}}{\partial y_{1}^{k}}
-{\dfrac{\partial C_{i(k)}^{l(1)}}{\partial y_{1}^{j}}
+C_{i(j)}^{m(1)}C_{m(k)}^{l(1)}-C_{i(k)}^{m(1)}C_{m(j)}^{l(1)},
\end{array
\end{equation*
wher
\begin{equation*}
{C_{i(k)|j}^{l(1)}=}\frac{\delta {C_{i(k)}^{l(1)}}}{\delta x^{j}}+
C_{i(k)}^{m(1)}L_{mj}^{l}}-{C_{m(k)}^{l(1)}L_{ij}^{m}}-
C_{i(m)}^{l(1)}L_{kj}^{m}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The curvature d-tensor $S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}$ has the propertie
\begin{equation*}
S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}+S_{i(k)(j)}^{l(1)(1)}=0,\quad S_{i(j)(j)}^{l(1)(1)}=
\text{ (no sum by }j\text{).}
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
The following expressions of the curvature d-tensor $S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}$
hold good:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}=0$ for $\{i,$ $j,$ $k,$ $l\}$ distinct indices;
\item $S_{i(i)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}=-\dfrac{1}{16}\dfrac{y_{1}^{l}}{\left(
y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}y_{1}^{k}}$ ($i\neq k\neq l\neq i$ and no sum by $i$);
\item $S_{i(j)(i)}^{l(1)(1)}=\dfrac{1}{16}\dfrac{y_{1}^{l}}{\left(
y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}y_{1}^{j}}$ ($i\neq j\neq l\neq i$ and no sum by $i$);
\item $S_{i(j)(k)}^{i(1)(1)}=0$ ($i\neq j\neq k\neq i$ and no sum by $i$);
\item $S_{i(l)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}=\dfrac{1}{16y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{k}}$ ($i\neq k\neq
l\neq i$ and no sum by $l$);
\item $S_{i(j)(l)}^{l(1)(1)}=-\dfrac{1}{16y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}}$ ($i\neq j\neq
l\neq i$ and no sum by $l$);
\item $S_{i(i)(l)}^{l(1)(1)}=\dfrac{1}{8\left( y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}}$ (
i\neq l$ and no sum by $i$ or $l$);
\item $S_{i(l)(i)}^{l(1)(1)}=-\dfrac{1}{8\left( y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}}$ (
i\neq l$ and no sum by $i$ or $l$);
\item $S_{l(l)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}=0$ ($k\neq l$ and no sum by $l$);
\item $S_{l(j)(l)}^{l(1)(1)}=0$ ($j\neq l$ and no sum by $l$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $j\neq k$, the expression of the curvature tensor $S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)}$
takes the form (no sum by $i$, $j$, $k$ or $l$, but with sum by $m$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_{i(j)(k)}^{l(1)(1)} &=&\left[ \frac{A_{ij}^{l}\delta _{k}^{l}}
y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}}-\frac{A_{ik}^{l}\delta _{j}^{l}}{y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{k}
\right] +\left[ \frac{A_{ik}^{l}\delta _{ij}y_{1}^{l}}{\left(
y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}y_{1}^{k}}-\frac{A_{ij}^{l}\delta _{ik}y_{1}^{l}}
\left( y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}y_{1}^{j}}\right] + \\
&&+\left[ A_{ij}^{m}A_{mk}^{l}-A_{ik}^{m}A_{mj}^{l}\right] \frac{y_{1}^{l}}
y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}y_{1}^{k}},
\end{eqnarray*
where the coefficients $A_{ij}^{l}$ are given by the relations (\ref{A-(ijk)
).
\end{proof}
\section{Geometrical gravitational theory produced by the rheonomic
Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric}
\hspace{5mm}From a physical point of view, on the 1-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb
R},M^{4})$, the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}) produces
the adapted metrical d-tenso
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{G}=h_{11}dt\otimes dt+g_{ij}dx^{i}\otimes dx^{j}+h^{11}g_{ij}\delta
y_{1}^{i}\otimes \delta y_{1}^{j}, \label{gravit-pot-B-M}
\end{equation
where $g_{ij}$ is given by (\ref{g-jos-(ij)}). This may be regarded as a
\textit{"non-isotropic gravitational potential"}. In such a physical
context, the nonlinear connection $\mathring{\Gamma}$ (used in the
construction of the distinguished 1-forms $\delta y_{1}^{i}$) prescribes,
probably, a kind of \textit{\textquotedblleft interaction\textquotedblright }
between $(t)$-, $(x)$- and $(y)$-fields.
We postulate that the non-isotropic gravitational potential $\mathbb{G}$ is
governed by the \textit{geometrical Einstein equations
\begin{equation}
\text{Ric }\left( C\mathring{\Gamma}\right) -\frac{\text{Sc }\left(
\mathring{\Gamma}\right) }{2}\mathbb{G=}\mathcal{KT},
\label{Einstein-eq-global}
\end{equation
where Ric $\left( C\mathring{\Gamma}\right) $ is the \textit{Ricci d-tensor}
associated to the Cartan canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$ (in
Riemannian sense and using adapted bases), Sc $\left( C\mathring{\Gamma
\right) $ is the \textit{scalar curvature}, $\mathcal{K}$ is the \textit
Einstein constant} and $\mathcal{T}$ is the intrinsic \textit{stress-energy}
d-tensor of matter.
In this way, working with the adapted basis of vector fields (\ref{a-b-v}),
we can find the local geometrical Einstein equations for the rheonomic
Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}). Firstly, by direct computations,
we find:
\begin{proposition}
The Ricci d-tensor of the Cartan canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$
of the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}) has the following
effective local Ricci d-tensors
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\medskip R_{ij}=R_{ijm}^{m}=\dfrac{1}{9}\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa
_{11}^{1}S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}, \\
P_{i(j)}^{\text{ }(1)}=P_{(i)j}^{(1)}=P_{ij(m)}^{m\text{ }(1)}=\dfrac{1}{3
\varkappa _{11}^{1}S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)},\medskip \\
S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}=S_{i(j)(m)}^{m(1)(1)}=\dfrac{7\delta _{ij}-1}{8}\dfrac{
}{y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}}\text{ (no sum by }i\text{ or }j\text{){.}
\end{array}
\label{Ricci-local}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The local Ricci d-tensor $S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}$ has the following expression
\begin{equation*}
S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\dfrac{1}{8}\dfrac{1}{y_{1}^{i}y_{1}^{j}}, & i\neq j\medskip \\
\dfrac{3}{4}\dfrac{1}{\left( y_{1}^{i}\right) ^{2}}, & i=j
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Using the third equality of (\ref{Ricci-local}) and the equality (\re
{g-sus-(jk)}), we deduce that the following equality is true (sum by $r$)
\begin{equation}
S_{i}^{m11}\overset{def}{=}g^{mr}S_{(r)(i)}^{(1)(1)}=\frac{5-14\delta
_{i}^{m}}{4}\cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\cdot \frac{y_{1}^{m}}{y_{1}^{i}
\text{ (no sum by }i\text{ or }m\text{).} \label{S-ridicat}
\end{equation
Moreover, by a direct calculation, we obtain the equalitie
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m,r=1}^{4}S_{r}^{m11}C_{i(m)}^{r(1)}=0,\quad \sum_{m=1}^{4}\frac
\partial S_{i}^{m11}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\dfrac{1}
y_{1}^{i}}. \label{equalities-S-ridicat}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}
The scalar curvature of the Cartan canonical connection $C\mathring{\Gamma}$
of the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M}) is given b
\begin{equation*}
\text{Sc }\left( C\mathring{\Gamma}\right) =-\frac{9h_{11}+\varkappa
_{11}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The general formula for the scalar curvature of a Cartan connection is (for
more details, please see \cite{Neagu-Rheon}
\begin{equation*}
\text{Sc }\left( C\mathring{\Gamma}\right)
=g^{pq}R_{pq}+h_{11}g^{pq}S_{(p)(q)}^{(1)(1)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Describing the global geometrical Einstein equations (\re
{Einstein-eq-global}) in the adapted basis of vector fields (\ref{a-b-v}),
we find the following important geometrical and physical result (for more
details, please see \cite{Neagu-Rheon}):
\begin{theorem}
The local \textbf{geometrical Einstein equations} that govern the
non-isotropic gravitational potential $\mathbb{G}$ (produced by the
rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M})) are given by
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\medskip \dfrac{\xi _{11}h_{11}}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}=\mathcal{T}_{11} \\
\medskip \dfrac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{9\mathcal{K}
S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}+\dfrac{\xi _{11}}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}g_{ij}=\mathcal{T}_{ij}
\\
\dfrac{1}{\mathcal{K}}S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}+\dfrac{\xi _{11}}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}
h^{11}g_{ij}=\mathcal{T}_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)
\end{array
\right. \label{E-1}
\end{equation
\medski
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0=\mathcal{T}_{1i}, & 0=\mathcal{T}_{i1}, & 0=\mathcal{T}_{(i)1}^{(1)}
\medskip \\
0=\mathcal{T}_{1(i)}^{\text{ }(1)}, & \dfrac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3\mathcal{
}}S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}=\mathcal{T}_{i(j)}^{\text{ }(1)}, & \dfrac{\varkappa
_{11}^{1}}{3\mathcal{K}}S_{(i)(j)}^{(1)(1)}=\mathcal{T}_{(i)j}^{(1)}
\end{array
\right. \label{E-2}
\end{equation
\medskip where
\begin{equation}
\xi _{11}=\frac{9h_{11}+\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{2\mathcal{K}
. \label{CSI}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The local geometrical Einstein equations (\ref{E-1}) and (\ref{E-2}) impose
as the stress-energy d-tensor of matter $\mathcal{T}$ to be symmetrical. In
other words, the stress-energy d-tensor of matter $\mathcal{T}$ must verify
the local symmetry condition
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{T}_{AB}=\mathcal{T}_{BA},\quad \forall \text{ }A,B\in \left\{ 1
\text{ }i,\text{ }_{(i)}^{(1)}\right\} .
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
By direct computations, the local geometrical Einstein equations (\ref{E-1})
and (\ref{E-2}) imply the following identities of the stress-energy d-tensor
(sum by $r$):\bigskip
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{1}^{1}\overset{def}{=}h^{11}\mathcal{T}_{11}=\dfrac
\xi _{11}}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}},\quad\mathcal{T}_{1}^{m}\overset{def}{=}g^{mr
\mathcal{T}_{r1}=0,\quad$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{(1)1}^{(m)}\overset{def}{=}h_{11}g^{mr}\mathcal{T
_{(r)1}^{(1)}=0,\quad\mathcal{T}_{i}^{1}\overset{def}{=}h^{11}\mathcal{T
_{1i}=0,$
$\bigskip\mathcal{T}_{i}^{m}\overset{def}{=}g^{mr}\mathcal{T}_{ri}=\dfrac
\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{9\mathcal{K}}S_{i}^{m11}+\dfrac{\xi
_{11}}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\mathcal{\delta }_{i}^{m},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{(1)i}^{(m)}\overset{def}{=}h_{11}g^{mr}\mathcal{T
_{(r)i}^{(1)}=\dfrac{h_{11}\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3\mathcal{K}
S_{i}^{m11},\quad\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)}^{1(1)}\overset{def}{=}h^{11
\mathcal{T}_{1(i)}^{\text{ }(1)}=0,$
$\bigskip\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)}^{m(1)}\overset{def}{=}g^{mr}\mathcal{T
_{r(i)}^{\text{ }(1)}=\dfrac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3\mathcal{K}}S_{i}^{m11},$
$\bigskip\mathcal{T}_{(1)(i)}^{(m)(1)}\overset{def}{=}h_{11}g^{mr}\mathcal{T
_{(r)(i)}^{(1)(1)}=\dfrac{h_{11}}{\mathcal{K}}S_{i}^{m11}+\dfrac{\xi _{11}}
\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\mathcal{\delta }_{i}^{m},$ where the d-tensor $S_{i}^{m11}$
is given by (\ref{S-ridicat}) and $\xi _{11}$ is given by (\ref{CSI}).
\begin{corollary}
The stress-energy d-tensor of matter $\mathcal{T}$ must verify the following
\textbf{geometrical conservation laws} (summation by $m$)
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{1/1}^{1}+\mathcal{T}_{1|m}^{m}+\mathcal{T
_{(1)1}^{(m)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}=\dfrac{\left( h^{11}\right) ^{2}}{8\mathcal{K}
\dfrac{dh_{11}}{dt}\left[ 2\dfrac{d^{2}h_{11}}{dt^{2}}-\dfrac{3}{h_{11}
\left( \dfrac{dh_{11}}{dt}\right) ^{2}\right] \cdot \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{G_{1111}
} \\
\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{i/1}^{1}+\mathcal{T}_{i|m}^{m}+\mathcal{T
_{(1)i}^{(m)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}=\dfrac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}\xi _{11}}{18}\cdot
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\cdot \dfrac{1}{y_{1}^{i}} \\
\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)/1}^{1(1)}+\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)|m}^{m(1)}
\mathcal{T}_{(1)(i)}^{(m)(1)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}=\dfrac{\xi _{11}}{6}\cdot \dfrac{
}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\cdot \dfrac{1}{y_{1}^{i}}
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
where (summation by $m$ and $r$)\bigskip
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{1/1}^{1}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\delta \mathcal{T
_{1}^{1}}{\delta t}+\mathcal{T}_{1}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}-\mathcal{T
_{1}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}=\dfrac{\delta \mathcal{T}_{1}^{1}}{\delta t},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{1|m}^{m}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\delta \mathcal{T
_{1}^{m}}{\delta x^{m}}+\mathcal{T}_{1}^{r}L_{rm}^{m}=\dfrac{\delta \mathcal
T}_{1}^{m}}{\delta x^{m}},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{(1)1}^{(m)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac
\partial \mathcal{T}_{(1)1}^{(m)}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}}+\mathcal{T
_{(1)1}^{(r)}C_{r(m)}^{m(1)}=\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{T}_{(1)1}^{(m)}}
\partial y_{1}^{m}},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{i/1}^{1}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\delta \mathcal{T
_{i}^{1}}{\delta t}+\mathcal{T}_{i}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}-\mathcal{T
_{r}^{1}G_{i1}^{r}=\dfrac{\delta \mathcal{T}_{i}^{1}}{\delta t}+\mathcal{T
_{i}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{i|m}^{m}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\delta \mathcal{T
_{i}^{m}}{\delta x^{m}}+\mathcal{T}_{i}^{r}L_{rm}^{m}-\mathcal{T
_{r}^{m}L_{im}^{r}=\dfrac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3}\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{T
_{i}^{m}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{(1)i}^{(m)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac
\partial \mathcal{T}_{(1)i}^{(m)}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}}+\mathcal{T
_{(1)i}^{(r)}C_{r(m)}^{m(1)}-\mathcal{T}_{(1)r}^{(m)}C_{i(m)}^{r(1)}=\dfrac
\partial \mathcal{T}_{(1)i}^{(m)}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)/1}^{1(1)}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\delta
\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)}^{1(1)}}{\delta t}+2\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \
(i)}^{1(1)}\varkappa _{11}^{1},$
$\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)|m}^{m(1)}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\delta
\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)}^{m(1)}}{\delta x^{m}}+\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \
(i)}^{r(1)}L_{rm}^{m}-\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(r)}^{m(1)}L_{im}^{r}=\dfrac
\varkappa _{11}^{1}}{3}\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)}^{m(1)}}
\partial y_{1}^{m}},$
$\mathcal{T}_{(1)(i)}^{(m)(1)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}\overset{def}{=}\dfrac{\partial
\mathcal{T}_{(1)(i)}^{(m)(1)}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}}+\mathcal{T
_{(1)(i)}^{(r)(1)}C_{r(m)}^{m(1)}-\mathcal{T
_{(1)(r)}^{(m)(1)}C_{i(m)}^{r(1)}=\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{T
_{(1)(i)}^{(m)(1)}}{\partial y_{1}^{m}}.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The conservation laws are provided by direct computations, using the
relations (\ref{equalitie-C}) and (\ref{equalities-S-ridicat}).
\end{proof}
\section{Some physical remarks and comments}
\subsection{On gravitational theory}
\hspace{5mm}It is known that in the classical Relativity theory of Einstein
(which characterizes the gravity in an isotropic space-time) the tensor of
matter must verify the conservation law
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{T}_{i;m}^{m}=0,\quad \forall \text{ }i=\overline{1,4},
\end{equation*
where "$;$" means the covariant derivative produced by the Levi-Civita
connection associated to pseudo-Riemannian metric $g_{ij}(x)$ (the
gravitational potentials).
Comparatively, in our non-isotropic gravitational theory (with respect to
the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M})) the conservation
laws are replaced with ($i=\overline{1,4}$)
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
\bigskip \mathcal{T}_{1}=\dfrac{\left( h^{11}\right) ^{2}}{8\mathcal{K}
\dfrac{dh_{11}}{dt}\left[ 2\dfrac{d^{2}h_{11}}{dt^{2}}-\dfrac{3}{h_{11}
\left( \dfrac{dh_{11}}{dt}\right) ^{2}\right] \cdot \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{G_{1111}
} \\
\mathcal{T}_{i}=\dfrac{\varkappa _{11}^{1}\xi _{11}}{18}\cdot \dfrac{1}
\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\cdot \dfrac{1}{y_{1}^{i}},\quad\mathcal{T}_{(i)}^{(1)}
\dfrac{\xi _{11}}{6}\cdot \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{G_{1111}}}\cdot \dfrac{1}{y_{1}^{i
}
\end{array
\end{equation*}
wher
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
\medskip \mathcal{T}_{1}\overset{def}{=}\mathcal{T}_{1/1}^{1}+\mathcal{T
_{1|m}^{m}+\mathcal{T}_{(1)1}^{(m)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}, \\
\medskip \mathcal{T}_{i}\overset{def}{=}\mathcal{T}_{i/1}^{1}+\mathcal{T
_{i|m}^{m}+\mathcal{T}_{(1)i}^{(m)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}, \\
\mathcal{T}_{(i)}^{(1)}\overset{def}{=}\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)/1}^{1(1)}
\mathcal{T}_{\text{ \ }(i)|m}^{m(1)}+\mathcal{T
_{(1)(i)}^{(m)(1)}|_{(m)}^{(1)}
\end{array
\end{equation*}
By analogy with Einstein's theory, if we impose the conditions ($\forall $
i=\overline{1,4}$
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\medskip \mathcal{T}_{1}=0 \\
\medskip \mathcal{T}_{i}=0 \\
\mathcal{T}_{(i)}^{(1)}=0
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
then we reach to the system of differential equations
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dfrac{dh_{11}}{dt}\left[ 2\dfrac{d^{2}h_{11}}{dt^{2}}-\dfrac{3}{h_{11}
\left( \dfrac{dh_{11}}{dt}\right) ^{2}\right] =0\medskip \\
9h_{11}+\varkappa _{11}^{1}\varkappa _{11}^{1}=0
\end{array
\right. \label{DEs}
\end{equation
Obviously, because we have $h_{11}>0$, we deduce that the DEs system (\re
{DEs}) has not any solution. Consequently, we always hav
\begin{equation*}
\left[ \mathcal{T}_{1}\right] ^{2}+\left[ \mathcal{T}_{i}\right] ^{2}+\left[
\mathcal{T}_{(i)}^{(1)}\right] ^{2}\neq 0,\quad \forall \text{ }i=\overline
1,4}.
\end{equation*}
In our opinion, this fact suggests that our geometrical gravitational theory
(produced by the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r gravitational potential (\re
{gravit-pot-B-M})) is not suitable for media whose stress-energy
d-components ar
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{T}_{AB}=0,\quad \forall \text{ }A,B\in \left\{ 1,\text{ }i,\text{
_{(i)}^{(1)}\right\} .
\end{equation*
However, it is important to note that at "infinity"
\begin{equation*}
\text{(this means that }y_{1}^{i}\rightarrow \infty ,\quad \forall \text{ }i
\overline{1,4}),
\end{equation*
our Berwald-Mo\'{o}r geometrical gravitational theory seems to be
appropriate even for media characterized by a null stress-energy d-tensor of
matter. This is because at "infinity" the stress-energy local d-tensors tend
to become zero.
\subsection{On electromagnetic theory}
\hspace{5mm}In the paper \cite{Neagu-Rheon}, a geometrical theory for
electromagnetism was also created, using only a given Lagrangian function $L$
on the 1-jet space $J^{1}(\mathbb{R},M^{4})$. In the background of the jet
relativistic rheonomic Lagrange geometry from \cite{Neagu-Rheon}, we work
with an \textit{electromagnetic distinguished }$2$\textit{-form
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{F}=F_{(i)j}^{(1)}\delta y_{1}^{i}\wedge dx^{j},
\end{equation*
wher
\begin{equation*}
F_{(i)j}^{(1)}=\frac{h^{11}}{2}\left[
g_{jm}N_{(1)i}^{(m)}-g_{im}N_{(1)j}^{(m)}+\left(
g_{ir}L_{jm}^{r}-g_{jr}L_{im}^{r}\right) y_{1}^{m}\right] ,
\end{equation*
which is characterized by some natural \textit{geometrical Maxwell equations}
(for more details, please see \cite{Neagu-Rheon})
In our particular case of rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M
) and nonlinear connection (\ref{nlc-B-M}), we find the electromagnetic $2
-form $\mathbb{F}:=\mathbb{\mathring{F}}=0.$ Consequently, our Berwald-M
\'{o}r geometrical electromagnetic theory is trivial. In our opinion, this
fact suggests that the rheonomic Berwald-Mo\'{o}r metric (\ref{rheon-B-M})
has rather strong gravitational connotations than electromagnetic ones. This
is because, in our geometrical approach, the Berwald-Mo\'{o}r
electromagnetism is trivial.
\textbf{Acknowledgements.} The author thanks Professor V. Balan for his
encouragements and useful suggestions.
|
\section{Production of positrons and electrons}
\label{sec:02}
In a first approach, the Standard Model of particles physics describes well enough the physics behind the production of cosmic rays.
However, let us clarify that, the production in the astrophysical context arises both from particles physics and from the galactic environment.\\
Among the sources of cosmic rays, supernovae are the main ones and a big fraction of them comes from the matter expelled at the time of the explosion.
This mechanism is generally the dominant one but not for all the species and energy scales.
In fact, interactions between cosmic rays and the interstellar gas sizeably contributes, adding an extra amount of cosmic rays known as \emph{secondaries}.\\
Electrons and positrons are also produced by other mechanisms, like pulsar emission~\cite{Busching:2008}, and decay/annihilation of dark matter~\cite{Hooper:2004bq}.\\
\subsection{\sc Production in proton--proton collisions}
The nuclear scattering is the fundamental process behind secondary electrons and positrons.
The secodary production takes place in the galactic disk when nuclei cosmic rays scatter off the interstellar medium.
In particular, it depends on the composition of the interstellar medium -- composed by hydrogen $(0.9\,\tu{part.}/\tu{cm}^3)$ and helium gas $(0.1\,\tu{part.}/\tu{cm}^3)$~\cite{Thorndike:1930, Field:1969, Lyman:1998, Ferriere:2001rg} -- and on the fluxes of protons and alpha particles~\cite{Shikaze:2006je}.
\subsubsection{\sc Production from mesons decay}
In proton-proton collisions, charged pions and kaons are produced in big amounts.
Their decay channels are responsible of the big amount of electrons and positrons.
Of course, this is valid for collisions at low energy ($p_{\tn{lab}} < 20\,\tu{GeV}$) when meson production is dominant.\\
The electron and positron energy spectra are calculated from the inclusive cross section of pions and kaons and from the electron and positron spectra associated to their decays:
\begin{eq}
\frac{d\ics_{pp \rightarrow e}}{d\ener{e}} = \frac{d\ics_{pp \rightarrow e}^{\pi}}{d\ener{e}} + \frac{d\ics_{pp \rightarrow e}^{K}}{d\ener{e}} \; ,
\end{eq}
where a particular contribution is generically calculated as:
\begin{eq}
\frac{d\ics_{pp \rightarrow e}^{X}}{d\ener{e}}(\ener{e},\ener{p}) = \int d \ener{X} \frac{d \ics_{pp \rightarrow X}}{d\ener{X}}(\ener{X}, \ener{p}) \times f_{e, X}(\ener{e}, \ener{X}) \; ,
\end{eq}
where $X$ denotes pions or kaons as intermediate particles and $f_{e,X}$ the meson decay distribution into electrons or positrons.
The decay distributions is analytically calculated including muon polarization effects~\cite{Lineros:2008hh}. Pion decays are the simplest ones because they have just one dominant decay mode ($\mu^{\pm} \nu_{\mu}$) instead of kaon decays which are complex to treat (details in appendices C and D of~\cite{Lineros:2008hh}). \\
The inclusive cross sections of pions and kaons from proton--proton collisions are very difficult to calculate \emph{a priori}.
In the literature, two well known parametrization for the inclusive cross section of pions and kaons are available:
\begin{itemize}
\item Badhwar et al. parametrization~\cite{Badhwar:1977zf,Stephens:1981Ap}.
\item Tan--Ng parametrization~\cite{Tan:1983ICRC,Tan:1984ha}.
\end{itemize}
Both parametrization reproduce good enough the observations in colliders.
In any case, the small differences among them gives an estimation of uncertainties coming from nuclear and particle physics.\\
\subsubsection{\sc Kamae et al. parametrization}
A parametrization of production of positrons, electrons and other particles is proposed by Kamae et al.~\cite{Abe:2004gp,Kamae:2004xx,Kamae:2006bf}. It aims to provide an easy way to compute and estimate cosmic ray fluxes that comes from interstellar medium interactions with nuclei cosmic rays. \\
New processes are included like contributions from $\Delta(1238)$ and many hadron resonances around 1600 $[\tu{MeV}/\tu{c}^2]$ that make it accurate in the very low proton energy range ($p_{\tn{lab}} < 8\,\tu{GeV}$).
Other included processes come from diffractive dissociation which contributes in the intermediate energy range ($p_{\tn{lab}} > 20\,\tu{GeV}$).\\
In addition, this parametrization works for very high energy scales being based on simulators like PYTHIA~\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi} to generate the spectra at higher energies. Also, its big advantage is to save CPU time by avoiding to calculate the convolution among mesons production and meson decay into electrons and positrons.\\
\subsubsection{\sc Uncertainties from nuclear physics}
\begin{fig}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{cs_badhwar.ps} \includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{cs_tan.ps}}\\
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{cs_kamae.ps} \includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{cs_comp.ps}}
\caption{\label{f:crs-comp} Positron and electron inclusive cross section versus energy for proton energies of 2, 10 and 35 \tu{GeV}.
The different panels show the case of Badhwar et al.~\cite{Badhwar:1977zf}, Tan and Ng~\cite{Tan:1984ha}, and Kamae et al.~\cite{Kamae:2004xx} parametrizations. The last panel shows that the relative difference with respect to Tan and Ng solution is on average around 15\% and 25\% for Badhwar et al. and Kamae et al. cases respectively.}
\end{fig}
Previously we described different approaches to calculate the electron and positron spectra in proton--proton collisions.
Each parametrization is based on physical assumptions and encompasses available experimental data:
therefore the small differences among them can be used to quantify the nuclear physics uncertainties.\\
In \citefig{f:crs-comp}, we show the comparisons among the three parametrizations for different proton kinetic energies.
We note that these parametrization are closely similar in behavior.
However, there are variations up to 80\% at proton energies of 20 \tu{GeV}, as in case of Kamae et al. versus Tan and Ng parametrization. Another feature is that the Kamae's parametrization estimates a smaller electron cross section with respect to the other two parametrizations.\\
Due to the low statistics at very low energy, Badhwar's and Tan's parametrization tend to produce non-physical distributions for proton kinetic energies below $6 \ \tu{GeV}$. Nevertheless, the total inclusive cross section -- the integrated version of those -- are still in agreement with the available experimental data. To fix this undesirables feature, both parametrization are patched by doing a smooth transition from 3 \tu{GeV} until 7 \tu{GeV} with the Stecker's model~\cite{Stecker:1967SA,Stecker:1970Ap}.
Let's clarify that Kamae's parametrization also includes that feature, but considering more resonances.\\
Moreover, for proton energies above 100~\tu{GeV}, Badhwar's parametrization becomes unstable specially the electron cross section case.\\
\subsection{\sc Production in annihilation processes}
Electron and positrons can also be the result of annihilations.
A first case to come in mind is the matter--antimatter annihilation like electron positron collisions at LEP.
The annihilation of dark matter also enters in this category, providing a new type of source of electrons and positrons that it would coexist with standard cosmic rays sources.\\
Independently of how these particles annihilate, electrons and positrons would come directly from the annihilation event (direct production case) or from the annihilation's sub-products, like decay of gauge or higgs bosons or hadronization/decay of quarks.\\
We work in a general approach, in which we generate electron and positron multiplicity distributions which are independent of dark matter physics and can be used for any purpose.\\
\subsubsection{\sc Multiplicity distribution}
In a generic annihilation case, the multiplicity distribution of electrons and positron is:
\begin{eq}
\left(\frac{dn_e}{d\ener{}}\right)_{\chi \bar{\chi} \rightarrow e X} = \sum_{i} \tn{BR}\big(\chi \bar{\chi} \rightarrow i\big) \ \left(\frac{dn_e}{d\ener{}}\right)_{i \rightarrow e X} ,
\end{eq}
where we decompose the annihilation in intermediate states $i$, related directly to the annihilation mechanism via branching ratios, for instance, the dark matter annihilation case:
\begin{eq}
\tn{BR}\big(\chi \bar{\chi} \rightarrow i\big) = \frac{\sigma\big(\chi \bar{\chi} \rightarrow i\big)}{\sigma_{\tn{total}}}.
\end{eq}
This presents a general decomposition based on bricks which are the multiplicity distribution for many states $i$.\\
\subsubsection{\sc Calculation of Multiplicity distributions}
\begin{tab}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Intermediate state} \\
\hline \hline
Charge & Leptons & Quarks & Gauge Bosons \\
\hline
+1 & $(\nu_{e} e^{+}) \ (\nu_{\mu} \mu^{+}) \ (\nu_{\tau} \tau^{+})$ & $(u\bar{d})\ (c\bar{s})\ (t\bar{b})$ & $(\gamma W^{+})\ (Z W^{+})$ \\
0 & $(e^{-} e^{+})\ (\mu^{-} \mu^{+})\ (\tau^{-} \tau^{+})$ & $(u\bar{u}) \ (d\bar{d}) \ (c\bar{c}) \ (s\bar{s}) \ (b\bar{b})\ (t\bar{t}) $ & $(gg) \ (ZZ) \ (W^{-} W^{+}) $\\
-1 & $(e^{-} \bar{\nu}_{e}) \ (\mu^{-} \bar{\nu}_{\mu}) \ (\tau^{-} \bar{\nu}_{\tau} )$ & $(d\bar{u})\ (s\bar{c})\ (b\bar{t})$ & $(W^{-} \gamma)\ (W^{-} Z)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{t:md-pythia} Intermediate states for positron and electron multiplicity distributions.}
\end{tab}
We consider the most general set which is composed by pairs of Standard Model particles.
Each pair preserve quantum numbers of the annihilation, i.e. an electrically neutral and colorless final state.\\
Depending on the case, we calculate analytical distributions for simple cases (electrons, positrons, and muons),
and for complex ones, like the ones which involves hadronization processes, we used a modified version of PYTHIA~\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi} to generate the distribution, which includes the effect of polarization of muons.
The basic set is based on Standard Model particles~\citetab{t:md-pythia}.
Special cases like the Standard Model higgs and models like Two Higgs Doublet Models are easily composed using the basic set (details in~\cite{Lineros:2008hh}).\\
In~\citefig{f:md-pythia}, we present multiplicity distributions for cases inspired by annihilation of dark matter.
We observe that the shape of each distribution depends directly on the intermediate state: states involving quarks produce a softer electron and positron spectra than leptonic cases.
In addition, the effect related to the polarization of muon in meson decays also has an impact, producing more energetic electrons than positrons.\\
\begin{fig}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{dn-ww.ps}\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{dn-bb.ps}}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{dn-tau.ps}\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.5\textwidth]{dn-top.ps}}
\caption{\label{f:md-pythia} Multiplicity distribution for positrons and electrons versus energy.
Each panel shows a different intermediate state -- $W^{+}W^{-}$, $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$, $b\bar{b}$, and $t\bar{t}$ -- with dark matter masses ($m_{\chi}$) of 100 \tu{GeV} (or 200 \tu{GeV}) and 1 \tu{TeV}.
The different shapes on electron and positron distribution come from the effect of production of polarized muon.}
\end{fig}
\section{Propagation of positron and electron cosmic rays}
\label{sec:03}
The cosmic rays' journey from the source until the Earth is a complex problem.
Since cosmic rays start to travel, they are affected by many processes and their intensity depends on the cosmic ray energy scale.
For instance, in the \tu{GeV}--range, their are strongly affected by turbulent magnetic fields that induce spatial diffusion, similar to the behavior of a single molecule in a gas.\\
For the GeV--scale cosmic rays, the Galactic medium has a very important role on the propagation.
Apart from the turbulent magnetic fields, there are also interactions with diffuse radiation fields (UV, IR, CMB).
Their continuous interaction changes the cosmic rays energy, electrons and positrons are more affected than other species.\\
The combined effect of diffusion, energy losses, distance, among others, cause that the observed cosmic rays spectra is rather different from the original one.
\subsection{\sc Two--Zone propagation model}
\begin{fig}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{PZ.ps}
\caption{\label{f:pz-cyl} Propagation Zone geometry for the Milky Way. A cylinder of radius R ($= 20\;\tu{kpc}$) with thickness of $2\;L$ delimits the region where cosmic rays propagate. A small cylinder with same radius but with thickness $2\;h_z$ ($= 200\;\tu{pc}$) models the Galactic plane. The Solar system is placed at the Galactic plane with distance $r_{\astrosun} = 8.5 \; \tu{kpc}$ from the Galactic center.}
\end{fig}
The modelization of cosmic rays propagation is a hard task due to the propagation complexity.
We use a successfully tested model for propagation of cosmic rays~\cite{Ginzburg:1980, Maurin:2001sj} which is tuned properly to explain the current observations on abundances of nuclear cosmic rays.
In general terms, this model is divided in two parts:
\begin{itemize}
\item The propagation zone:
the region related to the extension of turbulent magnetic fields, where cosmic rays propagate in a diffusive regime.
Outside this region, we suppose cosmic rays propagate in straight lines: this induces cosmic rays leaking from the diffusive zone.\\
The propagation zone is composed by two cylinders centered at the Galactic center (\citefig{f:pz-cyl}).
Both cylinders have a common radius equal to the galactic one ($R = 20\;\tu{kpc}$).
The \emph{thick} cylinder has a height of $2L$ and fills the whole propagation zone.
Its height is constrained by measurements of many species of cosmic rays~\cite{Maurin:2001sj}.
The second cylinder is a \emph{thin disk} with height $2 h_z$, where $h_z = 100\;\tu{pc}$.
It also contains the interstellar medium, cosmic rays sources and interactions among them.\\
\item The transport equation:
it corresponds to a continuity equation for the number density of cosmic rays per unit of energy.
It contains all physical processes that are related to cosmic rays physics, like energy losses, diffusion, re-acceleration and cosmic rays sources.\\
\end{itemize}
\subsection{\sc Transport Equation for electrons and positrons}
In this case, the transport equation is slightly different from the one for nuclei cosmic rays because the dominant energy loss process is the interaction with radiation fields (via inverse Compton scattering) which is much efficient in these particles than in nuclei cosmic ray.\\
Then the transport equation for number density of electron and positrons ($\psi$) is:
\begin{eq}
\label{eq:std_te}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} - \nabla \big( D(\ener{}) \nabla \psi \big) - \frac{\partial}{\partial \ener{}} \big(b(\ener{}) \psi \big) = q \, ,
\end{eq}
where $D(\ener{})$ is the diffusion coefficient, $b(\ener{})$ the energy loss term, and $q$ the source term.\\
The diffusion term is considered homogeneous in space with a energy dependence:
\begin{eq}
D(\ener{}) = K_0 \, \left(\frac{\ener{}}{\ener{0}}\right)^{\delta} \, ,
\end{eq}
where $K_0$ and $\delta$ are phenomenological parameters inspired by models of the interstellar medium based on magneto hydrodynamics.
$\ener{0}$ is a normalization energy scale, here fixed at the value of 1~\tu{GeV}.\\
Energy losses are related to interactions of electron and positrons with the interstellar radiation fields, the cosmic microwave background, and the galactic magnetic field.
Commonly, this term is:
\begin{eq}
\label{e:eloss-std}
b(\ener{}) = \frac{\ener{0}}{\tau_E} \, \left(\frac{\ener{}}{\ener{0}}\right)^2 \, ,
\end{eq}
where $\tau_E( = 10^{16} \, \tu{s})$ corresponds to an effective energy loss time calculated via the inverse Compton scattering with the radiation fields in the Thomson regime.
However, this term is no longer valid for energies larger than $\mass{e}^2/\langle\ener{\gamma}\rangle$, where $\langle\ener{\gamma}\rangle$ is the radiation field energy, and it has to be corrected considering the Klein-Nishina cross section~\cite{klein:1929,1970RvMP...42..237B,1971PhRvD...3.2308B}.\\
\begin{fig}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{plot_eloss_models.ps}
\caption{\label{f:eloss-mol} Energy loss term $10^{16} \ener{}^{-2} b(\ener{})$ versus electron (positron) energy. The energy loss for different radiation fields models and the standard assumption are shown}
\end{fig}
In~\citefig{f:eloss-mol}, we present the energy loss term for the different components of the radiation field and those are compared to the standard assumption of the Thomson regime~(\citeeq{e:eloss-std}). The figure is from our recent work~\cite{Delahaye:2010ji} that follows the line of the Author's thesis.\\
\subsection{\sc Transport equation solution}
We solve the differential eaution by means of Green functions which correspond to the solution for a point--like source:
\begin{eq}
q(t,\vec{x},\ener{}) = \delta(t-t_s) \delta(\ener{} - \ener{s}) \delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec{x}_s) \, ,
\end{eq}
where $t_s$, $\ener{s}$, and $\vec{x}_s$ correspond to the injection time, energy, and position.\\
The green function is easily obtained through the Fourier transformation method~\cite{Baltz:1998xv,Lineros:2008hh} and it has an analytical form~\cite{Delahaye:2010ji}:
\begin{eq}
G(t,t_0,\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\ener{}, \ener{s}) &=& \delta(t-t_s-\tau_c) \, \frac{\widetilde{G}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\lambda_d)}{b(\ener{})} \\ &=& \delta(t-t_s-\tau_c) \, G_{\tn{ss}}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\ener{}, \ener{s})\, , \nonumber
\end{eq}
where $\widetilde{G}$ is the \emph{tilded green function}:
\begin{eq}
\label{eq:free-space-g}
\widetilde{G}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_0,\lambda_d) = \frac{1}{\pi^{3/2} \lambda_d^3} \exp\left(-\frac{(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)^2}{\lambda_d^2}\right) \, ,
\end{eq}
and it is proportional to the Green function $(G_{\tn{ss}})$ in the time independent case (steady-state regime).\\
The terms $\tau_c$ and $\lambda_d$ are rich in physical meaning and come naturally from the solution.
$\tau_c$ is the \emph{cooling time} which corresponds to the time lapses for an electron or positron to reduce its energy from $\ener{s}$ to $\ener{}$:
\begin{eq}
\tau_c(\ener{},\ener{s}) = \int_{\ener{}}^{\ener{s}} d\epsilon \; 1/b(\epsilon) \, .
\end{eq}
In the same way, $\lambda_d$ is the \emph{diffusion length} which gives a scale for the propagation and is defined by:
\begin{eq}
\lambda^2_d(\ener{},\ener{s}) = 4 \int_{\ener{}}^{\ener{s}} d\epsilon \; D(\epsilon)/b(\epsilon) \, .
\end{eq}
The former two quantities become fundamental to describe the propagation. Also those can be calculated for any type of diffusion coefficient and energy loss term allowing us to explore new forms, like: deviations from the standard diffusion coefficient and extra energy loss processes.\\
With the Green function, we are able to find the solution for the transport equation for any generic source $Q$.
The solution is found by convoluting the source with the green function in the following way:
\begin{eq}
\psi(t,\vec{x},\ener{}) = \int_{-\infty}^{t} dt_s \int_{\ener{}}^{\infty} d\ener{s} \int d^3 x_s \; G(t,t_s,\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\ener{}, \ener{s}) \times Q(t_s, \vec{x}_s, \ener{s}) \, ,
\end{eq}
where the integration limits are set to consider only the physical contribution from the source $Q$.\\
As we previously said, the model considers that cosmic rays may escape from the propagation zone when they reach its boundaries.
This means:
\begin{eq}
z=\pm L \vee \mathpalette\DHLhksqrt{x^2 + y^2} = R \ \Longrightarrow \ \psi(t,\vec{x},\ener{}) = 0 \, ,
\end{eq}
these conditions just affect the tilded Green function (\citeeq{eq:free-space-g}).\\
There are two standard approaches to impose the boundary conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Eigenfunction expansion:
The transport equation is solved using a complete set of Helmholtz equation eigenfunctions~($\chi_g$) that naturally respect the boundary conditions.
The green function is analytical in some cases and correspond to the sum on eigenvalues~($g$):
\begin{eq}
\widetilde{G}_{\tn{bc}}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\lambda_d) = \sum_g \chi_g^{\dagger}(\vec{x}_s) \chi_g(\vec{x}) \exp\left( - \frac{1}{4} g^2 \lambda_d^2\right) \, .
\end{eq}
We use the Fourier--Bessel expansion, where harmonics functions are used for vertical coordinate and first kind Bessel functions for the radial one.
The method is very well behaved and fast to calculate when $\lambda_d$ is rather big~\cite{Delahaye:2007fr, Delahaye:2008, Lineros:2008hh}.\\
\item Method of Images:
Also known as Method of Inversion, it consists on adding counter terms or mirror sources that compensate the effect of the original source, preserving the boundary condition.\\
For the vertical coordinate, we include an infinite number of mirror sources transforming the green function into a sum:
\begin{eq}
\widetilde{G}_{\tn{vertical bc}}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\lambda_d) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} (-1)^n \; \widetilde{G}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_{s,n},\lambda_d) \,,
\end{eq}
where $\vec{x}_{s,n} = (x_s\; , y_s\; , 2Ln + (-1)^n z_s)$ and $\widetilde{G}$ is the free space tilded green function~(\citeeq{eq:free-space-g}).
This form is very efficient for small values of $\lambda_d$ and complements the expansion in harmonic functions.\\
The Green function that respects radial boundary conditions is obtained by add just one extra counter term:
\begin{eq}
\widetilde{G}_{\tn{radial bc}}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_s,\lambda_d) = \widetilde{G}(\vec{x},\vec{x}_{s},\lambda_d) - \widetilde{G}(\vec{\sigma},\vec{\sigma}_{s},\lambda_d) \,
\end{eq}
where $\vec{\sigma} = (\beta x, \beta y, z)$, $\displaystyle \vec{\sigma}_s = (\frac{x_s}{\beta}, \frac{y_s}{\beta}, z_s)$ and $\displaystyle \beta^2 = \frac{x_s^2 + y_s^2}{R}$.\\
We remark that this Green function works for all values of $\lambda_d$ and does not need any kind of special symmetry like the Bessel expansion.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{\sc Space of Parameters of the model}
The two--zone propagation model is also used for studying nuclei cosmic rays.
Previous studies on the ratio Boron and Carbon (B/C) constraint the space of parameters to a volume which is fully compatible with current observations in many other species.
We use the allowed space of parameters to study positron and electron cosmic rays consistently and systematically with respect to cosmic rays propagation (details in \cite{Maurin:2001sj,Maurin:2002uc}).\\
\section{Positron cosmic rays from dark matter annihilation}
\label{sec:04}
Secondary positrons and electrons are produced in the Milky Way from the interaction of nuclei cosmic rays on the interstellar gas~\cite{Moskalenko:1997gh} and are an important tool for the comprehension of cosmic-ray propagation~\cite{Maurin:2001sj}.
Data on the cosmic positron flux (often reported in terms of the positron fraction) have been collected by several experiments \cite{Barwick:1997ig,Ahlen:1994ct,Alcaraz:2000PhLB,Aguilar:2007,Boezio:2000,Grimani:2002yz}. \\
We point out the HEAT balloon experiment~\cite{Barwick:1997ig} that has mildly indicated a possible positron excess at energies larger than 10~\tu{GeV} with respect to the current -- at that moment -- calculations for the secondary component~\cite{Moskalenko:1997gh}.
In October 2008, the latest results of PAMELA experiment~\cite{Boezio:2004jx} have confirmed and extended this feature~\cite{Adriani:2008zr}. \\
Different astrophysical contributions to the positron fraction in the 10~\tu{GeV} region have been explored \cite{Barwick:1997ig}, but only accurate and energy extended data could confirm the presence of a bump in the positron fraction and its physical interpretation.
Alternatively, it has been conjectured that the possible excess of positrons found in the HEAT data could be due to annihilation of dark matter in the galactic halo~\cite{Baltz:1998xv,Hooper:2004bq}.
Although, this interpretation is limited by uncertainties in the halo structure and in the cosmic rays propagation modeling.\\
This section is based on our work~\cite{Delahaye:2007fr}.
We study the propagation of the positrons related to dark matter annihilations in connection with the study of the uncertainties due to propagation models compatible with B/C measurements~\cite{Maurin:2001sj}.\\
\subsection{\sc dark matter annihilation like source of positrons}
\begin{tab}
\begin{tabular}{|l|cccc|}
\hline
Halo model & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $r_s$ [\tu{kpc}] \\
\hline
Cored isothermal~\cite{Bahcall:1980fb}
& 2 & 2 & 0 & 5 \\
Navarro, Frenk \& White~\cite{Navarro:1996gj}
& 1 & 3 & 1 & 20 \\
Moore~\cite{Diemand:2004wh}
& 1.5 & 3 & 1.3 & 30 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:indices}Dark matter distribution profiles in the Milky Way.}
\end{tab}
According to the various supersymmetric theories, the annihilation of a dark matter particles points to the direct production of an electron-positron pair or to the production of many species subsequently decaying into photons, neutrinos, hadrons and positrons. \\
In our study, we consider four possible annihilation channels which would appear in any model of dark matter.
The first corresponds to direct production of a $e^+ e^-$ pair and it is better motivated in theories with universal extra-dimension~\cite{Cheng:2002iz,Servant:2002aq,Appelquist:2000nn}.
We alternatively consider annihilations into $W^{+} W^{-}$, $\tau^+ \tau^-$ and $b\bar{b}$ pairs.\\
For any annihilation channel, the source term is written as:
\begin{eq}\label{source}
q_{\tn{dm}}\left(\vec{x},\ener{e}\right) = \eta \; \langle\sigma v\rangle \; \left( {\displaystyle \frac{\rho(\vec{x})}{\mass{\chi}}} \right)^{2} \; \dnde{e} \; ,
\end{eq}
where the $\eta$ is a quantum coefficient which depends on whether the particle is or not its own antiparticle.
$\langle\sigma v\rangle$ corresponds to the thermally averaged annihilation cross section, its value depends on the specific supersymmetric model and it is also constrained by cosmology~\cite{Arina:2007tm,Arina:2007}.
We have actually taken here a benchmark value of $2.1 \times 10^{-26}$~\tu{cm}$^{3}$~\tu{sec}$^{-1}$ which leads to a relic abundance of $\Omega_{\chi} h^{2} \sim 0.14$ (in agreement with the WMAP observations~\cite{Spergel:2006hy,Hinshaw:2008kr}).
The dark matter mass value ($m_{\chi}$) is still unknown but for the case of neutralinos, theoretical arguments as well as the LEP and WMAP results constrain its mass to range from a few \tu{GeV}~\cite{Bottino:2002ry,Bottino:2003iu,Belanger:2002nr,Hooper:2002nq} up to a few \tu{TeV}.
Keeping in mind the positron excess, we explore the cases with a dark matter mass of 100~\tu{GeV} and 500~\tu{GeV}.\\
$dn/d\ener{e}$ represents the multiplicity distribution of electrons (positrons) per single annihilation (details in~\cite{Lineros:2008hh}).
The astronomical ingredient on the source term~(\citeeq{source}) is the dark matter distribution $\rho(\mb{x})$ inside the Milky Way halo.
We have considered the generic profile:
\begin{eq}
\label{eq:profile}
\rho(r) = \rho_{\astrosun} \; \left( {\displaystyle \frac{r_{\astrosun}}{r}} \right)^{\gamma} \; \left( {\displaystyle \frac{1 \, + \, (r_{\astrosun}/r_{s})^{\alpha}} {1 \, + \, (r/r_{s})^{\alpha}}} \right)^{(\beta - \gamma) / \alpha} \;\; ,
\end{eq}
where $r_{\astrosun} = 8.5$~\tu{kpc} is the galactocentric distance of the Solar System.
Note that $r$ denotes the radius in spherical coordinates.
The local dark matter density has been set equal to $\rho_{\astrosun} = 0.3$~\tu{GeV}~\tu{cm}$^{-3}$~\cite{Berezinsky:1992}.
We discussed three profiles: an isothermal cored distribution~\cite{Bahcall:1980fb} for which $r_{s}$ is the radius of the central core, the Navarro, Frenk and White profile~\cite{Navarro:1996gj} (hereafter NFW) and Moore's model~\cite{Diemand:2004wh}.
However, some studies point out to that the central cusp may be less favorable in spiral galaxies and proposed a universal dark matter distribution~\cite{Gentile:2004tb, Salucci:2007tm}.
The NFW and Moore profiles have been numerically established thanks to N-body simulations.
In the case of the Moore profile, the index
$\gamma$ lies between 1 and 1.5 and we have chosen a value of 1.3~(\citetab{tab:indices}) which is more representative.\\
The possible presence of dark matter substructures inside these smooth distributions enhances the annihilation signal by the so--called boost factor, although the boost factor value is still open to debate~\cite{Baltz:2001ir,Kane:2001fz,Jeannerot:1999yn}.
It has recently been shown that the boost factor due to substructures in the dark matter halo depends on the positron energy and on the statistical properties of the dark matter distribution~\cite{Lavalle:2006vb}.
In addition, it has been pointed out that its numerical values is quite modest~\cite{Lavalle:1900wn}, being of the order of 10--30.\\
\subsection{\sc the positron flux and fraction}
\begin{fig}
\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.8\textwidth]{sec4-fig1-100gev.ps}
\caption{ \label{fig:f1-100gev} Positron flux $E^2 \Phi_{e^+}$ versus the positron energy $\ener{}$, for a dark matter particle with a mass of 100~\tu{GeV} and for a NFW profile~(\citetab{tab:indices}).
The four panels refer to different annihilation final states: direct $e^+ e^-$ production (top left), $b\bar{b}$ (top right), $W^+ W^-$ (bottom left) and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ (bottom right).
In each panel, the thick solid [red] curve refers to the best--fit choice (MED) of the astrophysical parameters. The upper [blue] and lower [green] thin solid lines correspond respectively to the astrophysical configurations which provide here the maximal (M1) and minimal (M2) flux. The numerical values of these configuration are defined in~\cite{Delahaye:2007fr}.
The colored [yellow] area features the total uncertainty band arising from positron propagation.}
\end{fig}
Using the source term~(\citeeq{source}), we calculate the propagated positrons flux for many cases (\citefig{fig:f1-100gev}):
\begin{itemize}
\item Annihilation channels: The nature of dark matter fixes somehow the annihilation channel.
We observe how channels -- like the direct production one -- produce harder spectra than channels involving quarks because positron are produced with energy equal to dark matter particle mass.
This is directly related to the multiplicity distributions.
Positrons in quark--antiquark channels come from hadronization processes and produce softer spectra with behavior similar to a power law: $\ener{e}^{-3 \pm 0.8}$.
On the other hand, channels involving muons or gauge boson $W^{\pm}$ produce harder spectra since positrons are produced at earlier stages, in decay chains of the original particles, taking a big fraction of the available energy.\\
\item Propagation uncertainties:
Different propagation scenarios have different impact on positron generated by dark matter annihilation.
In \citefig{fig:f1-100gev}, we present the uncertainty band associated to the B/C analysis.
We notice that the size of the band depends on the annihilation channel.
The direct production case presents the largest uncertainty band at low energies because the low energy flux is the result of far-away propagated positrons and not from the very local ones.
This also explains why at energies closer to 100~\tu{GeV}, the uncertainty band is smaller converges to an unique curve.
Other channels are less affected because very local produced positrons are not affected by the propagation parameters.
\end{itemize}
Let us stress that the positron flux obtained from annihilation of dark matter is not the only one.
We need to consider other astrophysical components.
Due to the nature of astrophysical processes, positrons are dominated by a secondary component, i.e. those are created from the interaction of nuclei cosmic rays with the interstellar gas.\\
To study the behavior of the positron signal, we include the secondary positron component and the electron flux from parametrized fluxes~\cite{Baltz:1998xv}.\\
In \citefig{fig:f3-heat-pf-100gev} we present the effect of the annihilation channel and propagation uncertainties on the positron fraction.
We observe how channels with harder spectra are more suitable to explain the positron excess.
The $b\bar{b}$ case is less favorable because most of the positrons are at low energy, making impossible to reproduce the observations.\\
The uncertainties of propagation are sizable with respect to the signal from dark matter, however the impact is not enough to destroy some features arising from the annihilation channels.\\
\begin{fig}
\includegraphics[angle=270, width=0.8\textwidth]{sec4-fig3-heat-pf-100gev.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:f3-heat-pf-100gev} Positron fraction $e^+/(e^- + e^+)$ versus the positron detection energy $\ener{}$. Notations are as in \citefig{fig:f1-100gev}. In each panel, the thin [brown] solid line stands for the background \cite{Baltz:1998xv, Moskalenko:1997gh} whereas the thick solid [red] curve refers to the total positron flux where the signal is calculated with the best--fit choice (MED) of the astrophysical parameters.
Experimental data from HEAT~\cite{Barwick:1997ig}, AMS~\cite{Alcaraz:2000PhLB,Aguilar:2007}, CAPRICE~\cite{Boezio:2000} and MASS~\cite{Grimani:2002yz} are also plotted.}
\end{fig}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:01}
During the last decades, the astrophysical and cosmological evidences of dark matter and dark energy have created a revolution in the field of fundamental physics.
Some models of new physics, which aim to extend the Standard Model of particles, predict particles with the right properties to act as dark matter candidates.
In a similar way, cosmic ray physics is continuously stimulated with new observations showing an environment much more active than it was expected.
Furthermore, cosmic rays correspond to genuine samples of the matter composition of the Milky Way and give essential information about the Interstellar medium and the Solar System environment.
A fraction of comic rays is composed by antimatter.
This component may provide crucial clues on the non--standard sources of cosmic rays because it is less abundant than the matter cosmic--rays component.
This analysis may open a window for dark matter searches.\\
This paper is based on results of the author's Ph.D. Thesis \cite{Lineros:2008hh} and some other projects derived from it.
In \citesec{sec:02}, we study the standard mechanisms of production of electrons and positrons.
In the same spirit, in \citesec{sec:03}, the propagation of cosmic rays is reviewed and discussed.
Then, we study the production of positrons in scenarios of dark matter annihilation (Section \ref{sec:04}) and secondary production (Section \ref{sec:05}).\\
\section{Secondary positron flux at Earth}
\label{sec:05}
\begin{fig}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{flux-disk-med.ps}
\caption{\label{f:ele-pos-flux} Interstellar electron and positron fluxes $\ener{}^{3}\Phi_e$ for the MED set versus energy. The curves correspond to fluxes calculated from Nuclei CR interactions with the ISM. Each curve represents a different nuclear cross section and Nuclei CR flux parameterization. Also the Strong et al.~\cite{Baltz:1998xv} flux parameterizations are shown. The uncertainty band related to those parameterization is plotted (yellow band) as well.}
\end{fig}
The secondary component is the result of the interaction of cosmic rays nuclei with the interstellar gas composed mainly by hydrogen and helium.
We model the interstellar gas assuming a homogeneous disk with radius equal to the galactic one and thickness of 200~\tu{pc} (details in \cite{Lineros:2008hh}).
The source term of secondary electrons and positrons coming from interaction of proton cosmic rays with hydrogen is:
\begin{eq}
q_{p\tn{H}}(\mb{x},\ener{e}) = 4\pi \; n_{\tn{H}}(\mb{x}) \int d\ener{p}\; \Phi_{p}(\mb{x},\ener{p}) \; \frac{d\ics_{p\tn{H}}}{d\ener{e}} (\ener{p},\ener{e})\;,
\end{eq}
where $n_H$ is the hydrogen number density, $\Phi_{p}$ is the proton flux (details in \cite{Lineros:2008hh}), and $\ics$ represents the inclusive cross section of the process $p + p \rightarrow e^{+}(e^{-}) + X$ discussed and calculated in \citesec{sec:02}.
Let us remained that the inclusive cross section, in our case, comes from the invariant cross section parameterizations of Badhwar et al.~\cite{Badhwar:1977zf}, Tan and Ng~\cite{Tan:1984ha}, and Kamae et al.~\cite{Kamae:2004xx}.\\
Let us stress that the complete positron and electron source term is the sum of all contributions from proton, alpha particles, hydrogen and helium:
\begin{eq}\label{e:sec-srcterm}
q_{\tn{full}}(\mb{x},\ener{e}) = 4\pi \sum_{i=\tn{H},\tn{He}} \sum_{j=p,\alpha} \; n_{i}(\mb{x}) \int d\ener{j}\; \Phi_{j}(\ener{j}) \; \frac{d\ics_{ji}}{d\ener{e}} (\ener{j},\ener{e})\;,
\end{eq}
where the inclusive cross sections for processes $p$+He, $\alpha$+H and $\alpha$+He are estimated by scaling proton--hydrogen cross section:
\begin{eq}
\frac{d\ics_{ij}}{d\ener{e}} (\ener{j},\ener{e}) = s_f \; \frac{d\ics_{p\tn{H}}}{d\ener{e}} (\frac{\ener{j}}{A_j},\ener{e}) \; ,
\end{eq}
where $A_j$ is the mass number of the incident particle and $s_f$ are scaling factors~\cite{Orth:1976,Norbury:2006hp}.\\
\subsection{\sc secondary positron and positron fraction}
The propagation of secondary positrons is realized according to the two-zone propagation model (section $\citesec{sec:03}$).
Similar to the case of annihilation of dark matter, we study the effects of uncertainties related to nuclear physics and propagation.
In \citefig{f:ele-pos-flux}, we present secondary electrons and positrons obtained from the three nuclear parameterization: Badhwar et al.~\cite{Badhwar:1977zf}, Tan and Ng~\cite{Tan:1984ha} and Kamae et al.~\cite{Kamae:2004xx}.
We observe that at high energy $(> 10 \tu{GeV})$ all cases converge because at that energies all three parameterizations converge due to most of experimental data is in this range.
At low energy, we observe how differences on the nuclear parameterization affect the propagated positrons and electrons.
Nevertheless, this effect is not so important because it occurs in the energy range where solar modulation dominates.\\
\begin{fig}
\resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{flux-disk-donato-tanng-experiments.ps}\includegraphics[angle=270]{flux-disk-shikaze-tanng-experiments.ps}}
\caption{\label{f:sec-flux-tanng} Secondary positron flux $\ener{}^{3.5} \Phi_{e^+}$ versus positron energy. Positron fluxes were calculated using proton and alpha CR fluxes from Donato et al.~\cite{Donato:2001ms} and Shikaze et al.~\cite{Shikaze:2006je} with the Tan et al. cross section parameterization~\cite{Tan:1984ha}.}
\end{fig}
\begin{fig}
\resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{PF_Kamae_BESS_DR_no_high_e_index.ps}\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{PF_Kamae_BESS_DR_no_low_e_index.ps}}
\caption{\label{f:fit-exp-heat} Positron fraction as a function of the positron energy, for a soft and hard electron spectrum. Data are taken from CAPRICE~\cite{Boezio:2000}, HEAT~\cite{Barwick:1997ig}, AMS~\cite{Aguilar:2007}, MASS~\cite{Grimani:2002yz} and PAMELA~\cite{Adriani:2008zr}.}
\end{fig}
Moreover, we can not forget the presence of the uncertainties related to propagation.
\citefig{f:sec-flux-tanng} shows the secondary positron flux versus positron energy.
We consider the whole space of parameter compatible with the B/C analysis~\cite{Maurin:2001sj},
obtaining that the estimated flux encompasses the data. This confirms the compatibility among electron--positron cosmic ray propagation with nuclei cosmic rays case from the propagation point of view.\\
The natural extension of the analysis is to calculate the positron fraction.
Using the calculated secondary flux and the total electron flux estimated from observation like AMS, we observe how the positron fraction is highly sensitive to small variation in the electron flux (\citefig{f:fit-exp-heat}).
We find that harder spectra makes stronger the evidence of positron excess, however a softer electron spectra makes possible to explain the raise in the faction using mainly secondary positrons.\\
This study points towards a more detailed study on the electron flux which has been recently addressed in Ref.~\cite{Delahaye:2010ji}.\\
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:06}
During the last years, many of the latest cosmic rays experiments have shown very interesting results that are pushing to new frontiers the knowledge about the galactic environment and the origin of the GeV--TeV cosmic rays.
And of course, the case of electron and positron cosmic rays is not an exception.\\
Dark matter annihilation is a very exciting possibility to explain the positron excess, which is not sufficiently explained by contributions from secondary positrons.
In our works, we studied propagation uncertainties associated to the analysis made on cosmic rays nuclei (B/C).
These uncertainties affect considerably the signal coming from annihilation of dark matter, however, most of the characteristics related to the annihilation were not significantly modified.
This fact is promising for further analysis on the signal.\\
To go deeper in the analysis, we studied the secondary production of positrons.
We considered uncertainties related to nuclear physics in addition to the ones related to propagation.
One of the first results was that secondary positron production is compatible with current measurements and with the B/C analysis, which is remarkable considering that we proposed that cosmic ray propagation is common for all the species.\\
In both studies, the positron fraction was analyzed.
Dark matter annihilation scenario is able to explain it, although, the lack of precision from the theoretical point of view makes hard to identify an exotic component present in it.
Moreover, the positron fraction is very sensitive to variations in the electron flux.\\
We stress the necessity to re-estimate secondary and primary electron component, and to consider already known sources, especially pulsars, in order to discard/confirm possible presence of an undiscovered component, like the case of dark matter annihilations.\\
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The study of the effects of disorder in magnetic systems has been
an object of intense investigations during the last five decades.
The Monte Carlo technique is an useful tool which in many cases,
gives better results regarding other methods from analytical approximations.
The influence of quenched, random disorder on phase transitions is of great
importance in a large variety of fields \cite{Folk}. For pure
systems exhibiting a continuous phase transition, Harris
\cite{Harris} derived the criterion that random disorder is a
relevant perturbation when the exponent of the specific heat of
the pure system is positive, $\alpha > 0$. In this case one
expects that the system falls into a new universality class
with critical exponents governed by a disordered fixed point.
For $\alpha < 0$ disorder is irrelevant, and in the marginal
case $\alpha = 0$ no prediction can be made.
Since for the three-dimensional (3D) Ising model it is
well known that $\alpha > 0$, quenched, random disorder should be
relevant for this model. In three dimensions (3D) most of the computer
simulation studies have concentrated mainly on the site-diluted Ising
model \cite{Wiseman,Ballesteros}.
In this work, we study the Ising model with mixed-bond by using
of Monte Carlo simulation, applying the algorithm cluster of
Wolff \cite{Wolff}.
\section{Model and Simulation Setup}
We study the spin 1/2 ferromagnetic Ising mixed-bond model defined by
the following Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\beta \mathcal{H} = \sum_{\langle {ij} \rangle}K_{ij} \sigma _i
\sigma _j \ \ \ \ \ \ (\sigma _i= \pm 1),
\end{equation}
\noindent where the sum extends over all pairs of neighboring
sites on a cubic lattice of linear size L with periodic boundary
conditions, $\beta=1/k_B T$ and the exchange couplings $K_{ij}$ are allowed to take two
different values $K_{ij} = K \equiv J/k_{B}T$ and 0. The interactions are assumed
to be independent random variables with distribution
\begin{equation}
P({K_{ij}) = p\delta ({K_{ij} - K})+({1 - p})\delta ( {K_{ij} - \lambda
K}),}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $p$ is the concentration of magnetic bonds
in the system bonds such that $p = 1$ corresponds to the pure case
and $\lambda $ is the competition parameter with $ \left| \lambda \right| \le 1$.
The simulations were performed on a set of following lattice sizes
L = 10, 16, 20, 26, 30, 36, 40 with periodic boundary conditions. The aim of
the first set of simulations is to estimate the critical temperature of
the model at different L. Due to the finite-size scaling theory \cite{Barber},
the finite system of linear size $L$ will demonstrate an evidence of a critical behavior
at a certain temperature $T_{C}(L)$ which differs from the critical temperature
of the infinite system $T_{C}(\infty)$ \cite{Ferrenberg}.
\begin{equation}
T_C (L) = T_C (\infty ) + \alpha L^{ - 1/v} + ...,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the correction-to-scaling terms have been omitted.
The static thermodynamic quantities of interest include the
average magnetization $M$ and the magnetic susceptibility $\chi $
\begin{equation}
M = \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {\sigma _i},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\chi = \frac{1}{{k_ {B} T}}[{\langle {M ^2} \rangle - \langle M
\rangle ^2 }].
\end{equation}
The phase diagram is obtained numerically from the maxima of a
diverging quantity. Here we choose the magnetic susceptibility,
since the stability of the disordered fixed point implies that the
specific heat exponent is negative in the random
system \cite{Chayes,Zamora}. Thus, the error in this quantity is
larger than for the susceptibility. To get an accurate
determination of the maxima of the susceptibility, we used the
histogram reweighting technique with 2500 Monte Carlo sweeps (MCS)
and between 2500 and 5000 samples of disorder. The number of Monte
Carlo sweeps is justified by the increasing behavior of the energy
autocorrelation time, $\tau _{E}$, and we chose for each size at
least 250 independent measurements of the physical quantities
(N$_{MCS} > 250$ $\tau _{E}$). The choice of N$_{MCS}$ is
justified by the increasing behavior of the energy autocorrelation
time $\tau _{E}$ as a function of $p$ and L. At the critical point
of a second-order phase transition one expects a finite-size
scaling (FSS) behavior $\tau _{E}$ $\propto $ L$^{z}$, where z is
the dynamical critical exponent
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{SantosFig1.eps}
\caption{\label{magn}Magnetization vs. $k_{B}T/J$ $p=1$ for the
Ising model with L = 15, 20 and 30 in a cubic lattice.}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
The figure~\ref{magn} display curves of magnetization versus temperature
through computational simulation (Wolff) for $p=1$ and $L$ = 15, 20 and 30.
The critical temperature obtained when $p = 1$ was $T_{C}=4.510$ it
is close of the expected value $T_{C}=4.51$.\cite{Domb} We observe that the curves
keep the same behavior, in spite of in the proximities of the
critical point they move away each other. The critical point was estimated
of the inflection of the curve. It can be notice that
increasing the lattice size, i.e. the value of L, we get
more precision to estimate the critical temperature.
The magnetic susceptibility as a function of temperature for different $p$ values
and for $\lambda =-0.4$ and L = 40 is shown in Fig.~\ref{susc}.
The peaks are sharper for values lower of p. To $p<0.65$ and $\lambda =-0.4$ the susceptibility not displays the
peak associate with the magnetic transition due to competitions of the exchange interactions.
When $\lambda \geq 0$ the system presents always long range order.
We used the histogram reweighting technique with 2500 Monte Carlo
sweeps (MCS) and between 2500 and 5000 samples of disorder to
get an accurate determination of the maxima of the susceptibility.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{SantosFig2.eps}
\caption{\label{susc}$\chi$ vs. $k_{B}T/J$ for the Ising model with
$\lambda = -0.4$ and L = 40 for several concentrations $p$.}
\end{figure}
The phase diagram obtained from the location of the maxima of the
susceptibility for the largest lattice size (L = 40) as a function
of the concentration of magnetic bonds is shown in Fig.~\ref{fase}
for $\lambda $=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, -0.2 and -0.4. Solid lines are the
predictions of the effective field approximation. A very good agreement
with the simulated transition line is obtained.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{SantosFig3.eps}
\caption{\label{fase}Phase diagram of the 3D mixed-bond Ising
model compared with the effective field approximation.}
\end{figure}
The reduced fourth-order Binder cummulants\cite{Binder} supply an alternative method to estimated
critical points that can be determined from the crossing point of the cumulants for different lattice sizes.
It is calculated by
\[
U_L = 1 - \frac{{\left[ {\left\langle {m^4 } \right\rangle } \right]}}{{3\left[ {\left\langle {m^2 } \right\rangle ^2 } \right]}},
\]
\noindent where [...] denotes the average over disorder and $\langle ...\rangle $ refers at the thermal average.
As an example, we show in Fig~\ref{cumulante} the T-dependence of the reduced fourth-order Binder cummulant for $p=1$ and for various lattice sizes. Critical temperature obtained from this figure is in agreement with those obtained of the maxima of the magnetic susceptibility.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{SantosFig4.eps}
\caption{\label{cumulante}Fourth-order Binder cumulant $U_{L}$ vs. $k_{B}T/J$, for
different lattice sizes as indicated in figure.}
\end{figure}
The peak locations of the maxima susceptibility for each $L$ are plotted versus $L^{-1/\nu}$, where the value of $\nu$
is determined of the linear fit of log-log plot $\frac{{\partial U_L }}{{\partial T}}$ vs $L$ (not shown here). The critical temperature can be estimated from an infinite-size extrapolation in according with Eq.(3). We illustrate this procedure in Fig~\ref{tc} for $\lambda=0.5$ and $p=0.4$, the fit yield to $T_{C} = 3.1065(3)$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{SantosFig5.eps}
\caption{\label{tc}Size-dependent critical temperature $T_{C}(L)$vs. $L^{-1/\nu}$, for
$\lambda=0.5$ and $p=0.4$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\label{table1}Critical exponents for three dilutions and $\lambda=0.5$. }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
p & 1 & 0.8 & 0.6 & 0.4 \\ \hline
$1/\nu$ & 1.591(7) & 1.68(7) & 1.63(4) & 1.56(3) \\
$\beta/\nu$ & 0.4920(5) & 0.49(1) & 0.50(13) & 0.496(5) \\
$\gamma/\nu$ & 2.008(6) & 2.06(3) & 1.950(6) & 2.001(6) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
The average magnetization $m$ and the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ scale with the lattice size as:
\begin{equation}
m\sim a_m L^{ - \beta /\nu }, \ \ \chi \sim a_\chi L^{\gamma /\nu ,}
\end{equation}
\noindent here $a_m $ and $a_\chi $ are non-universal amplitudes. From these power-laws we extracted the exponents $\beta$ and $\gamma$ plotting in logarithm scale the lattice size dependence of the susceptibility and average magnetization. The critical exponents obtained to p = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and $\lambda=0.5$ are shown in Table I. The critical exponents oscillate without having an apparent correlation with the dilution. They are pretty close of those for disordered Ising model \cite{Ballesteros}
\section{Conclusion}
We carried out Monte Carlo simulations for study the influence of bond dilution on the critical
properties of the Ising Model applied for cubic lattice. We
obtained thermodynamic parameters for $ \left| \lambda \right| \le 1$.
Satisfactory results are obtained using the algorithm of Wolff and showed that this technique
is appropriated to treat the Mixed-bond problem. The Monte Carlo technique results gives similar results to the obtained ones by the effective field theory.
The critical behavior of the mixed-bond model is governed by the same universality class
as the site-diluted model and pure Ising model.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
N.O. Moreno is partially supported by FAPITEC-SE and CNPq
Brazilian agencies. J. B. Santos Filho acknowledge financial
support by CAPES.
|
\section{Introduction - Motivation}
\label{sec:intro}
The last few years we are witnessing a rapidly growing trend toward the interconnection of the digital and physical domains, as is also evidenced by the outstanding activity in the wireless sensor networking research area and the continuous integration of sensing devices in multiple application domains. Even though we are using sensors in an ever-increasing multitude of ways, we have only scratched the surface regarding the use of sensors in entertainment-related applications. \textit{Gaming} is an important application domain that has not yet received a lot of attention by the wireless sensor networking (WSN) community. Although many different applications have been proposed for WSN, very few are related to mobile, interactive, multi-player games where users carry devices with sensing capabilities in order to interact with their environment and with each other.
Games of course have been a major part of the computer industry for the last decades, and are generally recognized as a means of pushing the technological boundaries, both in hardware and software. Recent advancements in mobile phones technology have introduced new products that integrate various kinds of sensors into the handsets. Given that in 2008 the total number of mobile phone subscribers has well surpassed the number of 3 billion, there exists a massive candidate user base for using such devices to play games with. It is our belief that there is great potential in combining sensors and mobile devices to produce new exciting entertainment applications. Wireless sensor networking is a field well-studied both in its theoretical and more practical aspects, and we feel that such knowledge can be utilized to provide new services and products. The use of sensors such as accelerometers, e.g., in the case of the Nintendo Wii gaming console, has already been proved a major success. There is an additional trend of detaching from traditional gaming environments, evident by the massive success of mobile platforms, like the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS, or even mobile phones like the iPhone, that have also networking capabilities (as opposed to previous mobile gaming platforms).
Lately, \textit{pervasive gaming} appeared as a hot topic, even though it is often used as a buzzword, meaning different things to different people, especially when discussed in the context of research work, and it is not easy to clearly define it as a gaming genre. Some examples of games that are usually placed in the pervasive gaming genre are alternative reality games, geotagging games, ubiquitous games, mixed reality games, urban games, etc. In this work we are interested in identifying the main issues that arise when combining pervasive gaming and WSN and to provide solutions and some preliminary results for some of them. Such games are largely based on three features, \textit{movement}, \textit{presence},\textit{ and other sensing inputs}, all provided by the use of sensor networking techniques. In this work, we focus on the use of only the first two features to demonstrate our point.
We believe that the knowledge stemming from the recent WSN-related research can be applied in the gaming domain so as to produce efficient systems. To make our point clear, we have implemented a game that falls into the category which we are discussing here, the ``Hot Potato'' game. We discuss the implementation approach we followed and highlight some key design issues. We utilize Sun SPOT \cite{SUNSPOT} nodes as our prototype implementation hardware platform, which provide the basic functionalities of wireless sensor network nodes. A number of services are currently implemented, allowing location awareness of wireless devices in indoor environments, performing sensing tasks while on the move, coordinating basic distributed operations (e.g., mutual agreement). The main contribution regarding the implemented game, is the provision of a series of experimental results, that were conducted with groups of human players, in order to validate the appeal of the game to the players and the overall suitability of the implementation. Our results indicate a very positive response from the people that participated and that the selected implementation platform is adequate in most of the aspects considered.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:related-work} we report on previous work and in the subsequent section we identify fundamental issues related to the application domain discussed in this work. In Section \ref{sec:game-description} we describe the ``Hot Potato'' game and some of its implementation aspects. A set of experimental results are presented and discussed in Section \ref{sec:evaluation}, and we conclude our work in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figs/screen-1-blurred}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth]{figs/screen-2-blurred}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{figs/hand}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:hot-potato-gameplay}
\caption{Actual gameplay instances of the ``Hot Potato'' game using Sun SPOT enabled devices}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
There is a large body of work regarding the pervasive games genre. The aim of the \textsf{IPerG} EU-funded project~\cite{IPERG} was the investigation of the pervasive gaming experience and the implementation of a series of ``showcase'' pervasive games. Several other works present implementations of pervasive games, see e.g., \cite{PIRATES, NETATTACK}. Some examples of well-known pervasive games are \textit{CatchBob!}, \textit{Uncle Roy All Around You}, \textit{SupaFly}~\cite{SUPAFLY}, \textit{Human Pacman}~\cite{human-pacman}. In \cite{atomic-actions} several interesting issues are raised, regarding the theory around pervasive games. In \cite{SUPAFLY} the authors evaluated how people perceive and play a pervasive game in normal, everyday settings. In general, most works focus on the design issues raised by specific games; some of these works additionally try to generalize such issues regarding the design of pervasive games overall, \cite{BENFORD05} and \cite{mythical} or provide surveys of existing approaches. In \cite{TRINTA08} the authors present scenarios that show the intended characteristics of pervasive multiplayer games and propose services for the development and deployment of crossmedia games, i.e., games that are played on multiple platforms with varying features.
The last couple of years we have witnessed the use of devices that utilize physical body movement input on a commercial scale, such as the Nintendo Wii. The big commercial success of this product has also led other major companies, such as Microsoft and Sony, to introduce their own versions of physical input devices. Such configurations range from using solely accelerometers and gyroscopes (Nintendo) to using a combination of such sensors along with cameras (Sony), and to using only cameras (Microsoft). Although these products allow for the detection of physical movement of the players, they differ somehow from our own platform and target application domain. We are investigating here applications and installations that: i) require input from multiple sources, and not only movement detection, but also (potentially) light, humidity, presence, temperature, etc., ii) are played by multiple players in non-controlled environments, so the use of cameras would potentially be non-applicable since players' views from cameras could be hindered by one another, iii) may require precise synchronization \textit{between} the people participating (in terms of time or movement), which also may be difficult to implement otherwise, iv) overall we aim at a different application domain. Finally, our work is based on open-source platforms and tools, whereas these are closed source commercial products, both hardware and software-wise.
There is also a certain body of work on using pervasive methods and tools for interactive installations with a certain museum/exhibition aspect, e.g., \cite{museum-ace-1, museum-ace-4, museum-ace-5}. Such works differ from our vision by not using multimodal sensor inputs in order to provide additional interaction with the users, they follow a centralized architecture and also do not provide much regarding services of synchronization and situation awareness. A quite thorough discussion on such matters, regarding the integration of sensor networks in entertainment-oriented applications, is included in \cite{MANI-EXPRESSION}.
Although there have been some attempts to develop multi-player games that rely on devices sensing the real world, these works are rather limited in number and scope, and are even less in a pervasive multiplayer context. Examples of WSN-based games are \cite{SENSORIUM,MOTTOLA}. In particular, \cite{MOTTOLA} describes a concept close to our own, implemented using a mobile agents middleware, but with a narrower overall scope and without the innovative user interface used in our work. Also, in \cite{BALLAGAS08} a tourism-oriented locative game is presented, which uses certain simple gestures to recognize user input, quite similar to the ones we are using, with the aid of mobile phone-integrated accelerometers, whereas we are currently using WSN nodes. A platform with different purpose than ours, but in the same spirit regarding the actual hardware platform and the user interface provided is described in \cite{SIFTABLES}.
Regarding the networking technology used in similar games, \cite{KLONOWSKI04} describes the experiences from using Bluetooth to develop a multiplayer game. Our work currently focuses on using IEEE 802.15.4-compatible devices. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first, in this context, that uses these type of devices. There is also a body of work in gesture recognition in resource-constrained devices, like the ones we envision using, such as in \cite{UWAVE}.
All of the works mentioned above differ from our vision, at least in the sense of their goals; we envision games that \textit{involve multiple players, rapid physical activity, gesturing}, whereas in the majority of the existing approaches, intense physical activity is not a prerequisite. Furthermore, we use small-in-size devices that are \textit{easy to carry and use}, whereas in the examples mentioned above PDAs or rather expensive mobile phones are used. This limits the ways devices are used by the players, partly because of their size and the fear of potentially damaging them during gameplay. Also, in such games some portion of storytelling is involved in the process of making and actually playing the game; we currently lean toward \textit{less storytelling-based games}, which makes the development and set up of the games far less tedious. We think that these features will be critical for the wider acceptance of such games in the near future.
\section{Research Challenges}
\label{sec:challenges}
We make an attempt to identify the differentiating factors of our approach from already existing ones, along with some of the respective implementation requirements.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Simultaneous participation of multiple users:} we envisage games where groups of players participate, potentially in large numbers. The players will be in close proximity, in indoor or outdoor environments, and will have to engage in such applications by either interacting between themselves or with an infrastructure provided by the organizing authority. Depending on the nature of the game, players may have to cooperate or compete with each other, e.g., to reach the goals of a team-based game inside a museum, and this may be done in a real-time fashion. Regarding implementation, this assumes that there is a reliable neighborhood discovery mechanism, along with proximity detection, location-aware and context-aware providing mechanisms to the software and the players. These mechanisms are required to scale to a large number of players and to different area sizes.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Multiple types of inputs:} we envisage the utilization of a plethora of inputs, the most general of which are presence, motion and other types of sensors. Such inputs may be provided by the mobile devices carried by the participating players or by the supporting infrastructure. For example, pupils or museum visitors will carry mobile devices that are able to sense their location (absolute or relative to each other and specific landmarks), their movement (both in terms motion detection and gesture recognition) and other physical measures (e.g., the device could sense if the player is in a warm/cold or light/dark place). Therefore an expandable architecture is required to cover all the different sensors that can be used on a single device and be reported to the upper layers of the system, along with mechanisms for reliable motion detection and gesture recognition. In the additional case of using cameras throughout the system, respective mechanisms for the same actions must be used.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Non-conventional interfacing methods and use of actuators/haptics:} the players should be able to decipher both their personal and/or their team's status/score while engaging in the proposed interactive schemes, and also the system interfaces should reflect the location and context awareness inherent in such situations. The use of actuators such as operating lights and doors, haptic interfaces, etc., will enable a more immersive experience.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Distributed network operation:} the use of embedded sensors and ad hoc networking capabilities requires that the software executed on the mobile devices is based on lightweight mechanisms. The complex parts of the system's logic need to be implemented at the fixed infrastructure. Further functionalities may be required that rely on real-time coordination and complete knowledge of the users' whereabouts, or are executed in a disconnected part of the network. The system must be able to detect situations where real-time direct communication is not possible and activate delay-tolerant mechanisms to ensure the correct operation of the system and/or reliable multihop or multicasting mechanisms to cover all possibilities of communication between players and the infrastructure. It is therefore necessary for the architecture to be distributed, to involve a certain level of modularity and heterogeneity and support contingency plans that adapt the system performance to the actual conditions.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Need for synchronization and coordination between players:} in most games players are competing or cooperating in order to reach/fulfill the goals set in a specific application. Players have to directly interact with each other and the overall system in a synchronized way. Such synchronization schemes should cover updates of the state of the players and the system, and also possibly coordinate the ways that the users move and act inside the playing field. Mutual exclusion, agreement and leader election mechanisms may be used to ensure the correct operation of the system.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figs/categories.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:categorization} (a) Spontaneous (hot potato/exploding bananas), (b) Storyline-based (museum excursion), (c) Community-based (augmented hide-and-seek)}
\end{figure*}
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Need for reliability and dependability:} since this type of games are to be played using even low-cost devices and in ``harsh'' settings, i.e., devices could be rebooted by mistake, accident during gameplay, etc., players need to be reassured that such characteristics will not interfere with the smooth operation of the games. The bookkeeping of activity and state during gameplay may be needed in certain games to ensure their correct operation, along with the provision of fault-tolerance mechanisms in order to recover from transient or permanent failures.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{The world-as-a-gameboard:} the games should be implemented in such a manner, so as to provide both the distributed nature and the context-awareness factors to the players. This is of course a central concept and challenge in pervasive gaming overall. How should the game handle the infrastructure islands, the periods when players are not inside them or the handovers from one to another?
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Multiple platforms / Crossmedia applications:} apart from using multiple, different inputs, this kind of applications might else be based on a variety of platforms, depending on the environment they are played at (e.g., play the game in office on weekdays or at home on weekends) or even the logical level involved at separate time instances (e.g., playing the game with a mobile device and then playing other aspects of the game or watching statistics on a desktop computer). The diversity in inputs, user interfaces and capabilities makes it very complex to provide a unified experience.
To further emphasize the diverse possibilities of the projected applications, we categorize them in terms of interaction between users, existence of an infrastructure and time-wise operation:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Spontaneous}: games are setup instantly between players, e.g., when a having a break from work at the office/school. No specific infrastructure is needed, with communication and sensing inputs be provided only by the mobile devices the players are carrying themselves. Game results are uploaded to a central entity after the game is over, in order to gather statistics or gain/gather game score points. No limits are imposed whatsoever regarding time and place of the gamefields.
\item \textit{Storyline-based}: a degree of infrastructure is used in order to provide presence and other sensing input combined with a mixture of a game scenario and timely events. A central authority coordinates the game as mandated by a given scenario. An example of such a game, could be an entertainment/educative installation inside a museum, where players are given a starting scenario and must discover elements to move forward in the game by visiting places, etc. The infrastructure intervenes both in the spatial and temporal domains to define the possible game outcomes, but all is performed within specifically defined limits.
\item \textit{Community-based}: this is basically the re-hash of traditional games, like ``hide and seek'', augmented with the aid computing devices and sensing abilities, which can help in game operation, rules arbitration, statistics book-keeping, etc. They can be both infrastructure-less or infrastructure-based, but the distinct element here is the concept of the gaming community. This means, that there is a community playing games of various sorts, with the playing activity spanning across a long time period and with large gaming interaction among the members of the community.
\end{itemize}
This categorization is also depicted in figure \ref{fig:categorization}.
\section{The Hot Potato Game}
\label{sec:game-description}
We now present a simple game of the application type we are discussing in this paper. We discuss some of the inner works of our implementation, in order to give answers and further insight into the aforementioned challenges.
The game is played by a group of players gathered at a specific place. Each player holds a device that has the potential of generating a ``Hot Potato'' after the game begins. Each such hot potato has a per-second decreasing counter that ticks for a certain period of time until it goes ``boom''. Players try to ``survive'' by passing the potato on to another player, thus eliminating the danger of the potato ``exploding'' on their device. However, the time counter value is preserved between potato passings. When, inevitably, a potato blows, the respective player who was the last carrying the potato is disqualified, decreasing the number of players attending the game. The winner of the game is the player standing alive while all opponents are eliminated.
The players interact with each other by using movement and presence as a means of performing game-related actions. To pass the potato the player needs first to approach an opponent by moving close to her. Then the player passes the potato to the nearby player by violently moving her device to the right/left direction (i.e. making a game action/gesture).
The players interaction also affects the generation of new potatoes. Whenever some players choose to be close to each other (i.e., close proximity) the probability of generating a new potato is reduced substantially. Therefore it is mutually beneficial for players to stay close together. Still, eventually at some point one of them will get a new potato. Now, the strategy changes since being close to the player holding the potato makes it easier for him to pass the potato.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Hardware/software Platform:} We implement our game using Sun's SPOT platform \cite{SUNSPOT}, as the hardware platform for the players' devices. It is a small, battery-operated device running the Squawk Java Virtual Machine, which acts as both an operating system and a software application platform, allowing programming of the devices in the Java Micro Edition (J2ME) platform. It uses an $180$MHz ARM 9 processor with $512$KB of RAM and $4$MB Flash. An IEEE 802.15.4 compliant CC2420 Chipcon transceiver is used for communication. They also include a very simple user interface ($2$ buttons and $8$ LEDs) and a number of sensors (accelerometer, thermistor, light).
We decided to use the particular platform due to the available computational resources; other WSN platforms usually offer $10$KB of RAM and a processor at $8$MHz. The fast ARM processor and the rich RAM allows more relaxed programming. The provision of $8$ LEDs and $2$ buttons is also significantly better than the other platforms that usually provide 2-3 LEDs and at most 1 button. The additional LEDs \textit{significantly improve the interfacing methods} of the device. Furthermore developing applications for JAVA Mobile Edition \textit{improves the portability} of our code to almost all types of mobile phones and portable devices.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Input mechanisms for player interaction:} Player gestures to pass the potato are detected using the internal accelerometer. We aimed at user-independent gesture recognition, with no training phase involved. Our code can recognize four basic gestures: i) clockwise, ii) counter-clockwise and iii) violent movement with direction to the right/left. These $4$ gestures are very simple and are in fact a subset of the $8$ gestures described in \cite{NOKIA-ACCELEROMETER}, that were deemed as most appropriate for home automation.
The interactions based on players proximity are implementation using the IEEE 802.15.4 radio. In contrast to Bluetooth, devices can exchange data without the need to establish a connection, does not enforce a master/slave relation and supports concurrent transmissions of messages to multiple devices. The most important characteristic is the ability to reliably discover neighboring devices within less than $100$ms time period while Bluetooth devices may take up to $10.24$sec \cite{DBLP:conf/loca/HayH09}. This \textit{significantly improves proximity detection} capabilities among players.
The \textit{Echo Protocol} is a core service of our implementation that enables neighbor discovery and enables connectivity. Through the Echo Protocol, a player device discovers other neighboring devices and observes their connectivity status.
Devices form a network characterized by high mobility and variable transmission ranges. The topology of such network changes dynamically in an unpredictable way, as players move without following any predefined pattern.
The Echo Protocol is designed to run on resource-limited devices. It is robust, able to adjust quickly to frequent and significant topology changes and capable of distinguishing the different roles of the discovered neighboring nodes (i.e., player, infrastructure). In addition, it allows customization of propagated messages and most importantly it is able to recognize whether the communication with the surrounding devices is bi-directional or not.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Coordination of player interactions:} In general, players interact in pairs or in groups by executing (simultaneously or not) \textit{actions}. For each game there is a set of well defined actions that the players can perform. It is important that the actions are performed efficiently with near-real time response and that fault tolerance mechanisms exist for protecting against communication failures, common due to the wireless medium used. Moreover, the existence of a reliable mechanism, which will prevent malicious player behavior and apply different game rules is absolutely essential. For these reasons, we implemented the \textit{Action Protocol}; this is a two-phase commit protocol, which supports different types of actions, allows more than two devices to interact with each other and reduces the risk of unexpected or adversarial behavior (e.g., cheating). It guarantees that a potato will not be lost due to communication failure (e.g., messages lost during dense player interactions).
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Towards reliability and multi-games support:} During the evolution of the game, player devices may fail permanently due to power loss (devices are battery operated) or temporarily due to an internal error that occurred at the virtual machine. In other cases devices may reboot either by mistake or maliciously. To avoid such situations that may damage the player experience we implement the \textit{Storage module} that is responsible for providing persistent storage capabilities. This module stores the state of the device and the various game events created on the $4$MB flash. In the case the failure is transient, the data are retrieved during the reboot of the device; the countdown timer of an active potato will continue (with a small delay of $3$sec needed for the device to reboot). In case of a permanent failure, the player may still recover the stored events by plugging the device to an external power source or by attaching it to a PC.
The storage module is also responsible for storing all game events when the player decides to play another game yet she wishes to keep track of the old game statistics. When all the Hot potato games are concluded she may return to her PC and upload the game data to a higher layer application (e.g. community-based application). This is done by simply pressing one of the buttons that prepare the device for another game.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Support for Storyline-based and Community-based extensions:} An interesting feature of our implementation is that external platforms may interface player devices in real time during the evolution of a game. This is done by installing an infrastructure of one or more \textit{Stations} at the area where the games are conducted. These Stations may be laptops, PDAs or SPOT devices; they can be fixed or mobile and form a backbone network. During the course of the game the data generated by the player devices and game statistics are communicated to nearby Stations. One particular Station plays the role of the \textit{Engine}, responsible for the central coordination of the Stations and generally of the game (e.g., checking the rules of the game). The Engine is also responsible for communicating the progress of the game to external platforms and upper layer applications. The Station and Engine can execute their tasks asynchronously in a pipelined way. This way a Station sends information regarding the realization of a number of game events to the Engine, without waiting for the Engine to complete forwarding all these data to the upper software layers. When this feature is enabled the storage module is no longer needed since game data are uploaded to the higher level application during the game.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Delay-Tolerant Service:} Due to various reasons (e.g., arbitrary movement of players, game strategies) communication with the ``backbone'' infrastructure may not be always possible. During this period the evolution of the game should not be affected, as players interact with each others and create events. For this reason we have created, the \textit{Delay-Tolerant Service} (DTS) that allows operation on both connected and disconnected modes. When communication with the infrastructure is available, data are transmitted (either directly or in multihop fashion), while when this is not possible, data are stored and sent afterwards - when communication is establish. Thus, players can enter and leave from the range of the infrastructure, enjoying the games without any limitations. In any case, however, communication with the infrastructure has to be established, even at a later point in time (e.g., after the game finishes), in order to keep the history of played games consistent.
\section{Evaluation of the Game}
\label{sec:evaluation}
We chose to put our system under test in real life conditions - it is our opinion that the fundamental evaluation of a game should be done while groups of human players are actually playing it. We chose to conduct experiments both indoors and outdoors, since our vision is that this kind of games will be played in both environments. More specifically, the outdoor experiment was conducted in the backyard of our research institute, an open area covered with grass and with no obstacles (trees, bushes, etc.) inside the field. The indoor experiments were conducted in i) a room measuring $10$ meters by $15$ meters, with a height of $3$ meters, and ii) an atrium measuring $15$ meters by $15$ meters and a height of $8$ meters, with $4$ pillars ($1$ meter diameter) close to its center. Both rooms/playfields had concrete walls.
Regarding the experiments, game sessions were organized in groups of $5 \ldots 14$ people. The total number of the people that took part in the experiments was $23$.
All players were aged between $23$ and $37$, with the $75\%$ of them having an engineering background and the rest coming from other disciplines. Each group of players participated in multiple game sessions, with some participating in multiple sessions with different number of players. Regarding the quantitative measures of the experiments, additional software modules were introduced to measure a variety of metrics.
\subsection{Player survey results}
At the end of the experiments, all of the participants (\textit{game developers did not participate}), were given a questionnaire to fill out. The questions posed to the players ranged from opinions about the overall satisfaction/fun they had from participating to the organized game sessions, to questions about how they would react to enhancements to the hardware platform and the user interface.
From the results, the following basic points are evident:
\begin{itemize}
\item All players were positive about the fun factor of the game and the ease of use of the provided device; $24\%$ were strongly positive and $71\%$ positive about the appeal of the game to them.
\item The majority of players were positive about the physical activity involved in the game ($82\%$ positive or strongly positive and $18\%$ neutral), with the vast majority ($16$ out of $17$) also stating that the use of gestures is more fun than using buttons.
\item The response was more neutral regarding the current gesture recognition implementation, with $24\%$ being positive, $42\%$ being neutral and $35\%$ being negative or strongly negative, probably due to the user-independent recognition strategy we chose.
\item The game is more fun when there are more players involved, with $76\%$ of the participants being strongly positive about large player groups.
\item Players said that additions in the user interface, such as a screen and vibration would be welcome, even when not coming from a CS background. The reaction to sound effects addition was much more neutral ($36\%$ neutral or negative).
\item The overall operation of the system was perceived by the users as satisfactory in both indoor and outdoor environments, with the reaction to the indoor case being a little more positive.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Performance evaluation results}
Following the logic of our general software architecture, we have incorporated a number of software modules implementing the observer software pattern in order to record all characteristics of interest for the experiments. E.g., every time a gesture was performed and recognized correctly by the device, an event was created that informed the experiments observer about this specific action. We have limited the number of recorded features in order to minimize the computational overhead. All recorded data were kept in memory during the gameplay (since writing to the device's flash memory incurred significant overhead) and after the respective game session was over, it was transmitted back to a base station. All features recorded were the same in all devices, except from the CPU load logging, which was recorded in only two devices for each session, since the Squawk VM does not provide any facilities to log such data, and we wanted to avoid adding extra overhead to all of the devices at the same time.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graphs/fig-all-1}
\caption{\label{exp:1} Players, potatoes and interactions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graphs/fig-all-2}
\caption{\label{exp:1b} Players, potatoes and interactions}
\end{figure}
More specifically, we monitored the following metrics; they were chosen so as to measure both the efficiency of the implementation and the overall fluidity of the gameplay:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Neighbors}: the number of bidirectional links each device has established in each moment in time.
\item \textit{Potatoes received/sent}: the number of ``potatoes'' each player has received/sent during gameplay.
\item \textit{Potatoes generated}: the number of ``potatoes'' generated by each player's device.
\item \textit{Gestures recognized}: the number of gestures that were successfully recognized.
\item \textit{Failed actions}: the number of times when players tried to pass a ``potato'' but failed, although the gesture was recognized by their own device.
\item \textit{CPU usage}: an estimate of the load during gameplay.
\item \textit{Memory usage}: the memory usage of the virtual machine after loading the Hot Potato midlet.
\end{itemize}
We do not present here any energy consumption results, due to the fact that the duration of a ``hot potato'' game is very short ($2-3$ minutes) and that we have not tested the game for extended time periods, i.e., hours of continuous gameplay. Our measurements indicate that energy consumption is quite minimal during such game sessions and does not have a big impact on the device's battery.
Figure~\ref{exp:1} depicts the dynamicity of the network for a game that lasted about $2$ minutes. At some points, the device neighborhood changed from $9$ neighbors to $3$ in less than $3$ sec. This clearly shows \textit{the high dynamics of the games we envisage}. The experiments show that the choice of the IEEE 802.15.4 radio module in this case is valid, since it is capable of detecting the proximity of the other players fast enough to support the game rules.
In terms of game play and game strategies, the increased activity of the player seems to pay off for at least $1$ min. After that point, she ends up receiving a potato from a fellow player; within $2$ sec, realizing she now carries a hot potato, she makes a gesture to get rid of the potato, that is recognized by the device and the \textit{action protocol} is activated. It requires about $3$sec to negotiate the passing of the potato on to one of her opponents. This fast reaction saves her about $10$ sec of gameplay and then a $10$ sec period starts of continuous potato passing and subsequent running and chasing. Overall, the potato passes $4$ times. Eventually, she ends up with a potato that ``explodes'' before she can pass it on to a nearby player, therefore ending the game for her. This scenario is a characteristic example of our vision regarding \textit{pervasive games that involve multiple players, rapid physical activity and gesturing}.
A different game strategy seems to be followed by the player whose device statistics are depicted in Figure~\ref{exp:1b}. This player tried to stay at the ``periphery'' of the board, encountering very few other players with the incentive of reducing the chances of getting a potato. This concept seems to be successful since he never received any potato throughout game. On the other hand, the reduced number of players within his neighborhood increased the changes of generating a new potato. After about $40$sec a new potato was eventually generated. Unfortunately, due to being at a distance from the other players, he could not find an opponent for a sufficiently long period of time to pass the potato. Although the player performed the corresponding gestures and the device successfully recognized them, due to the dynamicity and low density of the network the Action protocol failed to pass the potato. Even when he eventually succeeded, new potatos were repeatedly being generated until the player was eliminated. We believe that this example demonstrates the \textit{diversity of player strategies and the combinations of actions} that can be performed even in such a simple game.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graphs/fig-cpu}
\caption{\label{exp:2} Player density and CPU usage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{graphs/fig-mem-actions}
\caption{\label{exp:3} Potatoes, Interactions and Memory usage}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{exp:2} depicts the CPU usage and the dynamicity of the network for a period for $2$ min. It helps us demonstrate the computational complexity of the \textit{Echo protocol} to detect the \textit{bidirectional neighbors} of the device. Although the majority of theoretical works consider wireless links to be symmetric, in practice most of the times this is not true for a multitude of reasons (e.g., orientation of antennas, different battery levels, obstacles, etc.). This fact significantly complicates game design; a unidirectional link cannot provide acknowledgements of receipt of messages. Of course, gesture recognition, LED operation, button control and garbage collection also requires CPU cycles, still, the \textit{majority of the CPU load is due to the Echo protocol}. The experiment indicates that the particular ARM9 processor used in the game devices can be used for playing games with \textit{simultaneous participation of at least $14$ players} without hindering the player experience.
We also include Figure~\ref{exp:3} to examine the memory usage of the game. It seems that the $512$KB of memory sufficiently support the size of the Squawk VM, the code of the Hot Potato midlet and the entities generated during the gameplay. It is in the nature of Java to create a large number of object instances; the Echo protocol generates $1$ new object per nearby device every $500$ms, the Action protocol generates $3$ new objects per player action, etc. Twice during the evolution of the game the memory was exhausted and the garbage collector (GC) was required to clean up unused memory. Still, throughout the game evolution GC was invoked continuously to free up smaller amounts. This also increased the CPU load. It is evident that if we had chosen a different WSN platform, developing the Hot potato game would be very complicated, if not impossible.
\section{Conclusions - Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper, we have discussed about a new category of pervasive games, that relies on the use of ad hoc mobile sensor networks for their operation. We have also presented a set of research challenges which we believe are the most important ones rising from this new vision. Moreover, we presented the rules of a prototype game we propose in order to demonstrate the potential of this new game category, and briefly discussed its current implementation, which relies on the use of the Sun SPOT sensor network devices. ``Hot Potato'' is an example of using non-conventional user interface methods to breathe new life into familiar concepts, like the multiplayer games played out in open space. Our implementation offers services for the completely distributed operation of the game and synchronization between players, enabling the instant setup of games at anyplace.
Through a series of experiments we evaluated our implementation and the response of human players to our game. Our first results indicate a very positive response and that the selected class of devices can sufficiently support this type of games. Up to $14$ players can participate in a game session simultaneously in a completely distributed environment; above this limit, inherent technology factors come into play and prevent a seamless gaming experience. Simple synchronization and coordination mechanisms such as the protocols discussed in section \ref{sec:game-description} can provide a sound basis for developing this new category of games. Players perceived the whole operation of the implemented game as satisfactory and welcomed the idea of being able to play in physical space, and even considered positively the idea of playing games with anyone, anyplace, anytime. Furthermore, the efficient implementation of synchronization and coordination between multiple groups of players simultaneously enables a whole new level of user interaction activities, as seen by the strongly positive perception of playing in large groups.
Our future work includes the implementation of additional games, the refinement of our implementation, especially with regard to gesture recognition, the conduct of game sessions in larger scale and possibly porting the game to other platforms.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work has been partially supported by the European Union under contract numbers
IST-2005-15964 (AEOLUS) and ICT-2008-215270 (FRONTS). We also wish to thank I.~Mavrommati for her insightful comments and ideas.
|
\section{Introduction}
The joint analysis of surface brightness profiles and rotation curves has traditionally yielded rich insights into the physics of disc galaxies. Surface brightness profiles allow for bulge-disc decomposition, while extended rotation curves constrain mass models \citep{vanalbadaetal, palunaswilliams, debloketal, denarayetal}. However, mass models are subject to degeneracies due, in part, to uncertainties in the mass-to-light ($M/L$) ratios of the baryonic components (e.g., Maller et al. 2000, Dutton et al. 2005). Breaking these degeneracies requires more data, such as a line of sight (LOS) velocity dispersion profile or a colour profile. Additional data of this type allows for the creation of dynamical models \citep{rixetal, gebhardtetal, widrowperrettsuyu, baesdejonghe, thomasetal}. Dynamical models, in turn, provide the initial conditions for $N-$body simulations, which are needed to study the growth of bar and spiral instabilities. In addition, non-circular motions complicate the interpretation of gas rotation curves \citep{rheeetal, valenzuelaetal}. Stellar rotation curve data may therefore help address these complications. A data set that includes surface brightness profiles, gas and stellar rotation curves and stellar velocity dispersions can provide constraints on fundamental galaxy parameters, along with information about stability to bar formation in the disc.
Such a data set exists for the isolated dwarf Sc galaxy NGC 6503. Gas and stellar rotation curves were measured by \citet{devaucouleurscaulet}, \citet{begeman87} and \citet{bottema89} (hereafter B89); B89 also measured the stellar velocity dispersion profile and surface brightness profiles in the $B-$ and $R-$bands. There are no strong asymmetries in galaxy structure (such as a bar), so it is a good candidate for analytic axisymmetric models. However, further investigation reveals several peculiarities. The galaxy possesses a sharp drop in velocity dispersion near the centre (known as a `$\sigma-$drop'). The gas and stellar rotation curves are nearly coincident despite the standard asymmetric drift formula's prediction that stars should noticeably lag behind the gas. Finally, the surface brightness profile displays four distinct regions: a central peak, a flat region indicating a Freeman (1970) Type II profile, an inner exponential of scale length $\sim1$ kpc and a shallower outer exponential.
In this paper, we present several scenarios corresponding to differing interpretations of the data. For each scenario, we construct dynamical models that reproduce these features. We decompose the surface brightness using a S\'{e}rsic bulge and an inner-truncated light profile of the type used by \citet{kormendy77}. Inner truncated disc profiles may be due to dust extinction against an exponential disc \citep{macarthuretal}; they may be intrinsic to the density profile; or they may be due to a ring of bright stars which does not trace the mass. We explore these possibilities by testing models numerically under each scenario for bar formation.
The coincidence of gas and stellar rotation curves also deserves attention as it suggests far less asymmetric drift than predicted. Thus, we wish to understand whether gas follows circular orbits that trace the gravitational potential, or whether it has its own asymmetric drift. We investigate this issue by testing two different ways of fitting the rotation curves: by fitting the stellar rotation alone and using the asymmetric drift to calculate the circular velocity; and by fitting the gas alone assuming it traces the circular velocity.
Our aim is to construct dynamical models for each of these scenarios and test them via $N-$body simulations. We use the GalactICS model from Widrow et al. (2008, hereafter WPD) defined in terms of distribution functions for the disc, bulge and halo. The halo allows for a cusp or a core, and the bulge follows a S\'{e}rsic (1968) profile. The disc surface density profile is exponential with an optional inner truncation.
The large number of parameters makes finding a fit to the data a challenging exercise. A number of techniques have been developed to determine best-fit parameters in such complex spaces -- notably, maximum likelihood techniques which involve minimizing the $\chi^2$ value.
One promising approach which improves upon the maximum likelihood method employs Bayes' theorem and a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique to survey the relevant parameter space. Bayes' theorem provides a method of determining the posterior probability of a hypothesis based on both the likelihood function \emph{and} prior information about the input parameters; MCMC provides for a way to survey the parameter space. In conjunction, the two techniques provide the joint posterior probability distribution function (PDF) of the multidimensional parameter space; the marginal posterior PDF for any parameter (and hence its formal mean and error bars) are obtained by marginalizing over nuisance parameters. This technique yields realistic constraints on the model parameters, including (but not limited to) the halo cusp, the disc and bulge $M/L$ ratios, masses for each component, inner truncation parameters, and bulge S\'{e}rsic index. Similar techniques have been used, for example, to determine cosmological parameters \citep{tegmarketal, percival05, corlessking}.
In this work we build dynamical models for NGC 6503 using a Bayesian/MCMC method. We fit several data sets for this galaxy \emph{simultaneously} in order to obtain as complete a picture of the galaxy as possible; however, the lack of a bar provides a further constraint. Therefore, we also obtain the stability parameters $X$ and $Q$ for our models. The $X-$parameter determines global stability to multi-armed modes \citep{toomre81} and the $Q-$parameter determines stability locally \citep{toomre64}. As a purely phenomenological matter, $Q$ can also determine global stability to bars \citep{athanassoulasellwood}. We test the stability of our models using $N-$body simulations
Our approach allows us to investigate numerous other properties of the galaxy. The S\'{e}rsic index is indicative of bulge formation history \citep{courteauetal, kormendykennicutt}. We also explore the possibility that the bulge is related to luminous nuclear clusters found near the centres of many disc-dominated late-type galaxies, and derive $M/L$ ratios for the disc and bulge. Moreover, we can constrain the cuspiness of the halo. Cosmological simulations consistently demonstrate that halos are expected to have cuspy halos (e.g., Navarro et al. 1997; Moore et al. 1999), but
there are considerable difficulties involved in inferring central halo densities from rotation curve measurements \citep{hayashietal, rheeetal, duttonetal, valenzuelaetal}. For example, gas rotation curve data near the centre of the galaxy may not trace the gravitational potential; using the stellar rotational velocity, where available, may be a better way to infer the cusp value \citep{pizzellaetal}. Further, noncircular gas motions at the centre (as may be caused by a triaxial halo) may skew the interpretation of the rotation curve, depending on the orientation of the disc \citep{simonetal}. With both gas and stellar rotation curves, NGC 6503 provides an excellent opportunity to investigate these issues.
This paper is organized as follows. In \S2 we detail the observational properties of NGC 6503 and elaborate on the peculiarities outlined above. In \S3 we discuss our dynamical models, and in \S4 we describe our application of the Bayes/MCMC method. We discuss our primary stability results in \S5, in the process constraining the available physics, and we present additional results in \S6. Section 7 is the discussion, which includes an exposition of prior research on NGC 6503.
\section{NGC 6503: Observations and Issues}
NGC 6503 is an isolated dwarf Sc galaxy at a distance of 5.2 Mpc \citep{karachentsevsharina} and is inclined at $74\pm1^{\circ}$ \citep{begeman87}. It displays a small, bright central bulge, no signs of strong asymmetric central structure (e.g., no obvious bar) apart from some spirality, and it is mostly free of gas. In this section we review existing photometric and kinematic observations of the galaxy.
Throughout this paper, we use a distance at 5.2 Mpc and therefore $1$~kpc~$= 40''$ at this distance.
\subsection{The surface brightness profile}
Photometric imaging by B89 provides azimuthally averaged surface brightness (SB) profiles in the $B-$ and $R-$bands, both of which display a sharp rise within 50 pc and a Freeman (1970) Type II hump between 50 pc and $\sim 2$ kpc. The SB profile is exponential beyond that. The central flattening is accompanied by a slight reddening in the $B-R$ profile (Fig.~\ref{fig:sbdata}).
A circumnuclear H$\alpha$ ring is observed at $R\sim1.2$ kpc, indicating a star-forming region \citep{knapenetal}. The outer exponential is remarkably straight in spite of the large error bars; a linear fit to those points yields a photometric scale length $R_d$ of $1.18\pm0.04$ kpc, which becomes about 1.3 kpc when corrected for inclination and scale height.
Fig.~\ref{fig:sbloglog} shows the $\log\mu$-$\log R$ plot of the surface brightness. The inner few points are almost straight, approaching a line with a slope $\sim 1$, suggesting a S\'{e}rsic index of 1.
There are three possibilities for the origin of Type II profiles: first, they may be caused by dust extinction; second, they may reflect the formation of bright stars that do not trace the mass; and third, they may be intrinsic to the mass distribution of the disc. In NGC 6503, the reddening in the inner portion may support the dust extinction hypothesis (Bottema \& Gerritsen 1997, hereafter BG97). BG97 adopt an exponential disc and assume that the flattening in the surface brightness is due to dust (we return to this work in \S7.1). The possibility that dust extinction causes Type II profiles is also discussed by \citet{macarthuretal} for their sample of spiral galaxies with optical and IR imaging; these authors are unable to reliably distinguish between Type I and Type II profiles on the basis of dust extinction, however.
The second possibility relates to bar formation. \citet{baggettbaggettanderson} and \citet{andersonbaggettbaggett} show that many galaxies with Type II profiles can be fit using Kormendy's (1977) inner truncated profile
\begin{equation}
I(R) = I_0 \exp[-(R/R_d + (R_h/R)^\alpha)]
\label{eq:kormendy}
\end{equation}
where $R_h$ is a turnover radius and $\alpha$ is a cutoff index. Most of Baggett et al.'s (1998) galaxies have a bar, but a significant minority do not. These authors also argue that such flattening is intrinsic to the galaxy rather than being caused by dust. It is known that bars can induce ring formation in galaxies, which may contribute to the Type II profile flattening, and that circumnuclear rings correlate strongly with barred galaxies \citep{knapen05}. Moreover, simulations by \citet{foyleetal} suggest that the SB flattening could also be caused by the presence of a central bar, as the resulting reorganization of light can flatten the SB profile over the bar's extent. Furthermore, while NGC 6503 does not appear to have a bar, it is possible for bars to dissolve by gas inflow, which transfers angular momentum from the gas to the bar \citep{bournaudetal}. The ring currently seen in NGC 6503 may therefore be a relic of a now dissolved bar. In a scenario of ring formation by bar destruction, the outer exponential represents the `true' disc, and the Type II hump is mainly due to the formation of bright stars that do not trace the mass. The results in \citet{foyleetal} suggest that the Type II profile could be reproduced by the emergence of a bar in a disc of scale length 1.3 kpc. Therefore, it is incumbent to investigate the SB profile by fitting only the points exterior to 2 kpc.
A third possibility is that Type II profiles are caused by a genuine mass deficit in the inner region, and therefore we also fit the full SB profile directly by assuming an inner truncated disc \citep{kormendy77}. This naturally produces a better fit to the hump than to the outer points; along with the first scenario, this scenario provides a direct comparison with the modelling of BG97, who did not account for the outer exponential.
\subsection{Rotation curves}
Several rotation curves for NGC 6503 have been measured. \ion{H}{1} observations by \citet{begeman87} reveal a remarkably flat rotation curve between 3 kpc and 20 kpc deviating by no more than $\sim4-5$\%, and a maximum circular velocity of $\sim 120$ km s$^{-1}$. \citet{greisenetal} find a similar \ion{H}{1} curve in addition to evidence for a thick and thin \ion{H}{1} disc in NGC 6503. The thick disc appears to rotate more slowly than the thin disc and the former does not extend beyond the optical radius.
However, this distinction does not affect Begeman's measurements of the total \ion{H}{1} rotation curve. B89 maps the inner rotation curve with H$\beta$ and \ion{O}{3} emission as well as the stellar features, while \citet{devaucouleurscaulet} supply H$\alpha$ data. Where they overlap, all data sets are in agreement; the \ion{H}{1} observations appear to be slightly but systematically larger than the H$\beta$. The stellar rotation curve largely coincides with the H$\beta$ and \ion{O}{3} curves, with an average difference of only $\sim2$ km s$^{-1}$. At about 1.5 kpc, the stellar rotation exceeds the gas rotation, possibly owing to the effect of a spiral arm. For our models, we fit the \ion{H}{1}, H$\beta$ and stellar data sets. These are found in Fig.~\ref{fig:Hrotationdata}, along with fits based on the fitting formula \citep{courteau97}:
\begin{equation}
v(r)=\frac{v_0}{(1+(R_c/R)^{\zeta})^{1/\zeta}}
\label{eq:courteau}
\end{equation}
where $v_0$ is an asymptotic velocity, $R_c$ is a projected length scale and $\zeta$ is a shape parameter governing the sharpness of the `turnover' to the asymptotic velocity. The fit suggests a projected asymptotic circular velocity of $117\pm1$ km s$^{-1}$ and shows how close the two rotation curves are.
The coincidence of the stellar and gas rotation curves must be accounted for. If the gas rotation traces the gravitational potential, the difference between the two rotation curves yields a measure of the asymmetric drift, $v_a$. The latter, defined as the difference between the circular velocity $v_c$ calculated from the potential and the streaming velocity $v_s$ of the stars, is given by
\begin{equation}
v_a = \frac{\sigma_R^2}{2 v_c} \left[\frac{2R}{R_d}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{R}{v_s}\frac{\partial v_s}{\partial R} - 1\right)\right]
\label{eq:vasym}
\end{equation}
for an exponential disc, where $R_d$ is the disc scale length and $\sigma_R$ is the radial velocity dispersion \citep{binneytremaine}. When applied to the observed H$\beta$ rotation curve, Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym} yields an asymmetric drift of order of $5-15$ km s$^{-1}$, depending on the adopted central radial dispersion.\footnote{B89 claims that the calculated asymmetric drift implied by the rotation curves is $\sim 3-5$ km s$^{-1}$, which is much lower than our calculated values. We have been unable to reproduce this number; every permutation of scalelength and dispersion that we tried in Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym} yields asymmetric drifts of at least $\sim$5 km s$^{-1}$. }
The asymmetric drift is much larger than the observed difference between the gas and stellar curves; a possible cause of the discrepancy is that gas does not trace the gravitational potential. Traditionally, gas is assumed to travel on circular orbits, so that the H$\beta$/\ion{H}{1} rotation curves would trace the gravitational potential in this galaxy. The assumption of circularity in gas rotation curves underlies much of the work on mass modelling in the literature. However, it is not possible for this assumption to strictly hold because gas dispersion is non-zero. There are several sources of this dispersion including turbulence caused by supernova feedback and the magnetorotational instability \citep{tamburroetal}. In addition, non-circular motions can impact the gas rotation curves of disc galaxies (e.g., Hayashi et al. 2004, Valenzuela et al. 2007), thereby reducing the observed velocity relative to the actual circular velocity. Being collisionless, our models cannot capture these effects; therefore, the hypothesis that the gas rotation traces the circular velocity can only be tested using the gravitational potential of our models. However, the stellar asymmetric drift can easily be modeled to obtain a separate value for the circular velocity. The stellar asymmetric drift is itself subject to several caveats; it is, for example, highly sensitive to the orientation of the velocity ellipsoid. These issues are addressed in \S7.3
\subsection{The LOS velocity dispersion}
The LOS velocity dispersion profile for NGC 6503 from B89 is found in Fig.~\ref{fig:dispdata}. There is a ${\sigma}$-drop within 300 pc and an exponential decline beyond that range. We fit the data to an outer exponential with an inverse Gaussian in the centre:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(R)=\sigma_0 \exp(-R/R_{\sigma})\left[1-A\exp(-R^2/(2B^2))\right]
\label{eq:gaussian}
\end{equation}
where $A$, $B$, the extrapolated central dispersion $\sigma_0$ and the projected scale length $R_{\sigma}$ are the fitting parameters. The fit yields $R_{\sigma}=1.16\pm0.29$ kpc and $\sigma_0=59.5\pm8.4$ km s$^{-1}$, which will provide a point of comparison for our results in \S6. Note that we do not attempt to model the physical processes which may be responsible for the $\sigma-$drop, but we do determine structural parameters and effective $M/L$ ratios for the bulge to account for the $\sigma-$drop.
NGC 6503 was the first galaxy shown to have a $\sigma-$drop. A growing body of data suggests that $\sigma-$drops are found in numerous spiral galaxies \citep{marquezetal, comeronetal, delorenzocaceresetal}, although \citet{kovelaetal} argue that some $\sigma-$drops are observational artifacts. BG97 suggest that the $\sigma-$drop is due to a small central, possibly star forming component capable of continually cooling the centre. A physical explanation for $\sigma-$drops is proposed by \citet{wozniaketal} and \citet{champavertwozniak}, who argue that the presence of dynamically cold gas funnelling into the centre is responsible for forming dynamically cold stars that dominate the observed LOS kinematics. \citet{comeronetal}'s sample of $\sigma-$drop galaxies correlates with higher incidences of nuclear dust spirals, H$\alpha$ rings and Seyfert fraction, which would be consistent with a cold star-forming component in the centre due to gas inflow. Meanwhile, \citet{delorenzocaceresetal} suggest that inner nuclear bars may be responsible for at least some of the $\sigma-$drops found in the literature.
\subsection{Four scenarios to test}
We test three different ways to fit the SB profile: (i) assuming an inner truncated disc; (ii) assuming an exponential disc with an inner truncated light profile to model simply the effect of dust extinction (a full dust model is outside the scope of this work); and (iii) fitting only the inner ($R\lesssim0.1$ kpc) and outer ($R>2$ kpc) points to account for the true disc being external to the Type II hump. Furthermore, we test two ways to model the rotation: (i) we fit the gas rotation by assuming that it equals the circular velocity; and (ii) we fit the stellar rotation by simulating the LOS observations of the inclined disc. Simulating observations along a line of sight is particularly important for stellar kinematic measurements because of the non-negligible scale height of the stellar disc, which leads to integration effects as the line of sight passes through regions of the disc that are not in the plane. This effect is less important for the gas disc, which is expected to have a small scale height.
These tests are accounted for by four different scenarios. In scenario K (for Kormendy), we fit the full surface brightness with an inner truncated Kormendy disc, and we fit the stellar rotation curve. In KL (Kormendy light), we fit the surface brightness using an inner truncated light profile atop an exponential disc to account for dust extinction, and fit the stellar rotation as in scenario K. In scenario KG (Kormendy gas), we fit the surface brightness as in K but fit the gas rotation by assuming that the gas travels on circular orbits, ignoring the stellar rotation data. Finally, in scenario E (exponential), we fit the surface brightness excluding the points that constitute the Type II hump, and fit the stellar kinematic data as in K. Scenario E therefore alleviates the need for an inner truncated disc. In all cases, we fit the LOS velocity dispersion and the \ion{H}{1} data outside 3 kpc. These models and the fitting procedures are described in more detail in \S4 and 5; we first briefly discuss the GalactICS model and the MCMC technique.
\section{GalactICS Model}
Our goal is to construct a self-consistent equilibrium dynamical model for NGC 6503. Dynamical modelling yields the phase space distribution function (DF) for a system that precisely specifies its densities and velocities \emph{simultaneously}; for self-consistency and equilibrium, the model must satisfy both the Poisson and time-independent collisionless Boltzmann equations. The GalactICS model of Widrow et al. (2008, hereafter WPD) is designed to satisfy these criteria; it is derived from the \citet{kuijkendubinski} model. We briefly describe the GalactICS model here and refer the interested reader to \citet{kuijkendubinski} and WPD for details.
\subsection{Model components}
\subsubsection{The bulge and halo}
The bulge is designed to reproduce the S\'{e}rsic profile \citep{sersic68, ciotti91} upon projection, for which the intensity is given by
\begin{equation}
I(r) = I_0 \exp \left[ -b(\tilde{r}/r_b)^{1/n_b} \right]
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{r}$ is the projected radius, $I_0$ is the central intensity, $r_b$ is the half-light radius, $n_b$ is the S\'{e}rsic index of the bulge and $b$ is a parameter which depends on $n_b$. The expression is deprojected using an Abel integral equation to yield the intrinsic density distribution
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathrm{bulge}}(r)=\rho_b \left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^{-p} \exp\left[-b\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^{1/n}\right]
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the spherical radius and $p=1-0.6097/n+0.05563/n^2$ yields the S\'{e}rsic profile \citep{prugnielsimien}. We define a characteristic velocity scale $v_b$ for the bulge by
\begin{equation}
v_b =\left[4\pi nb^{n(p-2)}\Gamma(n(2-p))r_b^2\rho_b\right]^{1/2}
\end{equation}
and use this as an input parameter instead of $\rho_b$.
For the halo we adopt a cosmologically motivated profile (e.g., Navarro, Frenk \& White 1996, 1997; Moore et al. 1999; Diemand et al. 2005), given by
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{\rho_h}{(r/a_h)^{\gamma} (1+ r/a_h)^{3-\gamma}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_h$ and $a_h$ are the halo scale density and radius, respectively, and $\gamma$ is the cusp value governing the shape of the halo; $\gamma=1$ yields a NFW profile, while $\gamma=0$ produces a core. A characteristic velocity scale $\sigma_h$ is introduced according to $\sigma_h^2 = 4\pi a_h^2 \rho_h$. For practical purposes, the density profile is truncated using an error function (WPD). We allow $\gamma$ to vary for maximum flexibility in fitting the observed data, since simulations of halo formation suggest that cusp values other than 1 may be appropriate \citep{mooreetal} and that halo profiles may not be universal \citep{jingsuto, navarroetal}
\subsubsection{The disc and the Kormendy profile}
Surface brightness profiles in discs tend to decline exponentially with radius. Assuming light traces mass, this implies that the surface density is exponential:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(R)=\Sigma_0\exp(-R/R_d)
\end{equation}
where $R_d$ is the photometric scale length. Additionally, observations of edge-on galaxies suggest that disc galaxies have vertical sech$^2$ profiles with constant scale heights \citep{vanderkruitsearle}. Thus, the three dimensional density of the GalactICS disc is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho(R,z) = \rho_0 \exp(-R/R_d) \textrm{sech}^2(z/z_d)
\label{eq:expsech}
\end{equation}
where $z_d$ is the scale height. The DF corresponding to this density is given in \citet{kuijkendubinski}; it is an extension of Shu's (1969) planar DF into three dimensions.
However, as discussed in \S2, Type II profiles can also be modelled by Eq.~\ref{eq:kormendy}. If the light traces the mass, this suggests a surface density given by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(R) = \Sigma_0 \exp\left[-(R/R_d + (R_h/R)^\alpha)\right].
\label{eq:kormendy2}
\end{equation}
As before, the three dimensional density of the disc is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho(R,z) = \rho_0 \exp\left[-(R/R_d-(R_h/R)^\alpha)\right] \textrm{sech}^2(z/z_d).
\label{eq:kormendy1}
\end{equation}
We modify the GalactICS model accordingly to generate this density. If Type II profiles are instead assumed to be due to dust extinction, Eq.~\ref{eq:expsech} holds for the disc density, and only the light follows an inner truncated profile (Eq.~\ref{eq:kormendy}).
\subsubsection{The dynamics}
The KD disc employs two integrals of motion: the energy $E$ and the angular momentum $L_z$, and an approximate third integral describing the energy in the vertical motions, $E_z$. By the Jeans theorem, any function of three isolating integrals of motion in a given potential will exactly solve the CBE \citep{binneytremaine}. The third integral allows for $\sigma_z \neq \sigma_R$; observations of the solar neighbourhood suggest that $\sigma_z/\sigma_R = 0.6$ \citep{wielen74}, which would be impossible if the DF were a function of only two integrals of motion.
The GalactICS model decouples the vertical and radial dispersion of the disc. The vertical dispersion is given by the vertical potential gradient and scale height. The radial velocity dispersion is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_R^2 = \sigma_0^2 \exp(-R/R_{\sigma})
\label{eq:radsigma}
\end{equation}
and the tangential dispersion is given by the epicycle equations, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\phi} = \frac{\kappa}{2 \Omega} \sigma_{R}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\Omega=v/R$ is the angular rotation speed and the epicycle frequency $\kappa$ is given by $\kappa^2= \left[R(d\Omega^2/dR)+4\Omega^2\right]$. By design, the velocity ellipsoid in the GalactICS disc is cylindrically aligned.
Note that Eq.~\ref{eq:radsigma} includes a parameter to control the scale length of the velocity dispersion profile. Although observations by \citet{bottema93} suggest that $R_d = R_{\sigma}$, there is no clear theoretical reason why this should necessarily be the case. Here we treat $R_d$ and $R_{\sigma}$ independently to provide maximum flexibility in fitting all data sets.
\subsection{Summary of the GalactICS model}
The GalactICS model, modified to include inner truncation, has two further parameters for the disc; the turnover radius $R_h$ and the cutoff index $\alpha$. We complete the parameter input set with $R-$band $M/L$ ratios for the bulge and disc. We assume that the $M/L$ ratios are constant with radius, and use the same value for the surface brightness and the stellar kinematic fits. Although the band pass over which the stellar observations were taken are not identical to the $R-$band,
we do not expect the error introduced by this simplification to be significant.
Thus the parameters that we modify are: the five halo parameters; the exponential disc mass, scale height, scale length, and two Kormendy parameters; all bulge parameters; the central radial dispersion and dispersion profile scale length; and the disc and bulge $M/L$ ratios. In addition, each data set has an associated noise parameter that is allowed to vary (see \S4). We assume the halo to be nonrotating and truncate the disc at 5 kpc (well outside the measured data). The galaxy inclination $i$ is also fixed at 74$^\circ$. A list of the relevant parameters that are fit, as well as calculated output quantities, is presented in Table 1. The units used by GalactICS are such that $G=1$, but the masses have been converted back to $10^9M_{\odot}$ for simplicity.
\section{Statistical Approach}
\subsection{Bayes' Theorem and MCMC}
The core idea of this study is to derive the joint posterior probability distribution function (PDF) of the galaxy parameters using Bayes' theorem and MCMC. Bayes' theorem provides a way to infer the posterior probability of a hypothesis, given some kind of evidence (such as observational data), using the prior probabilities of the evidence and model and a likelihood function (such as a $\chi^2$ function). The joint posterior probability distribution function (PDF) of the model parameters is written as $P(M|D)$, where $M$ is the set of model input parameters and $D$ is the set of observational data. Bayes' theorem may be written as
\begin{equation}
P(M|D)=\frac{P(M)P(D|M)}{P(D)}
\label{eq:bayes}
\end{equation}
where $P(M)$ is the prior probability of the input parameters, $P(D|M)$ is the likelihood of the data given a specific set of model parameters and $P(D)$ is the prior probability of the data and functions as a normalization.
MCMC, in turn, provides a method of surveying the parameter space that rapidly converges to the posterior probability distribution of the input parameters. Our MCMC technique explores the parameter space by way of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Essentially, a random walk is constructed in parameter space by sampling a new set of model parameters $M^*$ at each step of the chain, and $P(M^*|D)$ is calculated using the likelihood function and the priors. The ratio $s=P(M^*|D)/P(M|D)$ is then calculated. If $s>1$, $M^*$ is accepted; otherwise, $M^*$ is accepted or rejected with a uniform random probability $\varrho$. Over the course of many such iterations, the chain populates the posterior PDFs, in the process supplying the PDFs for each parameter by marginalizing over the full PDF.
Initially, the chain quickly travels to regions of `good' fits from any set of initial parameters, and eventually settles into the best fit region, a process known as `burn-in'. It can be proven that the resulting density of points in parameter space samples the real probability density distribution of the parameter space \citep{gregory}. We aim towards an acceptance rate of 23\% in our chains \citep{robertsgelmangilks}. A detailed description of the technique may be found in \citet{gregory}.
The benefits of MCMC are numerous: it fully samples the PDFs for all fitted parameters, meaning that formal errors and error contours are easily determined; it is easily extended to include more parameters if desired; it tends to move to a region of high likelihood fairly rapidly; other quantities, such as the stability parameters $Q$ and $X$, are easily calculated from the PDFs; and there is some evidence that it provides more realistic error constraints than maximum likelihood methods \citep{kellyetal}.
The primary disadvantages are twofold. First, there is no guarantee of uniqueness to the final solutions -- multimodal PDFs are possible in any given parameter space. However, a judicious choice of the step size and proper tweaking to obtain the correct acceptance rate mitigates this problem. Second, although MCMC chains tend to converge quickly, it is not so simple to verify that the converged chains have fully populated the joint posterior PDF. Moreover,
the chain may `spread around' the parameter space, reflecting either the real structure of the joint PDF or the fact that the chain has not run long enough to fully populate the PDF. Formally ensuring convergence may require prohibitively long computing time. However, in practice we are able to obtain good constraints for most parameters in a reasonable time. This does not preclude the possibility that a MCMC chain passed through multiple PDF peaks after burn-in, but there would be no reason to prefer any one such peak over another.
\subsection{The likelihood function and the priors}
The likelihood function is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = (2\pi)^{-N/2} \prod_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i^{-1}\exp{\left[\frac{(d_i - m_i)^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right]}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of data points, $d_i$ is the experimental data value, $m_i$ is the mean value predicted by the model and $\sigma_i$ is the error, scale-modified as described below. This expression is applied to each data set, and the total likelihood is given by the product of the individual likelihoods.
For the data values $d_i$, we use the H$\beta$ curve, the LOS dispersion, stellar rotation curve and the $R-$band SB profile from B89 and the extended \ion{H}{1} curve from \citet{begeman87}. We ran several different MCMC chains (described in the next section) making use of different data sets.
The model values $m_i$ are calculated as follows. For the gas, we assume that the observed H$\beta$/\ion{H}{1} rotation curves follow circular orbits so that the model gas rotation curve can be calculated directly from the potential. For the stellar rotation curve and dispersion profile, we sample the disc and bulge DFs along the line of sight at each data point from B89, appropriately weighted by the $M/L$ ratios. Finally, for the surface brightness we sample the DFs along elliptical annuli around the inclined galaxy centre at an axis ratio determined by the inclination angle (i.e., $q=\cos i=0.28$) to determine the elliptically averaged density and thus the surface brightness in mag arcsec$^{-2}$. We emphasize that in no cases have we corrected the observed profiles for inclination; all inclination effects are accounted for by rotating the \emph{model} galaxy and sampling along the line of sight.
For each dataset used in a particular MCMC run, a single noise parameter is implemented. This consists of an extra term added in quadrature to each error bar: $\sigma_i^2 = \sigma_{0i}^2 + f^2$, where $\sigma_{0i}$ is the original experimental error and $f$ is the noise parameter, taken as constant for all points in a given data set (so there is a total of four scale factors). This approach allows us to account for effects that cannot be captured by our models - for example, that of spiral structure on the light profile when the original models are axisymmetric. Noise parameters use a Jeffreys prior:
\begin{equation}
p(f) = \frac{1}{f \ln(f_{\mathrm{max}}/f_{\mathrm{min}})}.
\end{equation}
(Gregory 2005) where $f_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{max}}$ refer to the minimum and maximum values of the noise parameters adopted for the MCMC run. Otherwise, $P(M)$ is uniform for all parameters.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Dust extinction and inner truncation}
As discussed in \S2, the flattening in the SB profile may reflect the intrinsic mass distribution in the disc, or it may be due to dust extinction. We conduct two MCMC chains to examine these possibilities. For the first run, corresponding to scenario K, the mass distribution of the disc is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:kormendy1}, so that the disc is intrinsically truncated. We fit the full $R-$band SB profile from B89. In the second run, corresponding to scenario KL, the mass distribution of the disc is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:expsech} so that the disc is purely exponential and the light follows an inner truncated profile. For both runs, we fit the full stellar rotation curve, the \ion{H}{1} curve outside 3 kpc and the LOS stellar dispersion profile; we do not fit the gas rotation internal to 3 kpc here.
Fits for representative examples of each scenario are found in Figs.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model}$-$\ref{fig:kormendygas-model}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model} we can see that the models reproduce the stellar rotation well. As expected, the circular velocity for these models is always greater than the H$\beta$ data. The rotation curve breakdown is also seen here, showing that the inner rotation curve for scenario KL is strongly disc-dominated. In addition, the surface brightness fit in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendylight-model} is excellent for both runs within 2 kpc. The outer exponential is virtually ignored by the fit owing to the larger error bars. The dispersion profile fits in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendygas-model} are also good. Scenario K displays a slightly inferior dispersion profile fit, owing to the lower $\sigma_0$ for these models, but the $\sigma-$drop is present. The outer region fit appears to overshoot the points slightly, owing to the large $R_{\sigma}$ for these runs. We have verified that decreasing $R_{\sigma}$ by 50\% produces better fits to the dispersion without affecting the remaining fits, suggesting that the cause of the poorer dispersion fit in the outer region is a local PDF peak. The $\chi^2$ values for scenario KL are approximately equal to those for scenario KL; therefore, there is no reason to reject this scenario on the basis of the fit quality. However, analysis of the PDFs and the time series trace of the $\chi^2$ value reveals that this run actually passes through two separate minima which correlate with two distinct regions of parameter space, both of which produce nearly identical fits
Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-Q} shows the two-dimensional PDF for $M_d$\footnote{Note that the input $M_e$ parameter is the exponential disc mass. It is distinguished from the true disc mass $M_d$ because the exponential disc must be truncated in the outer region, and because the inner truncation in scenarios K and KG removes additional mass from the inner region.} and the minimum disc $Q$, $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$, usually attained at around $1-1.5$ disc scale lengths. Scenario K is in black and scenario KL is in green.
For scenario K, we find that the PDF spans a large range in $M_d$ and $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$, forming a relatively narrow trough from $Q_{\mathrm{min}}\sim2.3$ at $M_d\sim 2.1\times10^9 M_{\odot}$ in the upper left to $Q_{\mathrm{min}}\sim1.3$ at $M_d\sim 4.4\times10^9 M_{\odot}$ in the lower right. Not surprisingly, $M_d$ for scenario KL is much larger, since there is no hole in the mass distribution. Since the radial dispersion $\sigma_R$ and epicycle frequency $\kappa$ are constrained by the data, the increased surface density yields lower values for $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$.
For scenario KL,
the best fit region extends below the $Q_{\mathrm{min}}=1$ line, which suggests that some of the best fit models are locally unstable.
The PDF in $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $X_{\mathrm{min}}$ is found in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-Q-X}. For scenario K, this plot shows that $X_{\mathrm{min}}$ lies between 1 and 3, and appears to correlate weakly with $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$, in the sense that models with high $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ also have high $X_{\mathrm{min}}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-Q-X} also shows that \emph{all} models from scenario KL have $X_{\mathrm{min}}<1$, suggesting very strong instability to global modes.
To discern whether or not the models for scenario KL are realistic, we must determine whether or not galaxies with $Q<1$ are possible. Unstable galaxies generate spiral structure that heat stars as they propagate outwards but continual cooling could occur if gas infall onto the surface of the galaxy were substantial enough. Such gas would contribute to star formation. \citet{fuchs99} conducted a maximum disc analysis for NGC 6503 suggesting that $Q<1$ implies a star formation rate of 40 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$; this contradicts the rate of 1.5 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ obtained from the observed H$\alpha$ flux \citep{kennicuttetal}. Therefore, it is unlikely that this cooling method is important in NGC 6503. In the absence of star formation, a disc in which $Q<1$ may fragment as small scale perturbations grow due to the Toomre instability. The likely evolution for such models is to eventually recombine into a single stable disc, but not before the stellar dispersions have increased dramatically.
We select several models from the PDF for both runs (identified by stars on Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-Q}) and evolve them forward in time to examine their stability. To do this, we employ Dehnen's (2000) $N$-body algorithm implemented by \citet{stiff03}, a fast multipole method that produces nearly $O(N)$ scaling. All models are evolved for 5 Gyr with a time-step of $0.5$ Myr and a softening parameter of 25 pc. We use 500K particles for the disc, 50K for the bulge and 1M for the halo. The bar evolution is quantified using the magnitude of the second Fourier mode $A$, which measures the strength of two-armed asymmetries (e.g., Shen \& Sellwood 2004):
\begin{equation}
A= \left|\sum^{N}_{j=1}\frac{\exp(2i\theta_j)}{N}\right|
\end{equation}
where $\theta_j$ is the azimuthal coordinate of the $j$th particle in the disc. The bar evolution is found in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-bar}.
The results show the regions of the $M_d-Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ plane that are most susceptible to bar formation. For scenario K, we find that much of the region is at least mildly bar unstable, with the lower right region more strongly unstable (note that the red curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-bar} correspond to the discs with lowest $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ in each run) and the upper left only showing a mild bar instability. The growth of most bars in this scenario is gradual, with bars only starting to become discernable after $\sim 2$ Gyr. Additionally, the central hole gradually vanishes in the bar unstable models as stars stream into the centre during the process of bar formation
By contrast, the models for scenario KL are far more susceptible to global instabilities than for scenario K, as the growth of the bar mode is rapid and nearly instantaneous. We therefore rule out models from scenario KL as being unable to properly model the galaxy; this conclusion is a setback for the hypothesis that the Type II SB profile is due to dust extinction.
\subsection{Testing the rotation curve fits}
We next test fits to the gas and stellar rotation curves via a third MCMC chain corresponding to scenario KG. We fit the H$\beta$/\ion{H}{1} rotation curves by assuming that they trace the circular velocity and ignoring the stellar rotation data. The dispersion and surface brightness are fit as in scenario K. The stars will rotate more slowly because of asymmetric drift (Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym}), an effect that is incorporated into the GalactICS disc.
Examining the rotation curve fits in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model}, it is apparent that scenario K cannot reproduce the H$\beta$/\ion{H}{1} data and scenario KG cannot fit the stellar rotation data. Thus, it is likely that scenario K represents a more realistic model for NGC 6503. Note that both runs match the \ion{H}{1} data beyond $\sim3$ kpc, since there is no asymmetric drift at those radii. The other fits, shown by the surface brightness in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendylight-model} and the LOS dispersion in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendygas-model}, are more than satisfactory.
Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-Q} shows that scenario KG displays considerable overlap with scenario K except in the higher mass range. The plot reveals that the best fitting models for this scenario span a large range in $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$, and here some models (albeit very few) extend down to below $Q=1$. However, Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-Q-X} shows that all models for scenario KG are confined to $X_{\mathrm{min}}<2$, unlike for scenario K where many models reside between $X_{\mathrm{min}}=2$ and $X_{\mathrm{min}}=3$. Also unlike scenario K, $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ does not appear to be significantly correlated with $X_{\mathrm{min}}$, and unlike scenario KL, in neither scenario K nor KG do we see $X_{\mathrm{min}}$ drop below 1.
As before, we selected several models from the PDF for scenario KG and evolved them forward in time. The results are found in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-bar}. As for scenario K, most of the available parameter space is bar unstable, with the low mass-high $Q$ part of the plot susceptible only to mild bar formation. Thus, it is not possible to distinguish between runs K and KG on the basis of bar stability alone. Referring back to the rotation curve fits, we see that no models for scenario KG can reproduce the stellar rotation curve because the asymmetric drift is too large. Therefore, we reject models from scenario KG as being inconsistent with the data; however, see \S7.3 for a discussion of the issues involved in calculating the asymmetric drift.
\subsection{Testing the outer exponential fit}
Finally, we test the hypothesis that the underlying disc scale length is given by the outer ($>2$ kpc) portion of the SB profile by only fitting the interior points and the external points of the SB profile with a MCMC chain corresponding to scenario E. The outer cut is made at 2 kpc; $R_d$ is subtly affected by the inclination and differences in scale height, and, moreover, the very tight correlation between $M_d$ and the disc $M/L$ makes it difficult to obtain reasonable acceptance rates with MCMC. Therefore, we manually tested combinations of $R_d$ and $M/L$ to produce the best fit; we adopt a value of $R_d=1.3$ kpc and fix the disc $M/L$ to $0.53M_d$. To avoid biasing the resulting value for $z_d$, we do not include the external disc in our $\chi^2$ calculations. The inner cut is trickier; we have found that small changes to the number of inner points fit may lead to large changes in the resulting bulge parameters. To rectify this issue, we plot the residuals of the surface brightness from a regression line fit of $R_d=1.18$ kpc (Fig.~\ref{fig:sbresiduals}) and only fit the points that lie above the maximum of the Type II hump. At these points, the surface brightness is most assuredly bulge dominated. The stellar rotation is fit as in runs K and KL, along with the \ion{H}{1} data in the outer part, and the velocity dispersion is fit as in the other three runs.
For this run, we assume that the evolution of a disc would generate a ring of star formation that could reproduce the Type II hump. The process of generating this profile would alter the rotation and dispersions, however, and we caution that the kinematics that result may not fit the data as well as the direct fits presented here using MCMC. Accounting for this would require ad hoc selections of what points to fit, or excluding one or more data sets entirely; for example, excluding the stellar rotation and only fitting the \ion{H}{1} data outside 3 kpc. Such a process is probably no more reliable than simply fitting the full data sets, evolving a test model from the PDFs and then determining how well the rotation curve and dispersion profile fit the observed data after evolution. Because we are assuming that a bar is supposed to form in this scenario, unstable models would not rule out this interpretation. However, models with $Q<1$ must be tested separately.
As in scenario KL, the stellar rotation curve is well fit while the circular velocity is larger than the H$\beta$ curve (Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model}). The surface brightness fit is very good over the ranges we wish to fit; the inner eight points and outer exponential are well reproduced (Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendylight-model}). The velocity dispersion profile looks different from that for the previous scenarios since the bulge contributes significantly to the profile. Because of this, the $\sigma-$drop is not properly reproduced (S\'{e}rsic profiles do possess a slight central decline in the velocity dispersion -- see Ciotti 1991 -- but this feature cannot reproduce the observed $\sigma-$drop). Thus, we posit that either an additional nuclear component is responsible for the $\sigma-$drop, or that bar formation in this scenario would generate gas inflow that could reproduce the $\sigma-$drop. The disc contribution to the velocity dispersion is comparatively muted, resulting in a lower overall disc dispersion.
From Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-Q}, we see that scenario E behaves differently than the other scenarios. These models have lower $M_d$ and $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ but Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-Q-X} shows that these models have high $X_{\mathrm{min}}$. Additionally, $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ is reached at larger radii than in the other scenarios (typically, at $\sim2-2.5R_d$), and they have more massive bulges (\S6.4), which may also help inhibit the bar instability.
As before, we selected several models and tested them for bar stability; the results are shown in the bottom right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-bar}. While these models quickly form spiral structure, bar formation is gradual at the low $X_{\mathrm{min}}$ end of the best fit region and there is no evidence of bar formation at larger $X_{\mathrm{min}}$, despite the very low $Q_{\mathrm{min}}$. Because these simulations do not include gas, it is not possible to simulate possible bar destruction by gas inflow, but we can examine the length of the bar that forms. In Fig.~\ref{fig:exp-barlength} we plot the bar strength $A$ as a function of radius at different times for the lowest$-X$ model. This plot provides an estimate of the bar length of $\sim1.5$ kpc at $1.5-2$ Gyr, which is consistent with the location of the Type II hump. We conclude that scenario E is a realistic scenario for the formation of the bar
\section{Further results}
In this section we delineate numerous other results that can be gleaned from the model. Because scenarios KG and KL are ruled out, we focus mainly on the results for scenarios K and E.
\subsection{The disc}
We begin by comparing the photometric and dispersion scale lengths. We find from scenario K that the dispersion scale length is significantly larger than the photometric scale length, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-disclength-sigmalength}.
The mean $R_{\sigma}=2.6$ kpc is also considerably larger than the best fit $R_{\sigma}$ of 1.16 kpc found in \S2, while the photometric scale length is slightly less than the `fit by eye' value of 1 kpc from B89. Note that the dispersion scale length is poorly constrained owing to the size of the error bars in the velocity dispersion data, and that a wide range of $R_{\sigma}$ may produce good fits, as Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-disclength-sigmalength} clearly shows. The large $R_{\sigma}$ results from the low extrapolated central dispersion $\sigma_0$ of only $37$ km s$^{-1}$, much less than found by direct fit in \S2.
In scenario E, by contrast, the dispersion scale length of $R_{\sigma}=0.75$ kpc is much lower than the adopted photometric scale length of $R_d=1.3$ kpc. Here $\sigma_0$ is also very low, but the bulge dispersion is high enough to contribute much more to the dispersion profile than in the other scenarios, as is apparent from Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendygas-model}. Both scenarios suggest that $\sigma_0$ and $R_{\sigma}$ are not well constrained because of the large error bars in the LOS data.
For the scale height $z_d$, we find a value of $0.14\pm0.01$ kpc in scenario K and $0.24\pm0.02$ kpc in scenario E (Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-heightPDF}).
Both of these values are about one-fifth of the photometric scale length in scenarios K and E respectively, and are consistent with observations of the scale height in edge-on disc galaxies \citep{kregeletal}
The posterior PDFs for the hole radius $R_h$ and the Kormendy index $\alpha$ are found in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-alpha-kindex}. We find $R_h=0.7\pm0.1$ kpc and $\alpha=0.9\pm0.1$.
Our value for $\alpha$ is in conflict with Kormendy's (1977) result that $\alpha = 3$ for most galaxies (Baggett et al. 1998 also use $\alpha=3$ for their fits). A value of $\alpha=3$ yields a strong hole and therefore a very large bulge would be needed reproduce the SB profile. However, a large bulge would likely make the dispersion profile fit worse because the bulge is not likely to extend farther out than the highest dispersions at $\sim300$ pc.
We note that all three runs suggest $\alpha\ll 3$; scenarios KL and KG yield $\alpha=0.6$ and $\alpha=1.1$, respectively.
\subsection{The bulge}
The results for the bulge parameters are found in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-index-rb}. For scenario K, we find a bulge radius $r_b$ of $0.16$ kpc and a S\'{e}rsic index $n_b$ of $1.1$, while scenario E yields a larger bulge with $r_b=0.35$ kpc and $n_b=1.9$. For scenarios KL and KG, the S\'{e}rsic index is $\sim0.9$. Scenarios K, KL and KG thus suggest that the bulge of NGC 6503 is nearly exponential. Note that the linear fit $n_b$ given in \S2.1 is consistent with a pure exponential bulge.
Scenario E suggests a cuspier bulge, but even here $n_b\simeq2$, within the range of so-called `pseudobulges' \citep{kormendykennicutt}. Bulges of this type are thought to be generated via internal secular evolution processes -- the gradual buildup of gas in the centre of the galaxy -- rather than violent mergers (see, e.g., Kormendy et al. 2006). Given the NGC 6503 is isolated, secular evolution is likely the dominant evolutionary mechanism. These bulges typically resemble small discs embedded in larger discs -- their morphologies resemble flattened spheroids more than elliptical galaxies and their kinematics are rotationally dominated, but we cannot constrain the rotation of NGC 6503's bulge.
By way of comparison with known properties of bulges in spiral galaxies, the bulge radius is actually larger than found by studies of bulge-to-disc scale length correlation by roughly a factor of 2 \citep{courteauetal}. However, NGC 6503's bulge also displays certain characteristics typical of nuclear clusters, even though its size exceeds typical nuclear clusters by about two orders of magnitude \citep{walcheretal1}. Unlike normal bulges, nuclear clusters are often offset from the dynamical centre of the galaxy \citep{matthewsgallagher}. NGC 6503's bulge displays this phenomenon -- the photometric centre is offset by $\sim100$ pc. Nuclear bulges also have very small mass, typically $\lesssim5\times10^7 M_{\odot}$ \citep{walcheretal1}; the mass of NGC 6503's bulge is only slightly larger. Thus, NGC 6503 has a surprisingly low density bulge. Furthermore, \citet{walcheretal1} find that their nuclear clusters' velocity dispersions are similar to that found in NGC 6503. Their nuclear $M/L_I$ ratios are also consistent with the $M/L_R$ values we find (\S6.4), in that we expect the $M/L_I$ values to be slightly lower than our $M/L_R$ values, which is precisely what occurs. Thus, NGC 6503's bulge properties are consistent with both nuclear clusters and ordinary pseudobulges.
The origin of nuclear bulges is unclear, but it is plausible that they are formed by secular evolution. \citet{walcheretal2} find that repeated episodes of gas infall may contribute to nuclear cluster star formation, which is required to maintain their high luminosity. In the case of scenario E, bar formation may induce gas inflow that would generate a nuclear cluster that could in turn generate the $\sigma-$drop.
The most likely hypothesis is that of a pseudobulge that has a luminous nuclear cluster at the centre dominating the observed light
\subsection{Halo cusps}
The halo cusp $\gamma$ is well-constrained, as Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-cuspPDF} attests. All runs suggest that the halo is cuspy, a result that is therefore quite robust. In the case of runs K and KL,
we find $\gamma=1.2$ and $\gamma=0.9$, respectively.
For scenario KG, we find that $\gamma$ is close to 1 and therefore consistent with a NFW profile; this cusp is flatter than for the equivalent scenario that fits the stellar rotation curve.
Meanwhile, scenario E suggest a very strongly cusped halo with $\gamma=1.4$. Thus, the derived cusp value depends on the density profile of the disc and the choice of rotation curve. Unsurprisingly, a stronger cusp is required to compensate for the lack of central mass in an inner truncated disc. In addition, we find a statistically significant difference in cusp values depending on which rotation curve is fit, but both cases are consistent with or cuspier than cosmological simulations. If the assumption that gas traces the circular velocity is erroneous, then the slope of the circular velocity curve must be steeper at the centre (as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model}), and hence the derived cusp value will be larger. Thus, modelling asymmetric drift correctly is essential to obtaining the correct halo density profile; we discuss possible issues with the asymmetric drift in \S7.3.
To verify that the halo is cuspy, we conducted a MCMC run in which the cusp value was fixed to 0. The resulting rotation curve fit is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:halocusp0}; the fit is clearly very poor. There is a pronounced kink in the rotation curve that is not observed, and neither the gas nor the stellar rotation curves are properly fit. We therefore reject models with $\gamma=0$.
The issue of halo cuspiness remains unsettled. It is often argued that galaxies demonstrate evidence of cored halos \citep{blaisouelletteetal, debloketal}, but many complications present themselves. Some researchers find that the rotation curves used to probe halo central structure are consistent with both cored and cuspy profiles, in part because of the size of the uncertainties \citep{vandenboschswaters, swatersetal, duttonetal, simonetal, spekkensetal}. Further caveats concern the correct interpretation of the rotation curve; the presence of noncircular gas motions, as might be caused by a triaxial halo, and the presence of turbulence caused by supernova feedback and the magnetorotational instability point to the complexity of the problem \citep{hayashietal, rheeetal, valenzuelaetal, tamburroetal}. Some steps towards resolving these issues are taken by Oh et al. 2008, who find that the non-circular motions in their sample cannot rectify the discrepancy. In fact \citet{begeman87} finds that noncircular motions in \ion{H}{1} are small in NGC 6503. However, \citet{tamburroetal} find relatively consistent values of $\sim5-25$ km s$^{-1}$ for the \ion{H}{1} dispersion across their sample of late type galaxies, and the calculated star formation for NGC 6503 (\S5.1) is consistent with their measurements. Therefore it is safe to assume that the \ion{H}{1} dispersion of NGC 6503 is $\sim 5-25$ km s$^{-1}$ and probably driven by supernova-induced turbulence inside the optical radius. Moreover, as noted in \S2.2, the \ion{H}{1} rotation is systematically larger than the H$\beta$ rotation, which suggests that the H$\beta$ rotation is more affected by these issues.
Recent simulations suggest that halo cusps are slightly shallower than previously inferred, with $\gamma=0.9\pm0.1$ \citep{navarroetal}.
However, halos are subject to multiple effects due to baryons that are not accounted for in cosmological simulations, which may help explain why our cusp values are larger than found by Navarro et al.
The full effect of baryonic physics on halo profiles is still poorly understood, but \citet{abadietal} find that the central density increases when more detailed baryonic effects are included. The central density cusp may also be affected by bar formation; \citet{weinbergkatz1} argue that bars are capable of washing out central cusps, an effect seen in \citet{holleybockelmannetal} and \citet{weinbergkatz2}. However, Sellwood (2003, 2008) argues that bar formation can draw mass inward, increasing the strength of the cusp; \citet{dubinskietal} find with their simulations that a live bar maintains the cusp. The differences in cusp evolution may be due to differences in the codes used. If NGC 6503 did once possess a bar, our results argue against a bar-induced cusp flattening in this galaxy
\subsection{Masses and $M/L$ ratios}
The halo mass we find is necessarily limited by the outermost \ion{H}{1} data point at $800''$, and so should be regarded as a lower limit. The outer rotation curve is the primary determinant of the halo mass, so we do not expect significant variations in halo masses across the different runs. We find $M_{20}\sim60\times10^{9}M_{\odot}$ across all scenarios. For scenario K we obtain a $M_d=3.2\pm0.2\times10^{9}M_{\odot}$ and $M_b=7.0\pm1.4\times10^{7}M_{\odot}$.
Larger disc masses are obtained for scenario KL, while the bulge mass is much lower for scenario KG. In scenario E, we find $M_d=3.0\pm0.4\times10^{9}M_{\odot}$ and $M_b=15\pm2\times10^{7}M_{\odot}$.
Unsurprisingly, in all cases the halo accounts for $> 90\% $ of all the galaxy mass, while the bulge mass is too small to significantly impact the stability of the disc, except in scenario E. Whether or not the bulge masses are consistent with other values found in the literature depends on whether the bulge is interpreted as a nuclear cluster (\S6.2).
$M/L$ ratios for the disc and bulge are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-MLdisc} and \ref{fig:kormendyall-bulgemass-MLbulge}. In order to reproduce the $\sigma-$drop, the bulge $M/L$ ratios must be small, as we find in scenarios K, KL and KG, but not E. The first three scenarios show that the bulge $M/L$ is less than 1, while the disc $M/L$ is roughly twice that (for scenario KG, it is an order of magnitude larger). We find the disc $M/L_R$ to be $1.9\pm0.3 $ and the bulge $M/L_R$ to be $0.9\pm0.1$ under scenario K. In scenario E, we fixed the disc $M/L_R$ to be $0.53M_d$, yielding a disc $M/L_R$ of $1.6\pm0.2$ while the bulge $M/L_R$ is $1.2\pm0.1$, which, although larger than 1, is still lower than the disc $M/L_R$.
Our models assume constant $M/L$ throughout the galaxy disc in the absence of a stellar population gradient. In particular, stellar $M/L$ ratios tend to increase in spiral galaxy centres where redder colours prevail \citep{belldejong, dejongbell}. From B89, $B-R$ across two disc scale lengths for NGC 6503 varies from 1.10 to 1.41, correlating with $M/L_R$ ratios of $\sim 1.3-2.7$ using Table 3 of \citet{belldejong}, which is consistent with our findings.
Upper limits to the dynamical $M/L_R$ values were obtained by \citet{broeilscourteau}, who find $M/L_R\lesssim 4$, also consistent with our values.
The $M/L$ values for the bulge do not, by contrast, coincide with other bulge values found in the literature for nearby spiral galaxies. \citet{yoshinoichikawa} generally find that their bulge $M/L$ ratios are larger than their disc values with few exceptions; $M/L_V$ ratios are $\sim 4.5\pm 2.4$ and $M/L_I$ ratios are $\sim 2.7\pm 1.8$. In no case is the bulge $M/L_V$ value lower than 1, and only in a few cases does $M/L_I$ fall below 1. NGC 6503's bulge $M/L$ lies significantly below nearly all the bulges in this sample. However, $M/L$ ratios are highly sensitive to the formation of massive, luminous stars, and our small $M/L$ values, together with the work of \citet{wozniaketal} and \citet{champavertwozniak} showing that $\sigma-$drops can be caused by massive star formation, strongly suggest that the bulge of NGC 6503 has a star-forming component. Thus, the better comparison may be to the nuclear clusters of \citet{walcheretal1}, who find $M/L_I$ ratios that generally lie below 1.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Comparison with earlier work}
B89 and BG97 present dynamical models for NGC 6503, and BG97 test the models for bar stability. In both papers, the mass distribution of the disc is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:expsech} with a scalelength of $R_d=1$ kpc, while the velocity ellipsoid is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:iso}
\sigma_z &=& \sqrt{\pi \Sigma(R) z_d} \\
\label{eq:iso2}
\sigma_R &=& \sigma_z / 0.6 \\
\sigma_{\phi} &=& \sigma_R \sqrt{B/(B-A)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Sigma(R)$ is the projected surface density, $z_d$ is the scale height of the disc, and $A$ and $B$ are the Oort constants \citep{vanderkruitsearle}. The expression for $\sigma_z$ is obtained for an isolated isothermal disc, while the relationship between $\sigma_R$ and $\sigma_{\phi}$ comes from the epicycle equations. However, the relationship between $\sigma_R$ and $\sigma_z$ is an extrapolation from the observed value in our solar neighbourhood. We return to this assumption in \S7.2.
B89 also examined a second model in which $Q$ is held constant throughout the disc \citep{carlbergsellwood}. For this model, the radial dispersion obeys
\begin{equation}
\sigma_R \propto \frac{\rho}{\kappa}\exp(-R/R_d)\left(B(B-A)\right)^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}
Both models yield reasonable fits (the former is slightly better), but cannot reproduce the $\sigma-$drop. To reproduce a borderline stable disc where $Q=1.7$ \citep{sellwoodcarlberg}, B89 finds that the disc $M/L$ must be $1.7\pm0.3$ in the $B-$band, which is consistent with our findings.
BG97 model the galaxy in more detail and provide stability studies. They adopt the gas rotation curve as the fundamental input to their simulations and assume an isothermal, cored halo profile along with the disc from B89. They vary the disc to halo mass ratio to investigate the stability properties of the galaxy; $Q$ declines slightly from the lowest disc to halo mass ratio to the highest.
The dispersions of the isolated disc scale with the square root of its surface density (Eqs.~\ref{eq:iso} and \ref{eq:iso2}), but the process of embedding the disc in a dark halo modifies the dispersions. BG97 find that embedding the isolated disc in the halo allowed the settling process at the beginning of the $N-$body simulations to rearrange the dispersions itself.\footnote{BG97 attempted to account for the embedding: $\sigma_z$ can be modified by a factor $F(\epsilon)$ accounting for the relative halo contribution, where
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \left(\rho_{\mathrm{halo}}^{z=0} - \frac{1}{4\pi R}\frac{\partial (v_C^2)}{\partial R}\right)/\left(\rho_{\mathrm{disc}}^{z=0}\right).
\end{equation}
The result is that when $\epsilon$ is less than 0 (as it could be near the centre where $\frac{\partial}{\partial R}v_c^2$ is very large) the dispersion can decrease upon embedding, while large values of $\epsilon$ cause the dispersions to increase.
BG97 dropped this factor for the models discussed in that paper and used the isolated disc dispersions (Bottema, private communication).} The result is an initial central outflow in the simulations, leading to a decrease in the dispersions, more-or-less naturally accounting for the observed disc dispersion of NGC 6503. BG97 find that their two lightest discs remain stable to bars, but are unable to reproduce the $\sigma-$drop.
Visible on Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-Q} are the points corresponding to the models used by BG97. They are located well above the $2\sigma$ confidence interval. The discrepancy occurs because $Q$ is obtained from the radial dispersion $\sigma_R$, which, in BG97's models, is directly coupled to the surface density (cf. Eqs.~\ref{eq:iso} and \ref{eq:iso2}). Thus, BG97's $\sigma_R$ is determined by the disc surface density, which is not the case for the GalactICS model.
Their Fig.~9 shows that, after settling,
their minimum $Q-$values decline so that they fall in line with our PDF in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-discmass-Q}. Thus, their $M_d-Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ data points are consistent with our $M_d-Q_{\mathrm{min}}$ PDF. However, their discs do not display bar formation, while ours do; there are two possible reasons for this. First, from Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendyall-bar}, most of our models only develop a bar after $\sim 2 $ Gyr, while BG97 evolved their simulations for $\sim 1.3$ Gyr. Second, and more importantly, it is now known that live halos can trigger bar formation \citep{athanassoula02}; BG97 used rigid halo potentials for their simulations, so this bar formation trigger is not in play. We evolved one of our bar unstable models in exactly the way described in \S5, except the number of disc particles was reduced to 40K. We found that the bar formation in this model was delayed by $\sim 1-2$ Gyr, suggesting that sufficient numerical resolution is needed to capture the correct evolution. This is consistent with halo-triggered bar formation, because inadequate numerical resolution will fail to resolve the resonant interactions required for this mechanism.
\subsection{The ratio of velocity dispersions}
The ratio $\sigma_z/\sigma_R=0.6$ is an observation of the solar neighbourhood. Should this ratio hold at all radii in a general disc galaxy? \citet{gerssenetal1} and \citet{gerssenetal2} find that the ratio is closer to 0.7 for NGC 488 and to 0.85 for NGC 2985, and \citet{westfalletal} find that the ratio is also high for NGC 3949 and NGC 3982 (the latter's vertical dispersion is larger than its radial dispersion). Theoretical studies of the dispersion ratio have been carried out by \citet{idaetal} and \citet{shiidsukaida}, who find that $\sigma_R/\sigma_z \sim 0.6$ is roughly correct provided that $\kappa/\Omega \lesssim 1.5$; higher values of $\kappa/\Omega$ imply higher $\sigma_z$ values. This condition is probably satisfied in the centres of galaxies, and it would therefore be unreasonable to extend a fixed ratio of velocity dispersions across the entire disc. In fact, one might surmise that the reason for the central outflow in BG97's heavier discs is the incorrect ratio of velocity dispersions there.
To examine the velocity dispersion ratio for NGC 6503, we took the fiducial best fit model for NGC 6503 (that is, the means from Table~\ref{table:resultsall}) and all models used to test bar stability and calculated the ratio as a function of radius. The results are found in Fig.~\ref{fig:dispersionratio}. NGC 6503's dispersion ratio depends critically on the assumed model -- scenario K exhibits a nearly linear decline with radius in which $\sigma_z/\sigma_R>0.6$ within two disc scale lengths. There is no indication of flattening that would justify adopting a single value over the entire disc, and very little scatter. Scenarios E, KL and KG display considerably more scatter, although only scenario KG displays anything close to a relatively constant ratio of 0.6 over a significant range; models from scenario KG appear to converge to $\sigma_z/\sigma_R\sim0.6$ at small radii, but the scatter increases at larger radii. The shape and slope of the curve is critically dependent on the choice of $R_d$ and $R_{\sigma}$; in scenario K, $R_d\ll R_{\sigma}$, which drags down the dispersion ratio at outer radii. If we set $R_{\sigma}$ to be 50\% of the fiducial value, the ratio would fall less rapidly with radius but would still not be constant. Note that when $R_d=R_{\sigma}$ the ratio is constant by Eqs.~\ref{eq:iso} and \ref{eq:iso2}, although this may not hold in an embedded disc. Overall, we find that a constant dispersion ratio does not apply for this galaxy.
\subsection{The relationship between asymmetric drift, stability and cusp value}
The issues of cusps, asymmetric drift and stability are intertwined because all hinge on the reliability of rotation curve data and all depend on a full accounting of effects that alter the interpretation of the rotation curve. As already indicated, it is inappropriate to assume that the gas rotation traces the gravitational potential, implying that: (1) the difference between the gas and stellar rotation curves is not a measure of the asymmetric drift; (2) the gas rotation cannot be used to assess the cusp value; and (3) the proper choice of rotation curve to model is critical to finding the correct stability region. As noted in \S2.2, the theoretical asymmetric drift (Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym}) is much larger than the difference between the gas and stellar rotation curves. We have conducted separate MCMC runs in which we fit both the gas rotation curve as a tracer of the circular velocity \emph{and} the stellar velocity. This only yields models with $Q<1$, because of the very low asymmetric drift implied by the nearly coincident rotation curves. Such models, when simulated, display sharp instabilities including disc fragmentation and cannot reproduce the observed properties of the galaxy. Our preference for fitting the stellar rotation curve and finding that gas cannot be assumed to trace to circular velocity is corroborated by \citet{pizzellaetal}. They analyse rotation curves of LSB galaxies and find that stellar rotation curves are much more regular and amenable to modelling than gas curves, which suffer from numerous issues including noncircular and vertical motions that affect their speeds relative to the circular velocity.
The impact on the cusp value is notable because, if gas does not trace the gravitational potential, the circular velocity is steeper in the centre than the slope of the gas rotation. Assuming that the gas traces the gravitational potential will therefore lower the inferred cusp value. This is a possible source of error in early work assessing the observed cusp value in LSB galaxies, as small changes in central slope can lead to large changes in the cusp value or possibly imply a cored halo ($\gamma=0$). We avoid this problem by using a model that follows the
stellar kinematics with asymmetric drift incorporated self-consistently.
Once the gas asymmetric drift is properly accounted for by including a full treatment of noncircular motions and turbulence, gas rotation curves should be as reliable as stellar rotation curves. Detailed measurements of the \ion{H}{1} dispersion in spiral galaxies are becoming more common and will aid the modelling of gas kinematics. For example, \citet{boomsmaetal} obtain the high resolution \ion{H}{1} velocity map for NGC 6946, finding dispersions of $\sim 6-13$ km s$^{-1}$, high velocity \ion{H}{1} clumps that lag the disc rotation, and hundreds of ``holes'' in the \ion{H}{1} distribution which are likely due to star formation. We surmise that modelling these phenomena and determining the impact on derived galaxy parameters is a nontrivial exercise. However, while easier to model than the gas asymmetric drift, the stellar asymmetric drift is also subject to several complications, a few of which we now address.
Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym} is derived assuming an exponential disc, cylindrical alignment of the velocity ellipsoid and $R_d=R_{\sigma}$. With an inner truncated disc and $R_d\neq R_{\sigma}$, the asymmetric drift becomes
\begin{equation}
v_a = \frac{\sigma_R^2}{2v_c}\left[\frac{R}{R_d}+\frac{R}{R_{\sigma}}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{R}{v_s}\frac{\partial v_s}{\partial R} + 1\right) - 1 - \alpha\left(\frac{R_h}{R}\right)^{\alpha}\right].
\label{eq:vasym1}
\end{equation}
If we now assume that the velocity ellipsoid is spherically aligned, we obtain
\begin{equation}
v_a = \frac{\sigma_R^2}{2v_c}\left[\frac{R}{R_d}+\frac{R}{R_{\sigma}}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{R}{v_s}\frac{\partial v_s}{\partial R} + 1\right) - \alpha\left(\frac{R_h}{R}\right)^{\alpha} - 2 + \frac{\sigma_z^2}{\sigma_R^2}\right].
\label{eq:vasym2}
\end{equation}
This expression will match Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym1} only if $\sigma_z=\sigma_R$, which is not generally the case (\S7.2). Both expressions reduce the asymmetric drift relative to what Eq.~\ref{eq:vasym} predicts; in particular, the addition of an inner truncation reduces the expected drift significantly in the inner parts. The size of the change is only a few km s$^{-1}$, but it is still a significant fraction of the predicted drift. This is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:vasym}, in which the effects of adding an inner truncation and spherical alignment of the velocity ellipsoid are examined. It is noteworthy that the inner truncation can effectively wipe out the asymmetric drift over a large range in radius; a similar effect is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model}. For Fig.~\ref{fig:vasym}, we use the fiducial values for scenario K found in Table~\ref{table:resultsall}. Note that the increased asymmetric drifts at larger radii are due to the large $R_{\sigma}$ of this scenario, and the asymmetric drift expression breaks down inside $\sim0.5R_d$. We test cases in which $R_{\sigma}$ is reduced to 50\% of the fiducial value and find that the asymmetric drift is reduced in the outer part. Thus, as is evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:vasym}, a combination of factors can serve to reduce the asymmetric drift nearly to the observed values in this galaxy. One should keep in mind that the sensitivity of the asymmetric drift expression to such changes means that the predicted drifts may fluctuate wildly depending on the assumptions.
Because of these issues, the circular velocity derived in scenarios K, KL and E may be larger than the true circular velocity. These caveats further suggest that the asymmetric drift found in scenario KG may be smaller than seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:kormendy-model}, and hence that scenario KG may be potentially viable. Without more information about the asymmetric drift in real galaxies, it is impossible to claim that scenario KG is definitely unrealistic; however, scenarios K and E remain our preferred models for this galaxy.
\subsection{Evidence for a bar}
Recent work by \citet{freelandetal} suggests that NGC 6503 may possess a nuclear disc of radius $\sim100$ pc and an end-on bar; deprojection of their $H-$band image of NGC 6503 shows a bar like structure perpendicular to the major axis with clear spiral arms emanating from the ends. This scenario is consistent with our scenario E. It would moreover explain the $\sigma-$drop because of star formation at the centre caused by bar induced gas inflow and because diagnostics from \citet{bureauathanassoula} suggest that end-on bars may generate $\sigma-$drops. These findings are compelling evidence for a bar in NGC 6503. Notably, these authors also estimate the age of the star formation ring at $\sim 0.5$ Gyr, which is well below the timescale for bar destruction determined by \citet{bournaudetal} of $\sim1$ Gyr.
The presence of a bar in NGC 6503 is unlikely to change our main conclusions because it is end on. There is no clear kinematic indicator of bar structure in the stellar or ionized gas rotation curve; we expect that the measured values are largely unaffected by the bar since only a small region of the slit used for observation would have intersected the bar. Part of the $\sigma-$drop could be due to the bar, and thus the bulge
may not be as large and have as low a density as found in \S6.2. Other bulge parameters are less likely to be affected by the bar; in particular, the conclusion that there is a star forming component in the galaxy centre is unchanged.
\section{Conclusion}
We have deployed a Bayesian/Markov chain Monte Carlo technique to model the disc galaxy NGC 6503. We find models for NGC 6503 that satisfy the observational constraints using this technique, and are able to constrain the input parameters. The data includes a Freeman Type II surface brightness profile, ionized gas and \ion{H}{1} rotation curves, the stellar rotation curve and the stellar line of sight velocity dispersion. Four different scenarios were considered: an inner truncated disc, an exponential disc with dust, a model in which gas traces the gravitational potential, and a model in which the true underlying disc scale length is revealed in the outermost portion of the surface brightness profile. We find that the second scenario leads to models that strongly bar unstable, and the third scenario cannot reproduce the stellar rotation curve. The first scenario provides the best fit to the data and is most likely to offer the bar stability required to correctly model the galaxy, but the last scenario also provides a realistic model for the galaxy.
Further properties of the galaxy are discerned; the bulge is a pseudobulge, and the bulge $M/L$ is lower than the disc $M/L$, suggesting a star forming component that is probably responsible for the $\sigma-$drop. We also find that the halo must be cusped with $\gamma\gtrsim1$, a result that is robust to all fitting methods. The Bayesian/MCMC technique used to discover these results is robust and flexible; we find it to be an effective tool for fitting galaxy models in complex parameter spaces.
\acknowledgements
We thank K. Spekkens, P. Teuben, R. Bottema, J. Dubinski, M. Bershady and C. Arsenault for useful and informative discussions. S.C. and L.M.W. wish to acknowledge support through respective Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Seeking for simple laws and regularities in human activity,
researchers belonging to various disciplines aim to study social
phenomena by describing them with methods from natural sciences.
Since communication plays a predominant role in social systems, it is
desired to obtain better insight into the nature of communication
patterns -- and therefore to understand both, communication itself
and the social systems. Although it is clear that communication
is related to the embedment in social networks, the actual dynamical
processes are still poorly understood.
Studying economic data, surprising growth patterns have been
identified \cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996}, which seem to be abundant in
systems with growth-like features
\cite{CanningALMS1998,PlerouAGMS1999,LiljerosF2003,MatiaALMS2005,PicoliM2008,RozenfeldRABSM2008,WangYHS2009}.
Considering the units of a system of interest and calculating their
logarithmic growth rates between two time steps, it was found that the
standard deviation of the growth rates decays as a power-law with
the initial size \cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996}.
This finding represents a violation of Gibrat's law
\cite{GibratR1931,SuttonJ1997,MitzenmacherM2004}
stating that the average and the standard deviation of the growth rate of a
given economic indicator are constant and independent of the specific
indicator value, see also \cite{RozenfeldRABSM2008}.
In a recent study \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} we have found
several scaling laws characterizing the communication activity in
online social networks. We found the existence of long-term
correlations in human activity of sending messages to other members
in the social network. The long-term persistence is related to the
fluctuations in the growth properties of the social network as
measured by the cumulative number of message sent by the members.
The present paper expands this previous work by studying the messages
sent in two online social networks with respect to the following
properties. First, we extend the results obtained in
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}, revealing the analogue correlations in the
timing of receiving messages.
Furthermore, we analyze the temporal correlations of the activity on
directed links, i.e. between pairs of members, and find almost
identical results as on the level of the single members.
Second, in line with \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} we study the growth of the
cumulative communication activity of the members in terms of the
cumulative numbers of messages sent and received. In
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009} we have shown that the standard deviation of the
growth rates of the cumulative number of messages sent by individuals
depend on the 'size' of the member (defined as the cumulative numbers
of messages) following a power-law with exponent $\beta\approx 0.2$,
significantly different from the random exponent $\beta_{\rm
rnd}=1/2$, indicating nontrivial fluctuations and persistence in the
human communication activity in the social networks. Here we further
study the distribution of the logarithmic growth rates and find
exponential decays similarly to those encountered in econophysics
\cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996}.
Third, in order to understand the relation between the long-term
correlations and growth fluctuations, we propose a simulation approach
based on peaks over threshold modeling. Using artificially generated
long-term correlated sequences, a message is sent when the record
exceeds a predefined threshold. Numerically, we measure the long-term
correlations characterized by the exponent $H$ as well as growth
fluctuations characterized by $\beta$ and find that the relation
connecting both exponents proposed in \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} holds.
Fourth, we introduce a new growth rate between any pair of members
quantifying the mutual growth in the number of messages. We find that
the corresponding growth fluctuations follow a power-law with similar
exponent as for the 'normal' growth rates. We motivate that the
exponent might be related to cross-correlations in the activity of the
members.
Fifth, in addition to the temporal correlations, we investigate the
total number of messages sent or received and the total in- and
out-degree (i.e. the number of \emph{different} members from
which a member receives or to whom he/she sends).
We find that the total degree and the final number of messages are
correlated following a power-law with exponent close to $0.75$.
In the case of final in- vs. out-degree, deviations from the linear
correlations are found.
Finally, we point out that there is also
a relation between our results on growth fluctuations and
long-range correlations ($\beta$ and $H$, respectively) and the
existence of power-law distributed inter-event times characterized
by the exponent $\delta$ \cite{BarabasiAL2005} leading to the
clustering and bursts in the activity of members. This connection is
explored in a follow-up paper \cite{RybskiBHLM5a}.
Our results have important implications for the design of
communication systems. The correlations can be elaborated to better
predict information propagation, see e.g. \cite{KarsaiKPKKBS2010}. In
addition, the characterization of fluctuations is essential for the
knowledge of uncertainty. Our approach could be also applied in
natural systems such as in the context of protein unfolding
\cite{BrujicHWF2006}.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:data} we briefly
describe the data of messages sent in two online communities.
Our results are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis} which is
organized in four sub-sections -- discussing long-term correlations,
growth fluctuations, modeling, and other correlations.
Finally, we draw our conclusions in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Data}
\label{sec:data}
We analyze the timing of messages sent in two Internet communities
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009,GallosRLHM2011}.
The data of the first online community (www.qx.se, QX)
\footnotemark[0]\footnotetext[0]{The study of the de-identified dating
site network data was approved by the Regional Ethical Review board
in Stockholm, record 2005/5:3.}
consists of over
$80,000$~members and more than $12.5$~million messages sent during
$63$~days (mid November 2005 until mid January 2006).
The data of the second online community (www.pussokram.com, POK)
covers 492 days
(February 2001 until June 2002) of activity with more than
500,000 messages sent among almost 30,000 members
\cite{HolmeP2003,HolmeLEK2003,HolmeEL2004}.
This corresponds to the entire lifespan of the social network.
Both web-sites are used for dating and general social interactions.
The QX community is used mainly by Swedish gay and lesbian while
POK was targeted to Swedish teenagers and young adults. All data
are completely anonymous, lack any message content and consist only of
the time when the messages are sent and identification numbers of the
senders and receivers. The advantage of these data sets is that they
provide the exact time when the messages were sent -- in contrast to
similar network data sets consisting only of snapshots,
i.e. temporally aggregated social networks expressing who sent
messages to whom (see \cite{GallosRLHM2011} for a discussion).
Similarly to other online communities, the members can log in and meet
virtually. There are different ways of interacting in these
communities. Common among most of such online communities is the
possibility to choose favorites, i.e. a list of other members, that a
person somehow feels committed to. In addition, the platforms offer
the possibility to join groups and discuss with other members about
specific topics. We focus on the messages sent among the
members. These messages are similar to e-mails but have the advantage
that they are sent within a closed community where there are no
messages coming from or going outside.
From the message data one can also build networks,
which consist of links connecting nodes.
We consider the members as nodes and set a directed link from node
\texttt{a} to \texttt{b} when member \texttt{a} sends at least
one message to \texttt{b}.
The degree, $k$, of a node is the number of other nodes it is connected to,
i.e. the number of links it has.
In the directed case one distinguishes between
out-degree (number of out-going links) and
in-degree (number of in-going links).
\section{Analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}
\subsection{Long-term correlations}
\label{subsec:resltc}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dfaaveall-bin_d1_v2.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:dfaaveallbind1v2}
Comparison of fluctuation functions in (a)~daily and (b)~weekly resolution of
members sending messages in POK.
The different curves correspond to different activity levels:
$M=$1-2, 3-7, 8-20, 21-54, 55-148, 149-403, 404-1096, 1097-2980
total messages (from bottom to top).
The curves in (b) have been shifted along the $\Delta t$ axis
to match daily resolution.
In both cases the asymptotic scaling is the same.
The dotted lines correspond to the exponents $H=1$ (top) and $H=1/2$ (bottom).
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{oc1dfaaveall-bin_fit_2.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2}
Fluctuation exponents of the communication activity (a)~sending and
(b)~receiving messages by members of QX.
The exponents are plotted as a function of the activity level~$M$,
i.e. total number of messages,
for the original data (green circles), and
individually shuffled sequences (orange diamonds).
See also~\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{oc2dfaaveall-bin_fit_2.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:oc2dfaaveallbinfit2}
Fluctuation exponents of the communication activity (a)~sending and
(b)~receiving messages by members of POK (weekly resolution).
The exponents are plotted as a function of the activity level~$M$ for
the original data (green circles), and
individually shuffled sequences (orange diamonds).
See also~\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
First, we define the activity record, $\mu_j(t)$, counting
the number of messages member~$j$ sends at day/week~$t$.
Thus, we study the activity that is aggregated at
the daily or weekly level.
This is done to avoid possible oscillations that are observed in the data
at both frequencies.
In a previous study \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} we have applied
Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA)
\cite{PengBHSSG94,BundeHKPPV00,KantelhardtKRHB01}
and found that the activity records, $\mu(t)$,
exhibit long-term correlations, which are characterized by a
power-law decaying auto-correlation function,
\begin{eqnarray}
C(\Delta t) & = & \frac{1}{\sigma_\mu^2}\left\langle
\left[\mu(t)-\langle\mu(t)\rangle\right]
\left[\mu(t+\Delta t)-\langle\mu(t)\rangle\right]
\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& \sim & (\Delta t)^{-\nu} \nonumber
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where~$\langle\mu(t)\rangle$ is the average of the record~$\mu(t)$,
$\sigma_\mu$ is its standard deviation, and
$\nu$ is the correlation exponent ($1\ge\nu\ge0$).
The fluctuation function provided by DFA scales as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FsimH}
F(\Delta t)\sim (\Delta t)^H
\end{equation}
where the exponent~$H$ is similar
to the Hurst exponent
($1/2\le H\le 1$, larger exponents correspond to
more pronounced long-term correlations).
It is related to the correlation exponent via
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:h1g2}
\nu=2-2H
\, .
\end{equation}
For uncorrelated or short-term correlated records the asymptotic
fluctuation exponent is $H=1/2$
(for a review we refer to \cite{KantelhardtJW2010}).
In order to study the activity with respect to long-term correlations,
we apply second order DFA (DFA2)
\cite{BundeHKPPV00,KantelhardtKRHB01}
[linear detrending of $\mu_j(t)$]
and obtain the fluctuation functions, $F^j_{\rm DFA2}(\Delta t)$
(details can be found in \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}).
Since the activity records of the individual members are too short,
we average the squared fluctuation functions among members with
similar overall activity (i.e. total number of messages, $M$):
$F(\Delta t)=[\sum_{j|M}(F^j(\Delta t))^2]^{1/2}$.
Therefore, we employ logarithmic bins in $M$.
The activity distributions are discussed in Sec.~\ref{ssubsec:distributions}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:dfaaveallbind1v2} we compare for sending in
POK the fluctuation functions in
daily resolution [Fig.~\ref{fig:dfaaveallbind1v2}(a)] and
weekly resolution [Fig.~\ref{fig:dfaaveallbind1v2}(b)].
In order to match the scales, we have shifted the curves in
Fig.~\ref{fig:dfaaveallbind1v2}(b) along the $\Delta t$-axis.
Naturally, in daily resolution, the fluctuation functions cover more scales.
The asymptotic scaling is in both cases the same,
namely no correlations in the case of
least active members and strong long-term correlations with
fluctuation exponents close to $1$ for the most active members.
Moreover, for POK in daily resolution,
the fluctuation functions exhibit an increase
from small slopes on short time scales to larger slopes on large scales.
This indicates that the long-term correlations do
not vanish after certain scale, but the opposite, the long-term
correlations become stronger.
Note, that we use weekly resolution in order to cope with
possible weekly oscillations \cite{GolderWH2006,LeskovecH2008,MalmgrenSMA2008}.
We measure the fluctuation exponents by applying least squares fits to
$\log F(\Delta t)$ vs. $\log \Delta t$ on the scales
$10<\Delta t<63$\,days (QX) and $10<\Delta t<70$\,weeks (POK).
For the former case the obtained fluctuation exponents are
plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2}
as a function of the members activity level,
i.e. their total number of messages~$M$.
For sending [panel~(a)], the less active members
exhibit uncorrelated behavior.
The more messages the members send overall, the stronger correlated
is their activity.
The fluctuation exponent~$H_{\rm QX}$ increases
with~$M$ and reaches values up to $0.75\pm 0.05$ (sending).
In contrast, for the shuffled data, the fluctuation
exponents are always very close to $1/2$.
This confirms that the long-term correlations are due to the
temporal structure of the times each member sends his/her messages,
see also \cite{RybskiBHLM5a}.
For receiving messages, Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2}(b),
we find almost identical results.
The error bars in Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2} were calculated by
subdividing the groups of different activity level.
The size of the error bars is simply the standard deviation of the
corresponding exponents.
The estimated fluctuation exponents obtained for POK are displayed in
Fig.~\ref{fig:oc2dfaaveallbinfit2}.
Qualitatively, we obtain a similar picture as for QX.
However, in contrast to QX, here the original records achieve larger
fluctuation exponents up to $0.91 \pm 0.04$
(sending), disregarding the last points which carry large error-bars.
A possible reason for these different maximum exponents
could be that in the case of POK the data covers a much longer period of
data acquisition, and possible non-stationarities \cite{VazquezA2007}.
In QX, the members might not have had enough time to exhibit the full
extend of their persistence, while in POK we follow the entire
evolution of the online community.
Indeed, similar behavior of long-term correlations have been
found in traded values of stocks and e-mail communication
\cite{EislerK2006,EislerBK2008},
where the fluctuation exponent increases in an analogous way with
the mean trading activity of the corresponding stock or with the
average number of e-mails (see also \cite{RochaLH2010}).
Apart from these, for human related data,
long-term persistence has been reported for
physiological records \cite{PengMHHSG1993,IvanovBAHFBSG1999,BundeHKPPV00},
written language \cite{KosmidisKA2006},
or for records generated by collective behavior such as
finance and economy \cite{LiuGCMPS1999,MantegnaS1999,LuxA2002},
Ethernet traffic \cite{LelandTWW1994},
Wikipedia access \cite{KaempfTKM2011},
as well as highway traffic \cite{TadakiKNNSSY2006,XiaoYanZHM2007}.
There are also indications of long-term correlations in
human brain activity \cite{LinkenkaerHansenNPI2001,AllegriniMBFGGWP2009} and
human motor activity \cite{IvanovHHSS2007}.
A question that arises is, why the fluctuation exponent
(in Figs.~\ref{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2} and~\ref{fig:oc2dfaaveallbinfit2})
depends on the activity level of the members, that is,
why the least active members exhibit no persistence
while the most active members exhibit strong persistence.
We argue that if only few messages appear in the whole period of
data acquisition, long-term persistence cannot be reflected.
In these cases it is quite possible that much longer records and higher
aggregation level such as months or years would be needed to reveal the
persistence. But doing so, there would be other members with even less messages
which then again would probably appear with seemingly uncorrelated
message signals.
Thus, we propose that the exponents of the largest activity reflect
more accurately the scaling behavior of human communication activity.
In Sec.~\ref{sssec:model}
we propose statistical simulations to generate data using
peaks over threshold (POT) and find that it supports
this perception.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{oc1dfalnk.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:oc1dfalnk}
Temporal correlations in the daily amount of messages on \emph{directed links}
in QX.
(a)~DFA2 fluctuation functions versus the time scale $\Delta t$, averaged
conditional to the final number of messages of each link.
The different curves correspond to different activity levels:
$M_{\rm L}=$1-2, 3-7, 8-20, 21-54, 55-148, 149-403, 404-1096, 1097-2980
(from bottom to top).
The dotted lines correspond to the exponents $H=0.75$~(top) and
$H=1/2$~(bottom).
(b)~The DFA2 fluctuation exponent $H_{\rm L, QX}$ obtained from~(a)
is plotted as a function of the activity level~$M_{\rm L}$.
The exponents were obtained in the range of scales $10\le \Delta t\le63$\,days.
The activity along directed links comprise similar long-term correlations
as the total activity of individual members to all of their acquaintances.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
At this point we need to mention that long-term correlations can be related
to broad inter-event time distributions,
i.e. the times between successive messages of individual members.
Such distributions have been investigated,
see e.g. \cite{BarabasiAL2005,MalmgrenSCA2009}, but there is no consensus
on the functional form.
We study the inter-event time distributions in a different
publication \cite{RybskiBHLM5a} where we demonstrate the
connection with the long-term correlations found here.
\subsubsection*{Along directed links}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfalnk} we study for QX the long-term correlations
in activity not on the sender or receiver (node) level
but on the level of messages along directed links.
This means that we track when a message is sent directed
between two members but
separately for any pair of members, such as
\texttt{a}$\rightarrow$\texttt{b},
\texttt{b}$\rightarrow$\texttt{a},
\texttt{a}$\rightarrow$\texttt{d}, \dots.
Accordingly, we determine the activity records
$\mu_{\texttt{ab}}(t)$, $\mu_{\texttt{ba}}(t)$, $\mu_{\texttt{ad}}(t)$, etc.,
expressing how many messages have been sent each day/week, $t$, between
any pair of members.
Analogous, there is also an activity level for the links,
$M^{\texttt{ab}}_{\rm L}$, \dots
(we disregard those pairings without activity).
Then we perform the analogous analysis for long-term correlations by
applying DFA2 and averaging among pairings with similar
overall activity
(the distributions of activity are discussed in
Sec.~\ref{ssubsec:distributions}).
The fluctuation functions in Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfalnk}(a) have
asymptotic slopes close to $1/2$ for those links with few total number of
messages.
In contrary, those links with many total number of messages exhibit
long-term correlations with exponents up to~$0.74$.
The fluctuation exponents as a function of the activity level~$M_{\rm L}$
are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfalnk}(b).
Apart from the fact, that by definition the number of messages on the most
active links is lower (or equal) than the number of messages of the most active
members, the curve looks very similar to the one in
Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2}(a),
in particular the maximum exponents are quite similar
($H_{\rm QX}\approx 0.75$ and $H_{\rm L, QX}\approx 0.74$).
This indicates, that the persistence in the communication
may be dominated by the communication activity with the most liked
partners.
In \cite{HidalgoR2008} a different concept of persistence links has been
investigated. The period of data acquisition is partitioned into time slices
in each of which a network is built. Then the persistence is defined as the
normalized number of time slices in which a certain link appears.
However, the approach of our work is not compatible with the one in
\cite{HidalgoR2008} and we cannot directly compare the results.
\subsection{Growth process}
\label{subsec:resgrw}
\subsubsection{Growth in the number of messages}
\label{ssubsec:resgrwmes}
As suggested in \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} we also analyze the growth properties of
the message activity.
This concept is borrowed from econophysics, where the growth of companies
has been found to exhibit non-trivial scaling laws \cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996},
that in particular violate the original Gibrat's law
\cite{GibratR1931,SuttonJ1997,MitzenmacherM2004,SaichevMS2009}
and at the same time represents a generalized Gibrat's law (GGL)
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
In the present study, each member is considered as a unit and the number of
messages sent or received since the beginning of data acquisition represents
its size.
We analyze the growth in the number of messages in analogy to other
systems such as the growth of companies
\cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996,AmaralBHSS1998} or
the growth of cities \cite{RozenfeldRABSM2008,RozenfeldRGM2009}.
The analogy is supported by some aspects:
(i) The members of a community represent a population similar to the
population of a country.
(ii) The number of members fluctuates and typically grows analogous to the
number of cities of a country.
(iii) The activity or number of links of individuals fluctuates and
grows similar to the size of cities.
The cumulative number, $m^j(t)$, expresses how many messages have been
sent by a certain member~$j$ up to a given time~$t$ [for a better
readability we will not write the index~$j$ explicitly, $m(t)$].
We consider the evolution of $m(t)$ between times~$t_0$ and~$t_1$
within the period of data acquisition~$T$ ($t_0<t_1\le T$)
as a growth process, where each member exhibits a
specific growth rate~$r_j$ ($r$~for short notation):
\begin{equation}
r=\ln\frac{m_1}{m_0}
\, ,
\label{eq:rlnm1m0}
\end{equation}
where $m_0\equiv m(t_0)$ and $m_1\equiv m(t_1)$ are the number of
messages sent until $t_0$ and $t_1$, respectively, by every member.
To characterize the dynamics of the activity, we consider two
measures.
(i) The conditional average growth rate, $\langle r(m_0)\rangle$,
quantifies the average growth of the number of messages sent by the
members between~$t_0$ and~$t_1$ depending on the initial number of
messages, $m_0$.
In other words, we consider the average growth rate of only those members
that have sent~$m_0$ messages until~$t_0$.
(ii) The conditional standard deviation of the growth rate for those members
that have sent~$m_0$ messages until~$t_0$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(m_0)\equiv\sqrt{\langle(r(m_0)-\langle r(m_0)\rangle)^2\rangle}
\, ,
\end{equation}
expresses the statistical spread or fluctuation of growth among the members
depending on $m_0$.
Both quantities are relevant in the context of Gibrat's law in economics
\cite{GibratR1931,SuttonJ1997,MitzenmacherM2004,SaichevMS2009}
which proposes a proportionate growth process entailing the assumption
that the average and the standard deviation of the growth rate of a
given economic indicator are constant and independent of the specific
indicator value.
That is, both $\langle r(m_0)\rangle$ and $\sigma(m_0)$ are independent of
$m_0$.
As shown in \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}, for the message data
the conditional average growth rate is
almost constant and only decreases slightly,
\begin{equation}
\langle r(m_0)\rangle \sim m_0^{-\alpha}
\, ,
\label{eq:rmosimm0a}
\end{equation}
with an exponent $\alpha\approx 0.05$.
This means that members with many messages in average
increase their number of messages almost with the same rate as members with few
messages. In contrast, the conditional standard deviation clearly decreases with
increasing $m_0$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(m_0) \sim m_0^{-\beta}
\label{eq:sm0simmob}
\, ,
\end{equation}
where $t_0=T/2$ is optimal in terms statistics.
In this case the exponents $\beta_{\rm QX}=0.22\pm 0.01$ and
$\beta_{\rm POK}=0.17\pm 0.03$ for sending messages
were found \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
This means, although the average growth rate almost does not depend
on $m_0$, the conditional standard deviation of the growth of members
with many messages is smaller than the one of members with few messages.
Due to weaker fluctuations, active members are relatively
better predictable in their activity of sending messages.
It has been shown that the fluctuation exponent~$H$ and the
growth fluctuation exponent~$\beta$ are related via
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}
\begin{equation}
\beta=1-H
\, .
\label{eq:beta1h}
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eq:beta1h}) is a scaling law formalizing the relation
between growth and long-term correlations in the activity.
According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta1h}), the original Gibrat's law
($\beta_{\rm G}=0$) corresponds to very strong long-term correlations
with $H_{\rm G}=1$.
In contrast, $\beta_{\rm rnd}=1/2$ represents completely random activity
$(H_{\rm rnd}=1/2)$.
The observed message data comprises $1/2>\beta>0$ and $1/2<H<1$.
Surprisingly, the values of $\beta$ found here are very close to
the $\beta$ values found for companies
in the US economy \cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996}.
In the case of companies, also the distribution of growth rates
has been studied.
It was found that the distribution density
follows \cite{StanleyABHLMSS1996}:
\begin{equation}
p(r|m_0)=\frac{1}{s\sigma(m_0)}
\exp\!\left(-\frac{s|r-\langle r(m_0)\rangle|}{\sigma(m_0)}\right)
\, ,
\label{eq:prtent}
\end{equation}
whereas $s=\sqrt{2}$.
Next we analyze, how the growth rates~$r$ are distributed in the case of
the message data.
First we need to point out that in contrast to the growth of companies,
our entities can never shrink.
The members cannot loose messages,
the number~$m(t)$ either increases or remains the same.
Accordingly, in our case $r\ge 0$ and therefore $s=1$, as can be
derived for the single-sided exponentially decaying distribution.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{oc1mestnt.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:oc1mestnt}
Scaled probability density of growth rates $r$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:rlnm1m0}),
in the number of messages by members of QX.
(a)~Sending and (b)~receiving.
The times for $m_0$ and $m_1$ have been chosen as $t_0=T/2$ and $t_1=T$.
The symbols correspond to different initial number of messages $m_0$.
The axis are scaled assuming a distribution according to
Eq.~(\ref{eq:prtent}) with $s=1$ which then corresponds to the dotted lines.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:oc1mestnt} shows $p(r|m_0)$ for QX where the values are
scaled to collapse according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:prtent}) with $s=1$.
In order to have reasonable statistics,
we define the condition~$m_0$ in rather wide ranges,
namely according to the decimal logarithm.
For sending [Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1mestnt}(a)] and
receiving [Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1mestnt}(b)] messages
the scaled probability densities collapse and are quite similar.
Nevertheless, the growth rates do not exactly follow Eq.~(\ref{eq:prtent})
with $s=1$.
While for the less active members with small growth rates we find a good
agreement, for more active members and large growth rates the obtained curves
deviate from the theoretical one towards a steeper decay.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{oc2mestnt.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:oc2mestnt}
Scaled probability density of growth rates $r$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:rlnm1m0}),
in the number of messages by members of POK.
(a)~Sending and (b)~receiving.
Analogous to Fig.~\ref{fig:oc1mestnt}.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The corresponding results for POK are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:oc2mestnt}.
Again, sending and receiving are very similar.
The curves collapse reasonably, but in contrast to QX here the
measured $p(r|m_0)$ overall deviate from the theoretical one comprising
less steep slopes.
We argue that as for single time series, distribution and correlation
properties are in most cases independent, the same holds for the
message data and the growth.
The distribution of growth rates~$p(r|m_0)$ seems to be independent
from the long-term correlations which are reflected in $\sigma(m_0)$
with the exponent~$\beta$.
\subsubsection{Mutual growth in the number of messages}
\label{ssubsec:resmutgrwmes}
Next we study a variation of growth.
Instead of considering the absolute number of messages a member sends,
we study the difference in the number of messages compared to any other member,
the mutual difference $m^i(t)-m^j(t)$.
Thus, the growth rate is defined analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:rlnm1m0})
\begin{equation}
r_\times=\ln\frac{m_1^i-m_1^j}{m_0^i-m_0^j}
\label{eq:rxm1im1j}
\end{equation}
where now there is a growth rate for every pair of members~$i$ and~$j$.
The conditional average growth rate and the corresponding
standard deviation is then taken over all possible pairs and the
condition is the difference at~$t_0$,
$m^i_0-m^j_0=m^i(t_0)-m^j(t_0)$, providing the quantities
$\langle r_\times(m^i_0-m^j_0)\rangle$ and $\sigma(m^i_0-m^j_0)$.
We disregard combinations of~$i$ and~$j$ where
$m_0^i-m_0^j=0$ or
$\frac{m_1^i-m_1^j}{m_0^i-m_0^j}\le0$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{xmibrat.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:xmibrat}
Average mutual growth rate and standard deviation versus foregoing difference
in the number of messages for sending in QX.
The average (open squares) and standard deviation (filled circles)
of the mutual growth rate $r_\times$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:rxm1im1j}), are plotted
conditional to the initial difference $m_0^i-m_0^j$, whereas $t_0=T/2$ and
$t_1=T$.
(a)~Original data and (b)~shuffled data.
The dotted line in~(a) corresponds to the exponent $\beta_\times=0.3$ and
in~(b) to $\beta_\times=1/2$.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The results for sending in QX are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xmibrat}.
Apart from a small decrease up to $m^i_0-m^j_0\approx 50$,
the average growth rate is constant [Fig.~\ref{fig:xmibrat}(a)].
The conditional standard deviation asymptotically follows a
slope~$\beta_\times\approx 0.3$ with deviations to small exponents for
small~$m^i_0-m^j_0$.
In the case of the shuffled data [Fig.~\ref{fig:xmibrat}(b)],
as expected, the average growth rate is constant while the standard
deviation decreases steeper than for the original data, namely with
$\beta_{\times,{\rm rnd}}\simeq 1/2$, although not with a nice straight line.
Nevertheless, we conclude that the scaling of the standard
deviation in Fig.~\ref{fig:xmibrat}(a) must be due to temporal correlations
between the members. The growth of the difference between their number of
messages comprises similar scaling as the individual growth.
We conjecture that $\sigma(m^i_0-m^j_0)$ reflects long-term cross-correlations
in analogy to $\sigma(m_0)$ for auto-correlations.
However, so far, we are not able to provide further evidence
for this analogy and the corresponding relation to
$\beta=1-H$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta1h}),
since an appropriate technique for the direct quantification of
long-term cross-correlations is lacking.
\subsection{Modeling}
\label{subsec:modeling}
In what follows, we propose numerical simulations with the purpose
of testing the methods and empirical patterns we found.
We study three approaches adopted to the modeling of human activity:
(a) peaks over thresholds,
(b) preferential attachment \cite{BarabasiA1999}, and
(c) cascading Poisson process \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008}.
\subsubsection{Peaks over threshold (POT) simulations}
\label{sssec:model}
Our finding that the activity of sending messages exhibits
long-term persistence asserts the existence of an
underlying long-term correlated process.
This can be understood as an unknown individual state driven by
various internal and external stimuli
\cite{HedstroemP2005,KentsisA2006,PallaBV2007,CraneS2008,MalmgrenSMA2008,AllegriniMBFGGWP2009}
increasing the probability to send messages.
Generating such a hypothetical long-term correlated internal process~$(x_i)$,
simulated message data can be defined by the instants at which
this internal process exceeds a threshold~$q$ (peaks over threshold, POT),
see \cite{BundeEKH2005,AltmannK2005,EichnerKBH2007} and references therein.
More precisely, we consider a long-term correlated
sequence~$(x_i)$ consisting of $N^*$~random numbers
that is normalized to zero average ($\langle x\rangle=0$) and
unit standard deviation ($\sigma_x=1$).
Choosing a threshold~$q$, at each instant~$i$ the probability to
send a messages is:
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm snd} =
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \mbox{ for }x_i>q\\
0 & \mbox{ for }x_i\le q
\end{array}\right.
\, .
\end{equation}
Thus, the message events are given by the indices~$i$
of those random numbers~$x_i$ exceeding~$q$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{millu.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:millu}
Illustration of the peaks over threshold simulations.
(a)~An underlying and unknown long-term correlated process
determines the instantaneous probability of sending messages.
Once this state passes certain threshold~$q$ (dashed orange line)
a messages is sent (green diamonds).
(b)~Generated instants of messages,
(c)~with windows for aggregation, such as messages per day.
(d)~Aggregated record of messages in windows of size~$w$,
here $w=10$.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:millu}(a) illustrates the procedure.
The random numbers are plotted as brown circles and the events
exceeding the threshold (orange dashed line) by the green diamonds.
The resulting instants are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:millu}(b)
representing the simulated messages.
The threshold approximately predefines the total number of events
and accordingly the average inter-event time.
Using normal-distributed numbers~$(x_i)$, the number of events/messages
is approximately given by the length~$N^*$ and
the inverse cumulative distribution function associated with
the standard normal distribution (probit-function).
Additionally, the random numbers we use are long-term correlated
with variable fluctuation exponent.
We impose these auto-correlations using Fourier Filtering Method
\cite{KantelhardtKRHB01,MakseHSS96}.
Next we show that this process reproduces the scaling
in the growth, i.e. GGL, as well as the variable long-term correlations in
the activity of the members
(e.g. Figs.~\ref{fig:oc1dfaaveallbinfit2} and~\ref{fig:oc2dfaaveallbinfit2}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{model.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:model}
Results of numerical simulations.
(a)~Mean growth rate conditional to the number of events until~$t_0=N^*/2$
as obtained from~$100,000$ long-term correlated records of length~$N^*=131,072$
with variable imposed fluctuation exponent~$H_{\rm imp}$
between~$1/2$ and~$0.9$ and random threshold~$q$ between~$1.0$ and~$6.0$.
(b)~As before but standard deviation conditional to the number of events.
The solid lines represent power-laws with exponents $\beta$ expected from the
imposed long-term correlations according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta1h}).
(c)~Long-term correlations in the sequences of aggregated peaks
over threshold.
For every threshold~$q$ between~$1.0$ (violet) and~$4.5$ (black)
$100$~normalized records of length~$N^*=4,194,304$ have been created with
$H_{\rm imp}=0.9$.
The events are aggregated in windows of size $w=100$.
The panel shows the averaged DFA2 fluctuation functions.
(d)~Fluctuation exponents on the scales $1,000\le s \le 10,000$,
as a function of the total number of events.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
For testing this process we create 100,000 independent long-term
correlated records~$(x_i)$ of length $N^*=131,072$,
impose the fluctuation exponent~$H_{\rm imp}$,
and choose for each one a random threshold~$q$ between~$1$ and~$6$,
each representing a sender.
Extracting the peaks over threshold, we obtain the events and determine
for each record/member the growth in the number of events/messages
between~$N^*/2$ and~$N^*$.
This is, for each record/member we count the numbers of events/messages
$m_0$ until $t_0=t_{i=N^*/2}$ as well as $m_1$ until $t_1=t_{i=N^*}$ and
calculate the growth rate according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:rlnm1m0}).
We then calculate the conditional average $\langle r(m_0)\rangle$ and the
conditional standard deviation $\sigma(m_0)$ where the values of $m_0$ are
binned logarithmically.
The quantities are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}(a) and~(b),
while in panel~(b) we include slopes expected from $\beta=1-H$,
Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta1h}).
We find that the numerical results reasonably agree with the
prediction (solid lines).
Except for small $m_0$, these results are consistent
with those found in the original message data.
The fluctuation functions can be studied in the same way.
As described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:resltc},
we find long-term correlations in the sequences of
messages per day or per week.
On the basis of the above explained simulated messages,
we analyze them in an analogous way.
For each threshold $q=1.0, 1.5, \dots 4.0, 4.5$ we
create $100$~long-term correlated records of length $N^*=4,194,304$ with
imposed fluctuation exponent~$H_{\rm imp}=0.9$,
extract the simulated message events,
and aggregate them in non-overlapping windows of size $w=100$.
This is, tiling $N^*$ in segments of size~$w$ and counting the number of
events occurring in each segment [Fig.~\ref{fig:millu}(c) and~(d)].
The obtained aggregated records represent the analogous of messages per day or
per week and are analyzed with DFA averaging the fluctuation functions
among those configurations with the same threshold and thus similar
number of total events.
The corresponding results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}(c) and~(d).
We obtain very similar results as in the original data.
We find vanishing correlations
for the sequences with few events (large~$q$) and pronounced
long-term correlations for the cases of many events (small~$q$),
while the maximum fluctuation exponent corresponds to the
chosen~$H_{\rm imp}$.
This can be understood by the fact that for $q$~close to zero the sequence
of number of events per window converges to the aggregated sequence
of~$0$ or~$1$ (for $x\le 0$ or $x>0$) reflecting the same
long-term correlation properties as the
original record \cite{XuYMSBI2010}.
For a large threshold~$q$ too few events occur to measure the correct long-term
correlations, e.g. the true scaling only turns out on larger unaccessible
time scales requiring larger $w$ and longer records.
Although the simulations do not reveal the origin of
the long-term correlated patchy behavior,
they support Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta1h}) and the concept of an
underlying long-term correlated process.
Consistently, an uncorrelated, completely random, underlying process
recovers Poisson statistics and therefore
$\beta_{\rm rnd}=1/2$ for the growth fluctuations
as well as uncorrelated message activity ($H_{\rm rnd}=1/2$).
For $1/2<H<1$ it has been shown \cite{BundeEKH2005,EichnerKBH2007}
that the inter-event times follow a stretched exponential,
see also \cite{BarabasiAL2005,StehleBB2010,RybskiBHLM5a}.
\subsubsection{Preferential attachment}
\label{sssubsec:bamodel}
Next we compare our findings with the growth properties of
a network model.
We investigate the Barabasi-Albert (BA) model which is based
on preferential attachment and has been introduced to generate
a kind of scale-free networks \cite{BarabasiA1999,AlbertB2002} with
power-law degree distribution~$p(k)$ \cite{EbelMB2002,NewmanFB2002},
whereas the degree~$k$ of a node is the number of links it has to
other ones.
Essentially, it consists of subsequently adding nodes
to the network by linking them to existing nodes which are chosen
randomly with a probability proportional to their degree.
We obtain the undirected network and study the degree growth properties by
calculating the conditional average growth rate
$\langle r_{\rm BA}(k_0)\rangle$
and the conditional standard deviation $\sigma_{\rm BA}(k_0)$
obtained from the scale-free BA model.
The times~$t_0$ and~$t_1$ are defined by the number of nodes attached to
the network.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{bagibrat_ave-std.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:bamodel}
Average degree growth rate and standard deviation versus foregoing degree
for the preferential attachment network model \cite{BarabasiA1999}.
The average (green open diamonds) and standard deviation (blue filled circles)
of the growth rate~$r_{\rm BA}$ are plotted conditional to $k_0$,
the degree of the corresponding nodes at the first stage.
We choose average degree $\langle k\rangle =20$, $50,000$~nodes in~$t_0$,
and $100,000$~nodes in~$t_1$.
The error-bars are taken from $10$ configurations.
The dashed line in the bottom corresponds to~$\beta_{\rm BA}=1/2$.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:bamodel} shows the results where
an average degree $\langle k\rangle =20$;
$50,000$~nodes in~$t_0$, and $100,000$ nodes in~$t_1$
were chosen.
We find constant average growth rate that does not depend on the
initial degree $k_0$.
The conditional standard deviation is a function of $k_0$
and exhibits a power-law decay with $\beta_{\rm BA}=1/2$
as expected for such an uncorrelated growth process
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
Therefore, a purely preferential attachment type of growth is not
sufficient to describe the type of social network dynamics found in
Sec.~\ref{ssubsec:resgrwmes}, since additional temporal correlations are
involved in the dynamics of establishing acquaintances in the community.
The value $\beta_{\rm BA}=1/2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:beta1h}) corresponds
to $H=1/2$ indicating complete randomness.
There is no memory in the system.
Since each addition of a new node is completely independent from
precedent ones,
there cannot be temporal correlations in the activity of adding links.
In contrast, for the out-degree in QX and POK we obtained
$\beta_{k,{\rm QX}}=0.22\pm0.02$ and
$\beta_{k,{\rm POK}}=0.17\pm0.08$
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009}, which is supported by the
(non-linear) correlations between the number of messages and the out-degree as
presented in Sec.~\ref{subsec:resoth}.
Interestingly, an extension of the standard BA model has been proposed
\cite{BianconiB2001}, see also \cite{BlasioSL2007,CohenH2009},
that takes into account different fitnesses of the nodes to acquiring links.
We think that such fitness could be related to growth fluctuations,
thus providing a route to modify the BA model to include the
long-term correlated dynamics found here.
\subsubsection{Cascading Poisson process}
\label{ssubsec:cascpoisproc}
In this Section we elaborate the model proposed in \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008} and
examine it with respect to long-term correlations.
The model is based on a cascading Poisson process (CPP),
according to which the probability that a member enters an active interval is
$\rho(t) = N_{\rm w} p_{\rm d}(t) p_{\rm w}(t)$, where
$N_{\rm w}$ is the average number of active intervals per week,
$p_{\rm d}(t)$ is the probability of starting an active interval at a
particular time of the day, and
$p_{\rm w}(t)$ is the probability of starting an active interval at a
particular day of the week.
Once a member enters such an active interval he/she sends a set of
$N_{\rm a}+1$ messages, where $N_{\rm a}$ is drawn from the distribution
$p(N_{\rm a})$. The messages sent in such an active interval are sent
randomly, i.e. a homogeneous Poisson process with rate $\rho_{\rm a}$
events per hour.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{malmgren-model.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:mmodel}
DFA fluctuation functions of message data created with the model proposed in
\cite{MalmgrenSMA2008}.
(a) User 2881. We visually extract the model parameters from
Fig.~3 in \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008} and generate message data for
approx. $800$k\,days. The panel shows the fluctuation functions from
DFA1 and DFA2, which asymptotically go as $\sim(\Delta t)^{1/2}$,
i.e. no long-term correlations. The hump on small scales is due to
the model inherent oscillations \cite{KantelhardtKRHB01}.
The dashed vertical line is placed at $\Delta t=83$\,days.
(b) Random parameterization. We randomly choose the model parameters,
create $20$k records of $83$\,days and average the obtained
DFA2 fluctuation functions according to the final number of messages, $M$.
While for those simulated members with few messages we find
$F(\Delta t)\sim(\Delta t)^{1/2}$, the $F(\Delta t)$ of the most active
members exhibit a hump due to oscillations similar to the one in panel (a).
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
First, we study the example of User 2881 as analyzed in \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008}
(please note that in \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008} a different data set is studied and
the user is neither in OC1 nor in OC2).
We extract from \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008} the parameters
$N_{\rm w}=7.3$ active intervals per week,
$\rho_{\rm a}=1.7$ events per hour, as well as (visually) the
distributions $p_{\rm d}(t)$, $p_{\rm w}(t)$, and $p(N_{\rm a})$.
The original period of 83 days is not sufficient to apply DFA and
we run the model for this set of parameters over $800$k\,days.
Then we extract the record of number of messages per day, $\mu(t)$, and
apply DFA.
The obtained fluctuation functions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mmodel}(a).
On small scales below $100$\,days a hump in the $F(\Delta t)$ can be
identified, which is due to oscillations in $\mu(t)$ \cite{KantelhardtKRHB01}.
While asymptotically the influence of oscillations vanishes,
on scales below the wavelength, the oscillations appear as correlations
[increased slope in $F(\Delta t)$] and
on scales above the wavelength, the oscillations appear as anti-correlations
[decreased slope in $F(\Delta t)$].
Asymptotically, we find $F(\Delta t)\sim(\Delta t)^{1/2}$,
i.e. $H_{\rm CPP}\simeq 1/2$,
corresponding to a lack of long-term correlations.
Even on scales up to $83$\,days, we rather find $H_{\rm CPP}<1/2$
(which we expect from the imposed weekly oscillations).
Next, we study 20,000 simulated e-mail senders with randomly chosen parameters.
(i) We fill $p_{\rm w}(t)$ with random numbers and set $p_{\rm w}(t)=0$ for
$t=0,6$, i.e. Sunday and Saturday.
(ii) We fill $p_{\rm d}(t)$ with random numbers and set $p_{\rm d}(t)=0$ for
$t=0\dots5$ and $t=23$, i.e. at night.
(iii) We set $p(N_{\rm a})$ starting with a random $p(N_{\rm a}=0)$.
Then $p(N_{\rm a})$ decays exponentially up to a random $N_{\rm a}$
below $36$.
$p_{\rm w}(t)$, $p_{\rm w}(t)=0$, and $p(N_{\rm a})$ are normalized.
(iv) We randomly choose $0<N_{\rm w}<40$.
(v) We randomly choose $0<\rho_{\rm a}<30$.
From \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008} Supporting Information 2 (SI2) we
estimated the typical maximum values of $N_{\rm a}$, $N_{\rm w}$,
and $\rho_{\rm a}$ ($36$, $40$, and $30$, respectively).
We run the model for $83$\,days and extract the $\mu(t)$ for each
simulated e-mail sender.
Then we apply DFA2 and average the fluctuation functions according to the
final number of messages, $M$, see also \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
The fluctuation functions for the various activity levels are depicted
in Fig.~\ref{fig:mmodel}(b).
We find that members with small final number of messages exhibit uncorrelated
behavior. The more active the members the more pronounced become the
oscillations which we already discussed in the context of
Fig.~\ref{fig:mmodel}(a).
Thus, asymptotic $H_{\rm CPP}<1/2$ for large $M$ is due to the
weekly cycles \cite{KantelhardtKRHB01}.
In our data, oscillations do not dominate the DFA fluctuation functions.
Moreover, for OC2 we also find long-term correlations in
weekly resolution (Fig.~\ref{fig:dfaaveallbind1v2}).
Based on periodic probabilities and Poisson statistics, the CPP model
represents a powerful concept to characterize inter-event times.
For this purpose, the average $N_{\rm w}$ seems to be sufficient.
However, in order to recover long-term correlations,
time dependent $N_{\rm w}=N_{\rm w}(t)$ seem to be necessary.
In fact, the number of active intervals per week, $N_{\rm w}$,
fluctuates, as can be seen in \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008}SI2
(upper most row of the panels).
Thus, we suggest to extend the model by introducing a memory kernel,
see e.g. \cite{CraneS2008}, or by using long-term correlated $N_{\rm w}(t)$.
\subsection{Other correlations}
\label{subsec:resoth}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cc-mibrat1.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:ccmibrat1}
Correlations between the final degree~$K$ and the final number of messages~$M$
for QX.
(a)~Out-degree and sending messages;
(b)~in-degree and receiving messages.
The dashed lines correspond to a power-law with exponent $0.75$.
Members sending many messages also tend to have high out-degree,
but not linearly, rather following a power-law.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
In this Section we want to discuss other types of correlations.
Figure~\ref{fig:ccmibrat1} shows for QX the final degree $K=k(T)$ versus the
final number of messages $M=m(T)$.
We find that for both, sending and receiving,
the two quantities are correlated
according to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lambda}
K\sim M^\lambda \quad\rm{with}\quad \lambda\approx 3/4
\end{equation}
Similar relations have also been found for other
data \cite{MuchnikMH2010}.
Since the correlations are positive,
those members that send many messages, in average,
also have more acquaintances to whom they send, but they know
less acquaintances than they would in the case of linear
correlations.
For receiving, Fig.~\ref{fig:ccmibrat1}(b), this correlation is very
similar.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cc-mibrat5.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:ccmibrat5}
Correlations between activity and passivity for QX.
(a)~Final number of messages $M$ received and sent;
(b)~final in- and out-degree.
The dashed lines correspond to a linear relation.
Those members who send many messages also receive many.
But, those members who know many people to whom they send messages do not
necessarily know as many people from whom they receive messages.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The number of messages sent versus the number of messages received (for QX)
is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ccmibrat5}(a). Asymptotically the activity and
passivity are linearly related and on average for every message sent
there is a received one or vice versa.
This, of course, does not mean that every message is replied.
However, the less active members in average tend to receive more messages
than they send. For example, those members who send in average one message
receive about three.
Nevertheless, the more active the members are the more the
sending and receiving behavior approaches the linear relation.
In contrast, for the degree, Fig.~\ref{fig:ccmibrat5}(b),
the asymptotic linear relation does not hold.
Those members with large out-degree and small in-degree are referred to
as spammers, since they send to many different people but only receive from
few.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cc-pibrat1.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:ccpibrat1}
Correlations between the final degree~$K$ and the final number of messages~$M$
for POK.
(a)~Out-degree and sending messages;
(b)~in-degree and receiving messages.
Analogous to Fig.~\ref{fig:ccmibrat1}.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cc-pibrat5.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:ccpibrat5}
Correlations between activity and passivity for POK.
(a)~Final number of messages $M$ received and sent;
(b)~final in- and out-degree.
Analogous to Fig.~\ref{fig:ccmibrat5}
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
For POK we find similar results in Figs.~\ref{fig:ccpibrat1}
and~\ref{fig:ccpibrat5}. The final degree and the final number of
messages also scale with an exponent close to $0.75$,
although for sending messages
there exist some deviations of the most active members
[Fig.~\ref{fig:ccpibrat1}(a)].
Also, the correlations of sending and receiving are linear,
the same holds for in- and out-degree.
However, the most active members again deviate with low receiving part,
i.e. both low number of received messages as well as low in-degree,
Fig.~\ref{fig:ccpibrat5}.
Nevertheless, the results for both data sets are mainly consistent and
the power-law relation Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambda})
is a remarkable regularity.
\subsubsection{Activity and degree distributions}
\label{ssubsec:distributions}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{distributions.eps}
\caption{
\label{fig:distributions}
Probability densities of activities and degrees.
The probabilities are plotted versus the total number of messages, $M$, and
the final degree, $K$, for (a) sending in QX and (b) sending in POK.
The panel (c) and (d) exhibit the probability densities of the total number
of messages along directed links, $M_L$, for QX and POK, respectively.
The dotted lines serve as guides to the eye and have the indicated slopes.
}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Finally, we want to briefly discuss the distributions of activities
and degrees.
If we assume $p(M)\sim M^{-\gamma_M}$ and $p(K)\sim K^{-\gamma_K}$, then
with Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambda}) the exponents should be related according to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gammalambda}
\gamma_K=1+(\gamma_M-1)/\lambda
\enspace .
\end{equation}
Figure~\ref{fig:distributions}(a+b) displays the probability densities,
$p(M)$ and $p(K)$, for both online communities.
Although the distributions are rather broad they do not exhibit straight
lines in double logarithmic representation.
In panel~(b) we include some guides to the eye with slopes according
to Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammalambda}) and which roughly follow the obtained curves.
However, $\lambda\approx 0.75$ is relatively close to $1$ so that
the differences are minor.
The probability densities of activity along direct links are displayed in
Fig.~\ref{fig:distributions}(c+d) for QX and POK, respectively.
In both cases the frequency of large activity decays approximately
following a power-law with exponent around $3.5$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
sending & $H$ & $H_{\rm L}$ & $\beta$ & $\beta_k$ & $\beta_\times$ \\
\hline
Sec. or Ref. & \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}, \ref{subsec:resltc}, \ref{ssubsec:cascpoisproc} & \ref{subsec:resltc} & \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} & \cite{RybskiBHLM2009} & \ref{ssubsec:resmutgrwmes} \\
\hline\hline
QX & $0.75 \pm 0.05$ & $\approx 0.74$ & $0.22 \pm 0.01$ & $0.22 \pm 0.02$ & $\approx 0.3$ \\
\hline
QX shuffled & $1/2$ & & $1/2$ & & $1/2$ \\
\hline
POK & $0.91 \pm 0.04$ & & $0.17 \pm 0.03$ & $0.17 \pm 0.08$ & \\
\hline
POK shuffled & $1/2$ & & $1/2$ & & \\
\hline
BA model & & & & $1/2$ & \\
\hline
CP process & $\rightarrow 1/2$ & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Overview of the obtained exponents.
QX and POK are the two data-sets.
For the BA model and the CP process see
\cite{BarabasiA1999} and \cite{MalmgrenSMA2008},
respectively.
$H_{\rm L}$ is the fluctuation exponent along directed links,
$\beta_k$ is the growth fluctuation exponent when the degree is considered, and
$\beta_\times$ is the mutual growth fluctuation exponent based on the
growth between pairs.}
\label{tab:expos}
\end{table*}
Our work reviews and further supports previous empirical findings
\cite{RybskiBHLM2009} extending them by some features.
The obtained exponents are summarized in Table.~\ref{tab:expos}.
In addition to \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}, we find very similar
characteristics for the passivity of receiving as for the
activity of sending messages.
This is in line with the strong correlations between individual
sending and receiving, i.e. most of the messages are somehow replied
sooner or later.
Furthermore already the communication
between two individuals comprises long-term persistence.
Investigating the probability densities of logarithmic growth rates
(i.e. growth of the cumulative number of messages between two time steps
of any member),
we are able to collapse the curves by scaling them with
conditional average growth rates and conditional standard deviations.
While less active members follow well the exponentially decaying probability
density, for the more active members deviations are found in the case of
large growth rates.
Moreover, we introduce a new growth rate, namely the mutual growth in
the number of messages.
This is the difference in the number of messages sent between pairs of
members at two time steps.
The conditional standard deviation of this mutual growth rate also
decays as a power-law with increasing initial difference,
whereas the exponent is close to~$0.3$ and changes to~$1/2$
when the data is shuffled.
We conjecture that this growth reflects cross-correlations in
the activity.
Finally, we propose simulations to reproduce the long-term
correlations and growth properties.
Basically it consists of generating long-term correlated sequences and
defining a threshold.
All values of such sequences above the threshold (POT) represent a
message event.
We show that then the correlation and growth features,
being determined by the imposed fluctuation exponent,
confirm the relation $\beta=1-H$ \cite{RybskiBHLM2009}.
Including further features, this approach could be a starting point for
more elaborated modeling of human dynamics.
We would like to note that --
except Sec.~\ref{ssubsec:resmutgrwmes} about
mutual growth in the number of messages
(and Sec.~\ref{subsec:resoth}) --
all analysis and results refer to auto-correlations.
As phenomena, auto- and cross-correlations can occur independently.
However, since most of the messages are replied,
it is very likely that there are also cross-correlations
between the members activity,
which to our knowledge has not yet been studied
systematically.
Thus, our work opens perspectives for further research activities.
In particular, the origin of the long-term persistence in the
communication remains an important question.
In \cite{RybskiBHLM5a} we demonstrate the relation of $\beta$, $H$
with inter-event time scaling.
From a psychological/sociological point of view one may argue
where the persistence is originated.
Is it purely due to a state of mind, solipsistic, emerging from moods,
or is it due to social effects, i.e. that the dynamics in the
social network induces persistent fluctuations?
One hypothesis could be that already the social network is
correlated \cite{RybskiRK2010}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank C. Briscoe, J.F. Eichner, L.K. Gallos, and H.D. Rozenfeld for
useful discussions. This work was supported by National Science
Foundation Grant NSF-SES-0624116 and NSF-EF-0827508.
F.L. acknowledges financial support from The Swedish Bank Tercentenary
Foundation. S.H. thanks the European EPIWORK project, the Israel
Science Foundation, the ONR and the DTRA for financial support.
\bibliographystyle{epj}
|
\section{Introduction}
A Hermitian structure on a smooth manifold $M$ is a pair $(g, J)$
where $g$ is a Riemannian metric and $J$ a $g$-skew-symmetric
complex structure on $M$. The Hermitian structure $(g, J)$ is
K\"{a}her if the K\"{a}hler form $\omega (X, Y):= g(JX, Y)$ is
closed. The main result in this note is the following:
\begin{thm}\label{pmain}
Let $(g, J)$ be an invariant Hermitian structure on an adjoint
orbit of a compact connected semisimple Lie group. Let $\omega$ be
the K\"{a}hler form of $(g, J)$ and assume that
\begin{equation}\label{ddj}
dd^{J}\omega =0.
\end{equation}
Then the pair $(g, J)$ is K\"{a}hler.
\end{thm}
One motivation to consider condition (\ref{ddj}) on Hermitian
structures comes from generalized complex geometry, introduced by
Nigel Hitchin in \cite{hitchin}. A generalized K\"{a}hler
structure on a manifold $M$ is usually defined as a pair
$(\mathcal J_{1},\mathcal J_{2})$ of commuting generalized complex
structures such that the composition $D:= - {\mathcal
J}_{1}{\mathcal J}_{2}$ satisfies an additional positivity
condition (for the precise definition, see Section \ref{gen}).
According to \cite{thesis}, a generalized K\"{a}hler structure can
also be defined as a bi-Hermitian structure $(g, J_{+}, J_{-})$
(i.e. $(g, J_{+})$ and $(g, J_{-})$ are Hermitian structures),
together with a $2$-form $b\in \Omega^{2}(M)$, usually called in
the physical literature the $b$-field, such that
\begin{equation}\label{cond1}
db = - d^{J_{+}}\omega_{+} = d^{J_{-}}\omega_{-},
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{\pm}$ are K\"{a}hler forms of $(g,J_{\pm})$. As an
application of Theorem \ref{pmain} we state:
\begin{cor}\label{mainh}
Let $(g,J_{+}, J_{-},b)$ be an invariant generalized K\"{a}hler
structure on an adjoint orbit of a compact, connected, semisimple
Lie group. Then the pairs $(g,J_{+})$ and $(g,J_{-})$ are
K\"{a}hler and $b\in \Omega^{2}(M)$ is closed.
\end{cor}
This note is organized as follows. In Section \ref{hermitian} we
fix notations and we recall the description of invariant Hermitian
and K\"{a}hler structures on adjoint orbits of compact semisimple
Lie groups \cite{dmitri}, \cite{borel}, \cite{wang}. With these
preliminaries, in Section \ref{genkahler} we prove Theorem
\ref{pmain}. Finally, in Section \ref{gen} -- intended for
completeness of our exposition -- we collect basic definitions
from generalized complex geometry and we recall in more detail the
relation mentioned above between generalized
K\"{a}hler geometry and bi-Hermitian geometry \cite{thesis}.\\
{\bf Acknowledgements:} We thank Paul Gauduchon for pertinent
comments and suggestions on a first version of this paper and Radu
Pantilie for his interest in this work. L. D. acknowledges
financial support from a CNCSIS grant IDEI "Structuri geometrice
pe varietati diferentiabile", code 1187/2008.
\section{Preliminary material}\label{hermitian}
Let $G$ be a compact, connected, semisimple Lie group, with Lie
algebra $\gg$, and $M=\{ \mathrm{Ad}_{g}(X_{0}), g\in G\}$ an
adjoint orbit of $G$, where $X_{0}\in \gg .$ We identify $M$ with
the coset space $G/U$, where $U=\{ g\in G,
\mathrm{Ad}_{g}(X_{0})=X_{0}\}$ is the isotropy subgroup at
$X_{0}$. Recall that $U$ is a closed connected subgroup of the
same rank as $G$ (see e.g. \cite{besse}, Chapter 8). We shall
denote by $\gu$ the Lie algebra of $U$. Let $T$ be a maximal torus
in $U$, $\gt$ its Lie algebra and $\gh := \gt^{\mathbb{C}}$ the
complexification of $\gt$, which is a Cartan subalgebra of the
complex semisimple Lie algebra $\gg^{\mathbb{C}}$, included in
$\gu^{\mathbb{C}}.$ Let $R\subset \gh^{*}\setminus \{ 0\}$ be the
root system of $\gg^{\mathbb C}$ with respect to $\gh$. For any
$\alpha\in R$ denote by $\gg_{\alpha}$ the $1$-dimensional root
space corresponding to $\alpha$, defined by
$$
\gg_{\alpha}:= \{ X\in \gg^{\mathbb{C}}:\quad [H, X]=\alpha
(H)X,\quad \forall H\in \gh \} .
$$
Let
\begin{align*}
\gg^{\mathbb{C}}&= \gh +\sum_{\alpha\in R}\gg_{\alpha}\\
\gu^{\mathbb{C}}&= \gh +\sum_{\alpha\in R_{0}}\gg_{\alpha}
\end{align*}
be the corresponding Cartan decompositions, where $R_{0}\subset R$
is the root system of $\gu^{\mathbb{C}}$ with respect to $\gh$.
The roots from $R\setminus R_{0}$ are called complementary roots.
Since $G$ is compact, $\gg$ is a compact real form of
$\gg^{\mathbb{C}}$ and can be described in terms of a Weyl basis
as follows. Recall first that choosing a Weyl basis amounts to
chose root vectors $E_{\alpha}\in \gg_{\alpha}$ such that
$$
\langle E_{\alpha}, E_{-\alpha}\rangle =1,\quad\forall\alpha \in R
$$
(where $\langle X, Y\rangle
:=\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{ad}_{X}\circ \mathrm{ad}_{Y}\right)$
denotes the Killing form of $\gg^{\mathbb{C}}$) and
\begin{equation}\label{weyl}
N_{-\alpha ,-\beta} = - N_{\alpha \beta},\quad\forall \alpha
,\beta \in R
\end{equation}
where the constants $N_{\alpha\beta}$ are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{nab}
[E_{\alpha}, E_{\beta}]= N_{\alpha\beta} E_{\alpha
+\beta},\quad\forall \alpha ,\beta \in R.
\end{equation}
With respect to a Weyl basis, $\gg$ is the real Lie algebra
generated by $A_{\alpha}:= E_{\alpha}-E_{-\alpha}$, $B_{\alpha}:=
i (E_{\alpha}+ E_{-\alpha})$ (for any $\alpha \in R$) and $\gt$
(which is also the real vector space spanned by $i[E_{\alpha},
E_{-\alpha}]$, for all $\alpha\in R$). Similarly, $\gu$ is the
real Lie algebra generated by $A_{\alpha}$, $B_{\alpha}$ (for any
$\alpha\in R_{0}$) and $\gt .$ It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{te}
T_{e}M=\gm := \gg\ominus \gu = \sum_{\alpha\in R\setminus
R_{0}}\mathrm{Span}_{\mathbb{R}}\{ A_{\alpha}, B_{\alpha}\}
\end{equation}
is an $\mathrm{Ad}_{T}$-invariant complement of $\gu$ in $\gg$,
which will be identified with the tangent space $T_{e}M$ at the
identity coset $e$. By complexification,
\begin{equation}\label{te}
T_{e}^{\mathbb{C}}M= \gm^{\mathbb{C}}=\sum_{\alpha\in R\setminus
R_{0} }\gg_{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
A $G$-invariant (or shortly, "invariant") tensor field on $M$ is
uniquely determined by its value at $e$, which is an
$\mathrm{Ad}_{T}$-invariant tensor on the vector space $\gm .$
In the proof of our main result we shall use a general formula for
the exterior derivative of invariant forms on $M$, as follows. If
$\alpha\in\Omega^{k}(M)$ is invariant, then $d\alpha$ is also
invariant. At $e$,
\begin{equation}\label{exteriord}
( d\alpha )(X_{0}, \cdots , X_{k})=\sum_{i<j}(-1)^{i+j}\alpha (
[X_{i}, X_{j}],X_{1},\cdots , \widehat{X_{i}}, \cdots , \widehat{X_{j}},
\cdots , X_{k}),
\end{equation}
for any $X_{i}\in \gm .$ In (\ref{exteriord}) the hat means that
the term is omitted; the Lie bracket $[X_{i}, X_{j}]$ of vectors
$X_{i}, X_{j}\in \gm$ is obtained by taking the Lie bracket in
$\gg$, followed by the standard projection $\gg = \gm\oplus
\gu\rightarrow \gm$.\\
{\bf Invariant Hermitian and K\"{a}hler structures.} Following
\cite{dmitri}, \cite{borel}, \cite{wang} we develop the algebraic
description of invariant Hermitian and K\"{a}hler structures on
$M$. We preserve the notations from the previous paragraph. In
addition, we fix a positive root system $R_{0}^{+}$ of $R_{0}.$
Let $(g,J)$ be an invariant Hermitian structure on $M$. The value
$J_{e}$ of $J$ at $e$ is an $\mathrm{Ad}_{T}$-invariant complex
structure on $\gm $ and its complex linear extension
$$
J_{e}^{c}:
\gm^{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow \gm^{\mathbb{C}}
$$
is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{je}
J_{e}^{c} E_{\alpha}= i\epsilon_{\alpha} E_{\alpha},\quad\forall
\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\alpha} = \pm1$ and $\epsilon_{\alpha} =
-\epsilon_{-\alpha}$ for any $\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0}$. The set
$$
\Sigma := \{ \alpha\in R\setminus R_{0},\quad
\epsilon_{\alpha}=1\}
$$
determines $J$ completely and is called the set of roots of $J$.
Note that
$$
\Sigma \cup (-\Sigma ) = R\setminus R_{0},\quad \Sigma \cap
(-\Sigma )= \emptyset ,
$$
where $-\Sigma := \{ -\alpha , \alpha\in \Sigma\} .$ The
integrability of $J$ implies that $\Sigma$ is closed and $R^{+}:=
R_{0}^{+}\cup \Sigma$ is a system of positive roots of $R$.
Conversely, any closed set $\Sigma$ of complementary roots such
that $R_{0}^{+}\cup \Sigma$ is a positive root system of $R$,
defines an invariant complex structure on $M$ (see Proposition
13.7 of \cite{borel} and \cite{wang}).
Similarly, the value $g_{e}$ of the Hermitian metric $g$ at $e$ is
a symmetric positive definite inner product $(X,Y ) =- \langle
\Lambda X, Y\rangle$ on $\gm$, where $\Lambda :\gm \rightarrow
\gm$ is a linear isomorphism. Since $(\cdot ,\cdot )$ is
$\mathrm{Ad}_{T}$-invariant, the complex linear extension
$$
\Lambda^{c}:\gm^{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow \gm^{\mathbb C}
$$
of $\Lambda$ to $\gm^{\mathbb{C}}$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{lambda}
\Lambda^{c}(E_{\alpha}) = g_{\alpha} E_{\alpha},\quad\forall
\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0},
\end{equation}
for some constants $g_{\alpha}$. Since $(\cdot , \cdot )$ is
symmetric and positive definite,
\begin{equation}\label{g}
g_{\alpha}= g_{-\alpha},\quad g_{\alpha}>0,\quad\forall\alpha\in
R\setminus R_{0}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $(g, J)$ is completely determined by $\Sigma$ and the
constants $\{ g_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0}}$.
Conversely, any closed set $\Sigma\subset R\setminus R_{0}$ such
that $R_{0}^{+}\cup \Sigma$ is a positive root system of $R$,
together with positive constants $\{ g_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in
R\setminus R_{0}}$ such that $g_{\alpha} = g_{-\alpha}$, for any
$\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0}$, define an invariant Hermitian
structure on $M$.
We now determine necessary and sufficient conditions on $\{
g_{\alpha}\}$ such that the Hermitian pair $(g, J)$ is K\"{a}hler.
Using (\ref{je}) and (\ref{lambda}), it can be checked that the
complex linear extension of the K\"{a}hler form $\omega :=g(J\cdot
,\cdot )$ at $e$, applied to a pair $(E_{\alpha}, E_{\beta})$ of
root vectors corresponding to complementary roots $\alpha ,\beta
\in R\setminus R_{0}$, is zero when $\alpha +\beta \neq 0$, and
\begin{equation}\label{omegag}
\omega_{e}(E_{\alpha}, E_{-\alpha}) = (J_{e}E_{\alpha},
E_{-\alpha}) = - i g_{\alpha}\epsilon_{\alpha}, \quad \forall
\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0}.
\end{equation}
For any $\alpha , \beta , \gamma\in R\setminus R_{0}$,
\begin{equation}\label{auxiliar}
(d\omega
)(E_{\alpha}, E_{\beta},E_{\gamma})=0
\end{equation}
unless $\alpha +\beta +\gamma =0$, in which case
\begin{equation}\label{ext}
(d\omega )(E_{\alpha }, E_{\beta}, E_{\gamma})= - iN_{\alpha
\beta} (\epsilon_{\alpha}g_{\alpha}
+\epsilon_{\beta}g_{\beta}+\epsilon_{\gamma}g_{\gamma}) .
\end{equation}
Relations (\ref{auxiliar}) and (\ref{ext}) are a consequence of
(\ref{exteriord}), (\ref{omegag}) and the following property of
$\{ N_{\alpha\beta}\}$ (see Chapter 5 of \cite{helgason}): if
$\alpha , \beta ,\gamma\in R$ are such that $\alpha +\beta +\gamma
=0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{suma}
N_{\alpha\beta} = N_{\beta\gamma} = N_{\gamma\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Thus the pair $(g, J)$ is K\"{a}hler if and only if
$$
\epsilon_{\alpha}g_{\alpha} +\epsilon_{\beta}g_{\beta}
+\epsilon_{\gamma}g_{\gamma}=0
$$
for any $\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma\in R\setminus R_{0}$ with $\alpha
+\beta +\gamma =0$; equivalently $(g, J)$ is K\"{a}hler if and
only if
$$
g_{\alpha +\beta } =g_{\alpha} +g_{\beta}
$$
for all $\alpha , \beta \in \Sigma$ with $\alpha +\beta\in
\Sigma$. To summarize, we get the following description of
invariant K\"{a}hler structures on $M$ (for $M$ a full flag, see
\cite{adv}).
\begin{prop}\label{inplus}\cite{dmitri} Let $(g,J )$ be an
invariant Hermitian structure on $M$, defined by a closed set
$\Sigma$ and positive constants $\{ g_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in
R\setminus R_{0}}$ as above. Then $(g,J)$ is K\"{a}hler if and
only if for any $\alpha ,\beta\in\Sigma$ such that $\alpha
+\beta\in R$,
\begin{equation}\label{kahlercond}
g_{\alpha +\beta} = g_{\alpha}+g_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
Note that for two roots $\alpha ,\beta \in \Sigma$ the conditions
$\alpha +\beta \in R$ and $\alpha +\beta \in \Sigma$ are
equivalent, because $\Sigma$ is closed.
\section{Proof of the main result}\label{genkahler}
In this Section we prove Theorem \ref{pmain}. Let $M= G/U$ be an
adjoint orbit of a compact connected semisimple Lie group $G$ and
$(g, J)$ an invariant Hermitian structure on $M$. We preserve the
notations from the previous Section. Recall that $R$ denotes the
root system of $\gg^{\mathbb{C}}$ (the complexification of the Lie
algebra of $G$) with respect to a Cartan subalgebra $\gh$
included in $\gu^{\mathbb{C}}$ (the complexification of the Lie
algebra of $U$) and $R_{0}^{+}$ is a system of positive roots of
the root system $R_{0}$ of $\gu^{\mathbb{C}}$ with respect to
$\gh$. Thus, the pair $(g, J)$ is defined by a closed
complementary set of roots $\Sigma\subset R\setminus R_{0}$ and
positive constants $\{ g_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in R\setminus R_{0}}$
such that $R_{0}^{+}\cup \Sigma :=R^{+}$ is a positive root system
of $R$, $g_{\alpha}=g_{-\alpha}$ for any $\alpha \in R\setminus
R_{0}$ and condition (\ref{kahlercond}) is satisfied.
It is easy to check, using (\ref{exteriord}), (\ref{je}),
(\ref{ext}) and (\ref{suma}), that for any $\alpha
,\beta\in\Sigma$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}dd^{J}\omega (E_{\alpha}, E_{\beta}, E_{-\alpha},
E_{-\beta})&= N_{\alpha\beta}^{2}\left( g_{\alpha +\beta}-
g_{\alpha}
- g_{\beta}\right)\\
&+\epsilon_{\alpha -\beta}N_{\alpha,-\beta}^{2} \left(
\epsilon_{\alpha -\beta} g_{\alpha-\beta} -g_{\alpha} +
g_{\beta}\right) ,
\end{align*}
where $\epsilon_{\alpha-\beta}=0$ if $\alpha -\beta\in R_{0}$ or
if $\alpha -\beta\notin R$ and $\epsilon_{\alpha -\beta}=\pm1$ if
$\alpha -\beta\in (\pm \Sigma )$.
Assume now that $dd^{J}\omega =0$. The above relation implies that
\begin{equation}\label{kahler1}
N_{\alpha\beta}^{2}\left( g_{\alpha +\beta}-g_{\alpha} -
g_{\beta}\right)+ \epsilon_{\alpha -\beta}N_{\alpha,-\beta}^{2}
\left( \epsilon_{\alpha -\beta} g_{\alpha-\beta} - g_{\alpha} +
g_{\beta}\right) =0,
\end{equation}
for any $\alpha ,\beta \in \Sigma .$ Using an induction argument
on the length of roots of $\Sigma$ with respect to the order
defined by $R^{+}$ we will show that (\ref{kahler1}) implies that
\begin{equation}\label{condk}
g_{\alpha +\beta} = g_{\alpha} +g_{\beta},
\end{equation}
for any $\alpha ,\beta \in \Sigma$ such that $\alpha
+\beta\in\Sigma$. Suppose first that $\alpha , \beta\in \Sigma$
are both of length one. Then $\alpha -\beta\notin R$ and hence
$N_{\alpha, -\beta}=0$. Since $\alpha +\beta\in R$, $N_{\alpha
\beta}\neq 0$ and relation (\ref{kahler1}) implies (\ref{condk}).
Suppose now that (\ref{condk}) holds for all
$\alpha,\beta\in\Sigma$ of length less or equal to $k$, such that
$\alpha +\beta\in \Sigma.$ Let $\gamma , \delta\in \Sigma$ be of
length less or equal to $k+1$, such that $\gamma +\delta\in
\Sigma$. We will show that
\begin{equation}\label{condk0}
g_{\gamma +\delta} = g_{\gamma} +g_{\delta}.
\end{equation}
If $\gamma -\delta\in R_{0}$ or $\alpha -\beta\notin R$,
$\epsilon_{\gamma -\delta}=0$ and from (\ref{kahler1}) again we
get (\ref{condk0}) (since $N_{\gamma\delta}\neq 0$ when $\gamma
+\delta \in R$). Suppose now that $\gamma -\delta\in R\setminus
R_{0}$. Without loss of generality, we assume moreover that
$\gamma -\delta \in\Sigma.$ Since $\gamma= \delta + (\gamma
-\delta )$ and $\gamma$ has length at most $k+1$, both $\delta$
and $\gamma -\delta$ have length less or equal to $k$ (and belong
to $\Sigma$). From our induction hypothesis,
\begin{equation}\label{gammad}
g_{\gamma} = g_{\delta}+ g_{\gamma -\delta}.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{kahler1}) for $\alpha :=\gamma$ and $\beta :=\delta$,
together with (\ref{gammad}), we obtain (\ref{condk0}). Relation
(\ref{condk}) is now proved. From Proposition \ref{inplus}, $(g,
J)$ is K\"{a}hler. This concludes the proof of Theorem
\ref{pmain}.
\section{Appendix: generalized K\"{a}hler geometry}\label{gen}
Let $N$ be a smooth manifold, $\mathbb{T}N = TN \oplus T^*N$ the
generalized tangent bundle of $N$ and $g_{\mathrm{can}}$ the
canonical indefinite metric on $\mathbb{T}N$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{gcan}
g_{\mathrm{can}}(X+\xi ,Y+\eta ):= \frac{1}{2}\left( \xi (Y)+\eta
(X)\right) ,\quad\forall X+\xi ,Y+\eta\in\mathbb{T}N.
\end{equation}
\begin{defn}\cite{hitchin} i) An almost generalized complex structure on $N$ is a
$g_{\mathrm{can}}$-skew-symmetric field of endomorphisms
$${\mathcal J}:\mathbb{T}N \rightarrow \mathbb{T}N $$
with ${\mathcal J}^2 = - \mathrm{Id }$ (where ``$\mathrm{Id}$''
denotes the identity endomorphism of $\mathbb{T}N$).\\
ii) An almost generalized complex structure $\mathcal J$ is
integrable (or is a generalized complex structure) if the
$i$-eigenbundle $L = (\mathbb{T}N)^{1,0} \subset
(\mathbb{T}N)^{\mathbb{C}}$ of $\mathcal{J}$ is closed under the
complex linear extension of the Courant bracket $[\cdot ,\cdot ]$,
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{courant}
[X+\xi ,Y+\eta ] := [X, Y]+ L_{X}\eta -L_{Y}\xi -\frac{1}{2} d
\left( \eta(X) - \xi (Y)\right) ,
\end{equation}
for any smooth sections $X+ \xi$ and $Y + \eta$ of
$\mathbb{T}N.$\\
iii) A generalized K\"{a}hler structure on $N$ is a pair
$({\mathcal J}_{1}, {\mathcal J}_{2})$ of commuting, generalized
complex structures such that the bundle endomorphism $D:= -
{\mathcal J}_{1}{\mathcal J}_{2}$ of $\mathbb{T}N$ is positive
definite with respect to the standard indefinite metric
$g_{\mathrm{can}}$, i.e. the bilinear form $g_{\mathrm{can}} \circ
D$, defined by
$$
(g_{\mathrm{can}}\circ D)(X+\xi, Y+\eta ) = g_{\mathrm{can}}
(D(X+\xi ), Y +\eta),\quad \forall X+\xi, Y+\eta\in \mathbb{T}N
$$
is positive definite.
\end{defn}
Generalized geometry and bi-Hermitian geometry are related as
follows.
\begin{thm}\label{biher} \cite{thesis} On a manifold $N$
there is a one to one correspondence between generalized
K\"{a}hler structures $({\mathcal J}_{1}, {\mathcal J}_{2})$ and
bi-Hermitian structures $(g,J_{+}, J_{-})$ together with a
$2$-form $b\in \Omega^{2}(N)$, such that the condition
\begin{equation}\label{cond1}
db = - d^{J_{+}}\omega_{+} = d^{J_{-}}\omega_{-}
\end{equation}
holds. Here $\omega_{\pm}:=g(J_{\pm}\cdot ,\cdot )$ are the
K\"{a}hler forms of $(J_{\pm}, g)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} We briefly explain how $({\mathcal J}_{1}, {\mathcal
J}_{2})$ determines $(g, J_{+}, J_{-},b).$ Define $D:=-{\mathcal
J}_{1}{\mathcal J}_{2}$. Since $\mathcal J_{1}$ and $\mathcal
J_{2}$ commute, $D^{2}=\mathrm{Id}$. Let $C_{\pm}$ be the
eigenbundles of $D$, with eigenvalues $\pm 1$. They are preserved
by both $\mathcal J_{1}$ and $\mathcal J_{2}$ and the standard
projections
$$
\pi_{\pm}:C_{\pm}\rightarrow TN
$$
are isomorphisms. The almost complex structures $J_{\pm}$ of $N$
are induced, by means of $\pi_{\pm}$, by the restriction of
${\mathcal J}_{1}$ to $C_{\pm}$. The bi-Hermitian metric and the
$b$-field can also be read from $C_{\pm}$: the eigenbundle
$C_{\pm}$ is the graph of $b\pm g :TN\rightarrow T^{*}N$ (here $b$
associates to $X\in TN$ the $1$-form $i_{X}b:= b(X,\cdot )$ and
similarly for $g$). According to \cite{thesis}, $g$ is a
Riemannian metric compatible with $J_{\pm}$ (i.e. $J_{\pm}$ are
$g$-skew-symmetric) and the integrability of ${\mathcal J}_{1}$
and ${\mathcal J}_{2}$ is equivalent to the integrability of the
almost complex structures $J_{\pm}$, together with condition
(\ref{cond1}).
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Alternating knots have particularly simple reduced Khovanov homology and knot Floer homology. Lee \cite{Lee:KhovanovAlternating} showed that the reduced Khovanov homology of an alternating knot $K$ is fully determined by its Jones polynomial $V_K(q)$ and its signature $\sigma(K)$.
Analogously, Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o \cite{OzsvathSzabo:Alternating} proved that the knot Floer homology of an alternating knot $K$ is determined by its Alexander polynomial $\Delta_K(t)$ and its signature $\sigma(K)$. Furthermore, for alternating knots the Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o $\tau$ invariant \cite{OzsvathSzabo:FourBallGenus} and the Rasmussen $s$ invariant \cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice} coincide and are easily computable. In particular, if $K$ is an alternating knot, then
$$2 \tau(K) = s(K) = -\sigma(K).$$
Note, that it took some efforts to show that in general $2 \tau (K)$ and $s(K)$ are not equal \cite{HeddenOrding:ConcordanceInvariantsNotEqual}.
To compute the signature, if $D$ is a reduced alternating diagram of a knot $K$, Traczyk \cite{Traczyk:AlternatingSignature} proved that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma(K) & = & s_A(D) - n_+(D) -1\\
& = & 1 + n_-(D) - s_B(D),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $s_A(D)$ and $s_B(D)$ are the number of components in the all $A$ and all $B$ Kauffman resolutions of $D$ respectively, and $n_+(D)$ and $n_-(D)$ are the number of positive and negative crossings in $D$ respectively. Throughout this paper we choose our sign convention for the signature such that the signature of the positive trefoil is $-2$.
Our goal is to generalize those results to non-alternating knots.
We will examine the relationship between Traczyk's combinatorial knot diagram data and each of the knot signature, the Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o $\tau$ and the Rasmussen $s$ invariant for all knots. These relationships lead to new lower bounds for the Turaev genus of a knot.
For a given knot diagram in the plane, Turaev \cite{Turaev:SimpleProof} constructed an embedded oriented surface $\Sigma_D$ on which the knot projects. In \cite{DFKLS:KauffmanDessins} it is pointed out that the knot projection is alternating on the Turaev surface and that Turaev surface is a Heegaard surface for $S^3$. The precise construction of the Turaev surface is given in Section \ref{sec::turaev}. The Turaev genus of a knot $g_T(K)$ is the minimum genus of $\Sigma_D$ over all diagrams of the knot. We will relate the Turaev genus of a knot $K$ with $\sigma(K), \tau(K)$ and $s(K)$ in the following:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm::lowerbound}
Let $K$ be a knot. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left |\tau(K)+\frac{\sigma(K)}{2} \right | & \leq & g_T(K),\\
\frac{|s(K) + \sigma(K)|}{2} & \leq & g_T(K),~\text{and}\\
\left |\tau(K) - \frac{s(K)}{2} \right | & \leq & g_T(K).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
For alternating knots, i.e.~when $g_T(K)=0$, those inequalities reflect the results of Oszv\'ath, Szab\'o and Rasmussen.
Abe \cite{Abe:AlternationNumber}, using work of Livingston \cite{Livingston:OSKnotConcordanceInvariant}, has shown that the three quantities on the left in Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} are also lower bounds for the alternation number of a knot, which is the minimum Gordian distance between a given knot and any alternating knot. Examining how the Turaev genus of a knot compares to its alternation number remains an interesting open problem.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec::concord}, we review the constructions of the Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o $\tau$ invariant and the Rasmussen $s$ invariant. In Section \ref{sec::span}, we show a relationship between the spanning tree complexes for reduced Khovanov homology and knot Floer homology. Section \ref{sec::turaev} is a review of the construction of the Turaev surface and its relationship to the spanning tree complexes. Finally, we show how knot signature fits into the picture in Section \ref{sec::signature}. In Section \ref{sec::3braid}, we compute the bounds of Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} for knots obtained as the closure of $3$-braids.
The authors would like to thank Josh Greene for helpful conversations.
\section{Knot homology concordance invariants}
\label{sec::concord}
In this section, we recall the definitions of the Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o $\tau$ invariant \cite{OzsvathSzabo:FourBallGenus} and the Rasmussen $s$ invariant \cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice}.
\subsection{Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o $\tau$ invariant}
Heegaard Floer homology is an invariant for closed $3$-manifolds defined by Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o in \cite{Ozsvath-Szabo:HolDisks1} and \cite{Ozsvath-Szabo:HolDisks2}. The Heegaard Floer package gives rise to a concordance invariant, called the Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o~$\tau$ invariant, whose construction is given below.
Suppose $(\Sigma, \alpha, \beta, w, z)$ is a Heegaard diagram subordinate to the knot $K$ in $S^3$. This means $\Sigma$ is a genus $g$ surface and both
$\alpha = \{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_g\}$ and $\beta=\{\beta_1,\dots,\beta_g\}$ are $g$-tuples of homologically linearly independent, pairwise disjoint, simple closed curves in $\Sigma$. Also, $w$ and $z$ are points in the complement of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ curves in $\Sigma$ lying in a neighborhood of the curve $\beta_1$ and situated on opposite sides of $\beta_1$. The two sets of curves $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are boundaries of attaching disks and specify handlebodies $U_\alpha$ and
$U_\beta$ both with boundary $\Sigma$ and $U_\alpha\cup_\Sigma U_\beta \cong S^3$. The knot $K$ can be isotoped onto $\Sigma$ such that it is disjoint from $\beta_2,\dots,\beta_g$, an arc of $K$ runs from the basepoint $w$ to the basepoint $z$, and this arc intersects $\beta_1$ once transversely.
Denote the $g$-fold symmetric product of $\Sigma$ by $\text{Sym}^g(\Sigma)$ and consider the two embedded tori $\mathbb{T}_\alpha = \alpha_1 \times \cdots \times \alpha_g$ and $\mathbb{T}_\beta = \beta_1\times \cdots \times \beta_g$. Let $\widehat{CF}(S^3)$ denote the $\mathbb{Z}$-module generated by the intersection points of $\mathbb{T}_\alpha$ and $\mathbb{T}_\beta$. The complex $\widehat{CF}(S^3)$ can be endowed with a differential that counts pseudo-holomorphics disks in Sym$^g(\Sigma)$ between intersection points of $\mathbb{T}_\alpha$ and $\mathbb{T}_\beta$. The homology of $\widehat{CF}(S^3)$ is denoted $\widehat{HF}(S^3)$ and is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ (appearing in homological grading zero).
Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o \cite{OzsvathSzabo:HolomorphicDisks} and independently Rasmussen \cite{Rasmussen:Floer} proved that a knot $K$ induces a filtration on the chain complex $\widehat{CF}(S^3)$. Define $\mathcal{F}(K,m)\subset\widehat{CF}(S^3)$ to be the subcomplex generated by intersection points with filtration level less than or equal to $m$. There is an induced sequence of maps
$$\imath_K^m:H_*(\mathcal{F}(K,m))\to H_*(\widehat{CF}(S^3))=\widehat{HF}(S^3)\cong\mathbb{Z},$$
that are isomorphisms for all sufficiently large integers $m$. The Ozsv\'ath-Szab\'o $\tau$ invariant is defined as
$$\tau(K) = \min\{m\in\mathbb{Z}~|~\imath_K^m~\text{is non-trivial}\}.$$
By construction $\tau(K)$ is a knot invariant, and Ozsva\'th and Szab\'o \cite{OzsvathSzabo:FourBallGenus} showed that $\tau(K)$ depends only on the concordance class of $K$.
Also, recall that one can use the filtration $\mathcal{F}(K,m)$ to define the knot Floer homology of $K$, denoted $\widehat{HFK}(K)$, as follows. Define
$$\widehat{HFK}(K) = \bigoplus_{m\in\mathbb{Z}} H_*(\mathcal{F}(K,m) / \mathcal{F}(K,m-1)).$$
Thus $\widehat{HFK}(K)$ is the homology of the complex $\widehat{CFK}(K)$, where $\widehat{CFK}(K)$ is generated by intersection points of $\mathbb{T}_\alpha$ and $\mathbb{T}_\beta$, but unlike in $\widehat{CF}(S^3)$, the differential in $\widehat{CFK}(K)$ must preserve filtration level.
\subsection{The Rasmussen $s$ invariant}
Khovanov homology \cite{Khovanov:Homology} is a knot invariant that categorifies the Jones polynomial. Rasmussen
\cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice} used Lee's deformation of Khovanov homology \cite{Lee:Endomorphism} to define a concordance invariant, known as the Rasmussen $s$ invariant, whose construction is described below.
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$ with crossings labelled $1$ through $k$. Each crossing of $D$ has an $A$-smoothing and a $B$-smoothing, as shown in Figure \ref{fig::smooth}. Associate to each vertex $I$ of the cube $\{A,B\}^k$ the collection of simple closed curves in the plane $D_I$ obtained by smoothing the $i$-th crossing of $D$ according to the $i$-th coordinate of $v$. To each $D_I$ associated the $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space $V^{\otimes|I|}$ where $V$ is free on two generators $v_+$ and $v_-$ and $|I|$ is the number of components in $D_I$. Define a bigraded $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space, known as the cube of resolutions, by
$$CKh(D)=\bigoplus_{I\in\{A,B\}^k}V^{\otimes|I|}.$$
The homological grading of each summand $V^{\otimes|I|}$ is the number of $B$-smoothings in $I$ minus the number of negative crossings in $D$ (as in Figure \ref{fig::crossing_sign}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{smooth.eps}
\caption{The $A$ and $B$ smoothings of a crossing.}
\label{fig::smooth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{crossingsign.eps}
\caption{The crossing on the left is positive, and the crossing on the right is negative.}
\label{fig::crossing_sign}
\end{figure}
We will investigate two different differentials on $CKh(D)$. The first $\partial_{Kh}$ is Khovanov's differential. The homology $H_*(CKh(D),\partial_{Kh})$ is denoted $Kh(K)$. The vector space $Kh(K)$ has a homological and Jones grading, and its filtered Euler characteristic is $(q^{1/2}+q^{-1/2})V_K(q)$ where $V_K(q)$ is the Jones polynomial of $K$. (Note that we normalize the Jones grading to be half the usual grading). The second $\partial_{\text{Lee}}$ is Lee's differential. The homology $H_*(CKh(D),\partial_{\text{Lee}})$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Q}$. Lee's differential can be written as $\partial_{\text{Lee}}=\partial_{Kh} + \Phi$ where $\Phi$ increases Jones grading. The following theorem is implicit in Lee \cite{Lee:Endomorphism} and explicitly stated in Rasmussen \cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice}.
\begin{theorem}[Rasmussen \cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice}]
\label{thm::spec_seq}
Let $K$ be a knot. There is a spectral sequence with $E_2$ term $Kh(K)$ that converges to $\mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Q}$.
\end{theorem}
Lee identifies elements of $CKh(D)$ that represent the homology classes $\mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Q}$. These cycles are elements of $V^{\otimes|I|}$ where $I$ is the vertex obtained by smoothing each crossing according the orientation of the knot, i.e.~if a crossing is positive, then one chooses the $A$-smoothing and if a crossing is negative, then one chooses the $B$-smoothing. Therefore, the homological gradings of both of these cycles must be zero.
Lee's differential does not preserve the Jones grading. In order to obtain a well-defined Jones grading on Lee's homology, one must minimize over all elements in a given homology class. More specifically, if $\alpha\in H_*(CKh(D),\partial_{\text{Lee}})$, then the Jones grading of $\alpha$ is the minimum Jones grading of any element $a$ of $CKh(D)$ such that $a$ represents the homology class $\alpha$.
In \cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice}, Rasmussen showed that Lee's homology is supported in two Jones gradings $s_{\min}(K)$ and $s_{\max}(K)$ depending only on $K$, and moreover $s_{\max} (K)= s_{\min}(K) + 1$. Since our Jones grading is half of Khovanov's original Jones grading, both $s_{\min}(K)$ and $s_{\max}(K)$ are in $\mathbb{Z}+\frac{1}{2}$. The Rasmussen $s$ invariant is defined as
$$s(K) = s_{\min}(K) + s_{\max}(K).$$
Of course, $s(K)$ is an even integer, and Rasmussen showed that $s(K)$ depends only on the concordance class of $K$.
\section{Spanning tree complexes}
\label{sec::span}
\subsection{Construction of Tait's checkerboard graph}
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$. Color regions of $D$ white and black in a checkerboard fashion, i.e.~so that if two regions are separated by an arc of $D$, then they are different colors. The checkerboard coloring gives rise to the two Tait checkerboard graphs $G$ and $G^*$ of $D$. The vertices of $G$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the black regions, and the edges of $G$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the crossings of $D$. Each edge in $G$ is incident to the vertices that correspond to the black regions near the crossing. An edge in $G$ is called an {\em $A$-edge} (respectively a {\em $B$-edge}) if the $A$-smoothing (respectively the $B$-smoothing) separates the black regions. The vertices of $G^*$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the white regions, and the edges of $G^*$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the crossings of $D$. Each edge in $G^*$ is incident to the vertices that correspond to the white regions near the crossing. If an edge in $G$ is an $A$-edge (respectively a $B$-edge), then the edge corresponding to the same crossing in $G^*$ is a $B$-edge (respectively an $A$-edge). Observe that $G^*$ is the planar dual of $G$. We choose the checkerboard coloring so that the number of $B$-edges in $G$ is greater than or equal to the number of $B$-edges in $G^*$. Figure \ref{fig::tait} shows an example of the Tait graphs for the $10_{124}$ knot. Let $\mathcal{T}(G)$ denote the set of spanning trees of $G$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{10124tait.eps}
\caption{A diagram of the $10_{124}$ knot, along with its two Tait graphs. In the black graph, edges $1$ and $2$ are $A$-edges, while edges $3$ through $10$ are $B$-edges. Conversely, in the white graph, edges $1$ and $2$ are $B$-edges, while edges $3$ through $10$ are $A$-edges.}
\label{fig::tait}
\end{figure}
For any subgraph $H$ of $G$, let $V(H)$ be the number of vertices in $H$. Each edge in $G$ is associated to a crossing of $D$, and each crossing in $D$ is either positive or negative (see Figure \ref{fig::crossing_sign}). Moreover, each edge in $G$ is either an $A$-edge or a $B$-edge. For any subgraph $H$ of $G$ or $G^*$, let $E_A^+(H)$ denote the number of edges in $H$ that are both $A$-edges and associated to a positive crossing. Similarly define $E_A^-(H)$, $E_B^+(H)$, and $E_B^-(H)$.
Also, let $E^+(H)$ denote the number of edges in $H$ associated to positive crossings in $D$ and $E^-(H)$ denote the number of edges in $H$ associated to negative crossings in $D$. Note that $E^+(D) = n_+(D)$ and $E^-(G) = n_-(D)$. Since many of the subsequent arguments rely on graph theoretic ideas, we favor using $E^\pm(G)$ over $n_\pm(D)$. Similarly, let $E_A(H)$ be the number of $A$-edges in $H$ and $E_B(H)$ be the number of $B$-edges in $H$. We alert the reader that in the literature $A$-edges are sometimes called negative edges and $B$-edges are called positive edges. Since we have a different notion of positive and negative edges, we use the $A$ and $B$ notation instead.
If $M=\bigoplus M_{i,j}$ is a finitely generated, bigraded $\mathbb{Z}$-module, then define the $\delta$-grading of $M$ by $\delta = j - i$.
\subsection{The knot Floer homology spanning tree complex}
In \cite{OzsvathSzabo:Alternating}, Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o showed how to associate a Heegaard diagram $(\Sigma, \alpha, \beta, w, z)$ to a knot diagram $D$ such that the intersection points of the tori $\mathbb{T}_\alpha$ and $\mathbb{T}_\beta$ embedded into $\text{Sym}^g(\Sigma)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the spanning trees of the Tait graph of $D$. Hence there exists a complex whose homology is knot Floer homology that is generated by the spanning trees of the Tait graph.
\begin{proposition}[Ozsv\'ath, Szab\'o \cite{OzsvathSzabo:Alternating}]
\label{prop::span_hfk}
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$ and let $G$ be its Tait graph. There exists a complex $\widehat{CFK}(D)$ whose generators are in one-to-one correspondence with the spanning trees of $G$ and whose homology is $\widehat{HFK}(K)$.
\end{proposition}
Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o \cite{OzsvathSzabo:Alternating} showed how to calculate the $\delta$-grading of a generator by taking a certain sum over the crossings of the knot diagram. In \cite{Lowrance:WidthTuraevGenus}, the second author interpreted the $\delta$-grading in terms of information about the Tait graph of the knot diagram. The
$\delta$-grading corresponding to a spanning tree $T$ is
$$\delta_{\widehat{HFK}}(T) = \frac{1}{2}\big(E_B^+(T) + E_A^+(G\setminus T) - E_A^-(T) - E_B^-(G\setminus T)\big).$$
\subsection{The Khovanov homology spanning tree complex}
In the cube of resolutions complex for Khovanov homology $CKh(D)$, one associates a two dimensional vector space to each connected component of a Kauffman state.
Wehrli \cite{Wehrli:SpanningTrees} and Champanerkar and Kofman \cite{ChampanerkarKofman:SpanningTrees} showed that the cube of resolutions $CKh(D)$ retracts onto a complex where one associates a two dimensional vector space to each partial resolution of the knot diagram $D$ that is a twisted unknot (a partial resolution of $D$ that can be transformed into the trivial diagram of the unknot via Reidemeister one moves). The partial resolutions of $D$ that are twisted unknots are in one-to-one correspondence with the spanning trees of the Tait graph of $D$. Similarly, there is a spanning tree complex for reduced Khovanov homology.
Let $G$ be the Tait graph of a knot diagram $D$, and let $\mathcal{T}(G)$ the set of spanning trees of $G$.
Define the spanning tree complex for Khovanov homology as
$$C(D) = \bigoplus_{T\in\mathcal{T}(G)} \mathbb{Z}[T_+,T_-],$$
and define the spanning tree complex for reduced Khovanov homology as
$$\widetilde{C}(D) = \bigoplus_{T\in\mathcal{T}(G)}\mathbb{Z}[T].$$
\begin{proposition}[Wehrli \cite{Wehrli:SpanningTrees}, Champanerkar-Kofman \cite{ChampanerkarKofman:SpanningTrees}]
\label{prop::span_kh}
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a spanning tree complex $C(D)$ whose homology is $Kh(K)$.
\item There exists a spanning tree complex $\widetilde{C}(D)$ whose homology is $\widetilde{Kh}(K)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Champanerkar and Kofman chose their gradings so that the bigraded Euler characteristic of $\widetilde{Kh}(K)$ is $q^{-1} V_K(q^2)$ where $V_K(q)$ is the Jones polynomial of $K$. We replace their $j$-grading by $\frac{j+1}{2}$ so that the bigraded Euler characteristic is $V_K(q)$. The gradings between the Khovanov complex and the reduced Khovanov complex are related by
$$i_{Kh}(T_+) = i_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) = i_{Kh}(T_-)~\text{and}$$
$$j_{Kh}(T_+)-\frac{1}{2} = j_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) = j_{Kh}(T_-) +\frac{1}{2},$$
for any tree $T\in\mathcal{T}(G)$.
The $\delta$-grading corresponding to a spanning tree $T$ in $\widetilde{C}(D)$ is
$$\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) = E_B(T) + \frac{1}{4}\big(E^+(G) - E^-(G) -E_B(G) + E_A(G) - 2(V(G)-1)\big).$$
For our convenience, we give two alternate formulations of $\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T)$. Since $T$ is a spanning tree $V(G)-1 = E(T) = E_A(T) + E_B(T),$ and thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) & = & 2 E_B(T) +\frac{1}{2}\big(E^+(G) - E^-(G) -E_B(G) + E_A(G) - 2(E_A(T) + E_B(T))\big)\\
& = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) +\frac{1}{2}\big(E^+(G) - E^-(G) -E_B(G) + E_A(G)\big).
\end{eqnarray*}
The number of crossings of $D$ can be counted in two ways: by counting positive and negative crossings in $D$ and by counting $A$-edges and $B$-edges in $G$. Therefore, $E^+(G) + E^-(G) = E_A(G) + E_B(G)$ or said another way $E^+(G) - E_B(G) = E_A(G) - E^-(G)$. This leads to our two new formulations of $\delta_{Kh}(T)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn::delta1}
2\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) & = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) + E^+(G) - E_B(G),~\text{and}\\
\label{eqn::delta2}
2\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) & = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) - E^-(G) + E_A(G).
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The $\delta$-grading}
The $\delta$-grading of a spanning tree when considered in the reduced Khovanov complex is the same as the $\delta$-grading of that spanning tree when considered in the knot Floer complex. We note that this is not true of the either the homological or polynomial (Jones or Alexander) gradings individually.
\begin{proposition}
\label{delta}
Let $G$ be the Tait graph of a knot diagram $D$. If $T$ is a spanning tree of $G$, then $\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) = \delta_{\widehat{HFK}}(T)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From equation \ref{eqn::delta1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T) & = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) + E^+(G) - E_B(G)\\
& = & E_B^+(T) + E_B^-(T) - E_A^+(T) - E_A^-(T) +E_A^+(G) + E_B^+(G) - E_B^+(G) - E_B^-(G)\\
& = & E_B^+(T) + E_B^-(T) - E_A^+(T) - E_A^-(T) + E_A^+(G) - E_B^-(G)\\
& = & E_B^+(T) - E_B^-(G\setminus T) - E_A^-(T) + E_A^+(G\setminus T)\\
& = & 2\delta_{\widehat{HFK}}(T).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
For the remainder of the paper, we use the notation $\delta(T)$ to equivalently mean $\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T)$ or $\delta_{\widehat{HFK}}(T)$. Define
$$\delta_{\min}(D)=\min\{\delta(T)~|~T\in\mathcal{T}(G)\}~\text{and}~
\delta_{\max}(D)=\max\{\delta(T) ~|~T\in\mathcal{T}(G)\}.$$
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop::tau_ineq}
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$. Then $\delta_{\min}(D)\leq\tau(K)\leq\delta_{\max}(D)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop::span_hfk} implies there is a Heegaard diagram subordinate to $K$ where the intersections points of $\mathbb{T}_\alpha$ and $\mathbb{T}_\beta$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the spanning trees of the Tait graph $G$. One can use this Heegaard diagram to generate both the complexes $\widehat{CF}(S^3)$ and $\widehat{CFK}(K)$. By the definition of $\tau$, there must be some spanning tree $T$ in filtration level $\tau$. Since the generator of $\widehat{HF}(S^3)$ is in homological grading $0$, the tree $T$ must also be in homological grading $0$. Therefore, the tree $T$ (viewed as a generator of $\widehat{CFK}(K)$) must satisfy $\delta(T) = \tau(K)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop::s_ineq}
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$. Then $2\delta_{\min}(D)\leq s(K)\leq2\delta_{\max}(D)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $C(D)$ is a deformation retract of $CKh(D)$, there exists a spectral sequence (analogous to the sequence of Theorem \ref{thm::spec_seq}) whose $E_1$ page is $C(D)$, $E_2$ page is $Kh(K)$ and that converges to $\mathbb{Q}\oplus\mathbb{Q}$. Therefore, there exists two generators $T_1$ and $T_2$ of $C(D)$ with $i_{Kh}(T_1)=i_{Kh}(T_2) = 0$ and $j_{Kh}(T_1) = s_{\min}(K)$ and $j_{Kh}(T_2) = s_{\max}(K)$. Hence, there exists a spanning tree $T$ such that $\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}(T)=s(K)/2$.
\end{proof}
\section{The Turaev surface}
\label{sec::turaev}
The ideas discussed below involve ribbon graphs associated to a knot diagram. These ideas are developed by Dasbach, Futer, Kalfagianni, Lin, and Stoltzfus (cf. \cite{DFKLS:DDD} and \cite{DFKLS:KauffmanDessins}). The construction of the Turaev surface of a knot diagram is due to Turaev \cite{Turaev:SimpleProof}.
Let $D$ be a knot diagram and $\Gamma$ the $4$-valent plane graph obtained from $D$ by forgetting the ``over-under" information at each crossing. Regard $\Gamma$ as embedded in $\mathbb{R}^2$ which is sitting inside $\mathbb{R}^3$. Remove a neighborhood around each vertex of $\Gamma$, resulting in a collection of arcs in the plane. Replace each arc by a band which is perpendicular to the plane. In the neighborhoods removed earlier, place a saddle so that the circles obtained from choosing an $A$ resolution at each crossing lie above the plane and so that the circles obtained from choosing a $B$ resolution at each crossing lie below the plane. Such a saddle is shown in Figure \ref{fig::saddle}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{saddle.eps}
\caption{In a neighborhood of each vertex of $\Gamma$ a saddle surface transitions between the $A$ and $B$ circles.}
\label{fig::saddle}
\end{figure}
The boundary of the resulting surface is a collection of disjoint circles, where circles corresponding to the all $A$ resolution lie above the plane and circles corresponding to the all $B$ resolution lie below the plane. Cap off each boundary circle with a disk to obtain $\Sigma_D$, the {\em Turaev surface of $D$}. The {\em Turaev genus of a knot $K$} is defined as
$$g_T(K) = \min\{g(\Sigma_D)~|~D\text{ is a diagram of }K\}.$$
A {\em ribbon graph} is a graph together with a cellular embedding into a surface. The genus $g(\mathbb{G})$ of a ribbon graph is the genus of the surface into which it embeds. Denote the number of vertices in a ribbon graph $\mathbb{G}$ by $V(\mathbb{G})$. One can embed two ribbon graphs $\mathbb{A}$ and $\mathbb{B}$ into $\Sigma_D$ as follows. The vertices of $\mathbb{A}$ correspond to the disks used to cap off the $A$ circles, and the edges of $\mathbb{A}$ are the flowlines going from the vertices through the saddles. Similarly, the vertices of $\mathbb{B}$ correspond to the disks used to cap off the $B$ circles, and the edges of $\mathbb{B}$ are the flowlines going from the vertices through the saddles. The ribbon graphs $\mathbb{A}$ and $\mathbb{B}$ are dual to one another on $\Sigma_D$, and therefore the Euler characteristic of $\Sigma_D$ is determined by
$$\chi(\Sigma_D) = s_A(D) - c(D) + s_B(D),$$
where $c(D)$ is the number of crossings of $D$ and $s_A(D)$ and $s_B(D)$ are the number of components in the all $A$-smoothing and all $B$-smoothing respectively.
Let $\mathbb{G}$ be a ribbon graph. A {\em ribbon subgraph $\mathbb{H}$ of $\mathbb{G}$} is a subgraph of $\mathbb{G}$ such that the cyclic orientation of the edges in the embedding of $\mathbb{H}$ is inherited from the embedding of $\mathbb{G}$. Note that the surfaces on which $\mathbb{H}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ are embedded are not necessarily the same. If $\mathbb{G}$ is embedded on the surface $\Sigma$, then the connected components of $\Sigma\backslash\mathbb{G}$ are known as the faces of $\mathbb{G}$. A {\em spanning quasi-tree $\mathbb{T}$ of $\mathbb{G}$} is a connected ribbon subgraph of $\mathbb{G}$ such that $V(\mathbb{T}) = V(\mathbb{G})$ and such that $\mathbb{T}$ has one face. Denote the set of spanning quasi-trees of $\mathbb{G}$ by $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{G})$.
Recall that $\mathcal{T}(G)$ denotes the set of spanning trees of the Tait graph $G$. Champanerkar, Kofman, and Stoltzfus \cite{CKS:DessinsKhovanov} defined maps $q_{\mathbb{A}}:\mathcal{T}(G)\to\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{A})$ and $q_{\mathbb{B}}:\mathcal{T}(G)\to\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{B})$. Since the sets of edges of $G$, $\mathbb{A}$, and $\mathbb{B}$ are each in one-to-one correspondence with the crossings of $D$, we identify all three sets. Because elements of $\mathcal{T}(G)$, $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{A})$, and $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{B})$ are spanning, it suffices to define $q_{\mathbb{A}}$ and $q_{\mathbb{B}}$ on the set of edges of $G$. Let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$. An $A$-edge of $G$ is in the quasi-tree $q_{\mathbb{A}}(T)$ if and only if it is in $T$, and a $B$-edge of $G$ is in the quasi-tree $q_{\mathbb{A}}(T)$ if and only if it is in $G \setminus T$. Similarly, an $A$-edge of $G$ is in the quasi-tree $q_{\mathbb{B}}(T)$ if and only if it is in $G \setminus T$, and a $B$-edge of $G$ is in $q_{\mathbb{B}}(T)$ if and only if it is in $T$.
\begin{theorem}[Champanerkar, Kofman, Stoltzfus \cite{CKS:DessinsKhovanov}]
\label{thm::quasi-map}
The maps
$$q_{\mathbb{A}}: \mathcal{T}(G) \to \mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{A})~\text{and}~
q_{\mathbb{B}}:\mathcal{T}(G) \to \mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{B})$$
are bijections. Moreover, the genera of $q_{\mathbb{A}}(T)$ and $q_{\mathbb{B}}(T)$ are determined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(q_{\mathbb{A}}(T)) + E_B(T) & = & \frac{V(G) + E_B(G) -s_A(D)}{2}~\text{and}\\
g(q_{\mathbb{B}}(T)) + E_A(T) & = & \frac{V(G) + E_A(G) - s_B(D)}{2}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
The following corollary was shown by Champanerkar, Kofman, and Stoltzfus for $\delta_{\widetilde{Kh}}$ and by the second author for $\delta_{\widehat{HFK}}$. In light of Proposition \ref{delta}, it can be seen as a single corollary of the previous theorem. Since the $\delta$-grading for each spanning tree $T$ is the number of $B$-edges in $T$ (up to some overall shift dependent on the diagram $D$), we have the following result.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor::turaev_genus}
Let $D$ be a knot diagram. The genus of the Turaev surface of $D$ is determined by
$$g(\Sigma_D) = \delta_{\max}(D) - \delta_{\min}(D).$$
\end{corollary}
The maximum and minimum $\delta$-gradings are related to Traczyk's combinatorial data coming from a diagram of the knot.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor::minmax}
Let $D$ be a knot diagram, and let $G$ be its Tait graph. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta_{\min}(D) & = & s_B(D) - E^-(G) -1~\text{and}\\
2\delta_{\max}(D) & = & 1+E^+(G)-s_A(D).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $T_{\min}$ be a spanning tree such that $\delta(T_{\min}) = \delta_{\min}(D)$. By the definition of $q_{\mathbb{B}}$, the number of edges in $q_{\mathbb{B}}(T)$ is $E_A(G\setminus T_{\min}) + E_B(T_{\min})$. Since $\delta(T_{\min}) = \delta_{\min}(D)$, the tree $T_{\min}$ has the maximum number of $A$-edges possible, and thus Theorem \ref{thm::quasi-map} implies that $g(q_{\mathbb{B}}(T_{\min}))=0$. Therefore, $q_{\mathbb{B}}(T_{\min})$ is a spanning tree of the underlying graph of $\mathbb{B}$ and has $s_B(D)-1$ edges.
Equation \ref{eqn::delta1} implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta(T_{\min}) & = & E_B(T_{\min}) - E_A(T_{\min}) + E_A(G) - E^-(G)\\
& = & E_A(G \setminus T_{\min}) + E_B(T_{\min}) - E^-(G)\\
& = & s_B(D) - E^-(G) - 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, let $T_{\max}$ be a spanning tree such that $\delta(T_{\max})=\delta_{\max}(D)$. By the definition of $q_{\mathbb{A}}$, the number of edges in $q_{\mathbb A}(T)$ is $E_A(T) + E_B(G\setminus T)$. Since $\delta(T_{\max})=\delta_{\max}(D)$, the tree $T_{\max}$ has the maximum number of $B$-edges possible, and thus Theorem \ref{thm::quasi-map} implies that $g(q_{\mathbb{A}}(T_{\max}))=0$. Therefore, $q_{\mathbb{A}}(T_{\max})$ is a spanning tree of the underlying graph of $\mathbb{A}$ and has $s_A(D)-1$ edges.
Equation \ref{eqn::delta2} implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta(T_{\max}) & = & E_B(T_{\max}) - E_A(T_{\max}) +E^+(G) - E_B(G)\\
& = & E^+(G) -E_B(G\setminus T_{\max}) -E_A(T_{\max})\\
& = & 1 + E^+(G) -s_A(D)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\section{Knot signature}
\label{sec::signature}
The signature of a knot $\sigma(K)$ was defined by Trotter in \cite{Trotter:Signature} and was shown to be a concordance invariant by Kauffman and Taylor in \cite{Kauffman:Signature}.
In this section, we show that $\sigma(K)$ satisfies inequalities similar to the inequalities satisfied by $\tau(K)$ and $s(K)$. Consequently, one has new lower bounds for the Turaev genus of a knot.
\subsection{Construction of the Goeritz matrix}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{goeritz.eps}
\caption{The incidence number and type of a crossing.}
\label{fig::goeritz}
\end{figure}
Color the regions of $D$ black and white in a checkerboard fashion. Assume that each crossing is incident to two distinct black regions. Label the black regions of $D$ by $R_0, \dots, R_n$. Assign an incidence number and a type to each crossing, as in Figure \ref{fig::goeritz}. Set
$$\mu(D) = -\sum_{c~\text{of Type II}}\mu(c).$$
If $i,j\in\{0,1,\dots,n\}$ and $i\neq j$, then define
$$g_{ij} = - \sum_{c\in\overline{R}_i\cap\overline{R}_j}\mu(c),$$
and also, for $i\in\{0,1,\dots,n\}$ define
$$g_{ii}= - \sum_{i\neq j}g_{ij}.$$
Then the Goeritz matrix $\mathcal{G}$ of $D$ is defined to be the $n \times n$ matrix with entries $g_{ij}$ for $i,j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. Let $\sigma(\mathcal{G})$ denote the signature of the symmetric matrix $\mathcal{G}$, i.e. $\sigma(\mathcal{G})$ is the number of positive eigenvalues $\sigma_+(\mathcal{G})$ minus the number of negative eigenvalues $\sigma_-(\mathcal{G})$. Gordon and Litherland \cite{GordonLitherland:Signature} gave the following formula for the signature of a knot.
\begin{theorem}[Gordon-Litherland \cite{GordonLitherland:Signature}]
Let $D$ be a reduced diagram of a knot $K$. Then $\sigma(K) = \sigma(\mathcal{G}) - \mu(D)$.
\end{theorem}
Observe that the Goeritz matrix is completely determined by the Tait graph $G$. Label the vertices of $G$ by $v_0, v_1, \dots, v_n$ so that the vertex $v_i$ corresponds with the region $R_i$. For $i\neq j$, one can equivalently define
$$g_{ij} = \#(B\text{-edges connecting}~v_i~\text{to}~v_j) - \#(A\text{-edges connecting}~v_i~\text{to}~v_j).$$
\subsection{The $\delta$-grading and signature}
In order to establish the desired inequalities for the signature of the knot, we first need two lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem::mirror}
Let $D$ be a knot diagram and $\overline{D}$ its mirror image. Then $\delta_{\min}(D) = -\delta_{\max}(\overline{D})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{cor::minmax}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta_{\min}(D) & = & s_B(D) - E^-(G) - 1\\
& = & s_A(\overline{D}) - E^+(\overline{G}) -1\\
& = & - 2\delta_{\max}(\overline{D}).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem::neg_eig}
Let $D$ be a knot diagram with Tait graph $G$ and Goeritz matrix $\mathcal{G}$. There exists a spanning tree $T\in\mathcal{T}(G)$ such that $E_B(T)\leq\sigma_-(\mathcal{G})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on the $A$-edges of $G$. First we prove the lemma in the base case where every edge of $G$ is a $B$-edge. Then we show that one can construct the desired spanning tree in $G$ from the graph obtained by contracting an $A$-edge in $G$.
If every edge of $G$ is a $B$-edge, then $D$ is an alternating diagram and the number of components in the all $B$-smoothing $s_B(D)$ is equal to the number of vertices $V(G)$ of $G$. Therefore, the signature of $K$ is given by Traczyk's formula:
$$\sigma(K)=1 + E^-(G)-V(G).$$
Observe that $\mu(D) = E_A^+(G) - E_B^-(G)$, and hence the Gordon-Litherland formula for signature can be written as
$$\sigma(K) = \sigma_+(\mathcal{G}) - \sigma_-(\mathcal{G}) - E_A^+(G) + E_B^-(G).$$Since each edge of $G$ is a $B$-edge, it follows that $E^-(G) = E_B^-(G)$ and $E_A^+(G)=0$. Therefore,
$$\sigma_+(\mathcal{G}) - \sigma_-(\mathcal{G}) = 1 - V(G).$$
The Goeritz matrix $\mathcal{G}$ is a $(V(G)-1)\times(V(G)-1)$ matrix, and thus $\mathcal{G}$ is negative definite, i.e.~$\sigma_-(\mathcal{G})=V(G)-1$. Hence for any spanning tree $T$ of $G$, we have
$$E_B(T) = V(G) -1 = \sigma_-(\mathcal{G}).$$
Suppose $G$ has $n$ vertices and at least one $A$-edge $e$. By way of induction, suppose that for all graphs with less than $n$ vertices, there exists a spanning tree $T$ with $E_B(T)$ less than or equal to the number of negative eigenvalues of the Goeritz matrix associated to that graph. Relabel the black regions so that the vertices incident to $e$ are $v_0$ and $v_1$. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be the $n\times n$ Goeritz matrix of $G$ with entries $g_{ij}$, and let $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ be the $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ Goeritz matrix of the graph $\widetilde{G}$ obtained by contracting the edge $e$ in $G$ with entries $\widetilde{g}_{ij}$. Then $\widetilde{g}_{ij} = g_{i+1,j+1}.$ Therefore $\sigma_-(\widetilde{\mathcal{G}})\leq\sigma_-(\mathcal{G})$.
By the inductive hypothesis, there exists a spanning tree $\widetilde{T}$ of $\widetilde{G}$ such that $E_B(\widetilde{T})\leq \sigma_-(\mathcal{G})$. One can form a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ by take the edges of $\widetilde{T}$ and adding the edge $e$. Since $e$ is an $A$-edge, it follows that $E_B(T) = E_B(\widetilde{T}) \leq \sigma_-(\widetilde{\mathcal{G}})\leq\sigma_-(\mathcal{G})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm::sig_ineq}
Let $D$ be a diagram of a knot $K$. Then $2\delta_{\min}(D)\leq -\sigma(K)\leq2\delta_{\max}(D)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be the $n \times n$ Goeritz matrix of $D$. By Lemma \ref{lem::neg_eig} there exists is a spanning tree $T\in\mathcal{T}(G)$ such that $E_B(T)\leq\sigma_-(\mathcal{G})$. Since $K$ is a knot, $det(K) = |det(\mathcal{G}| \neq 0$. Therefore $\sigma_-(\mathcal{G}) + \sigma_+(\mathcal{G}) = n = E_A(T) + E_B(T)$. This implies that
$$0\leq \sigma_-(\mathcal{G}) - E_B(T) = E_A(T) - \sigma_+(\mathcal{G}).$$
Hence $\sigma_+(\mathcal{G})\leq E_A(T)$ and $E_B(T) - E_A(T) \leq \sigma_-(\mathcal{G}) - \sigma_+(\mathcal{G}) = -\sigma(\mathcal{G}).$
Recall that $\mu(D) = E_A^+(G) - E_B^-(G)$. We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\delta(T) & = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) + E^+(G) - E_B(G)\\
& = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) + E_A^+(G) + E_B^+(G) - E_B^+(G) - E_B^-(G)\\
& = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) + E_A^+(G) - E_B^-(G)\\
& = & E_B(T) - E_A(T) +\mu(D)\\
&\leq & -\sigma(\mathcal{G}) + \mu(D)\\
& = & -\sigma(K).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, there exists a spanning tree $T$ with $2\delta(T)\leq -\sigma(K)$, and thus for any diagram $D$ of $K$, we have $2\delta_{\min}(D) \leq -\sigma(K)$.
Let $\overline{D}$ be the mirror image of $D$. By the same argument $2\delta_{\min}(\overline{D})\leq -\sigma(\overline{K})$. By Lemma \ref{lem::mirror}, we have $\delta_{\max}(D) = - \delta_{\min}(\overline{D})$, and of course, $\sigma(K) = -\sigma(\overline{K})$. Therefore $-\sigma(K)\leq 2 \delta_{\max}(D)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound}]
Propositions \ref{prop::tau_ineq} and \ref{prop::s_ineq}, Corollary \ref{cor::minmax}, and Theorem \ref{thm::sig_ineq} imply the following inequalities:
\begin{eqnarray*}
s_B(D) - n_-(D) - 1\leq & 2\tau(K) & \leq 1 + n_+(D) - s_A(D),\\
s_B(D) - n_-(D) - 1\leq & s(K) & \leq 1 + n_+(D) - s_A(D),~\text{and}\\
s_B(D) - n_-(D) - 1\leq & -\sigma(K) & \leq 1 + n_+(D) - s_A(D).
\end{eqnarray*}
The result now follows from Corollary \ref{cor::turaev_genus}.
\end{proof}
The third inequality above also follows from Inequality (13.4) in the proof of Theorem 13.3 in \cite{Murasugi:InvariantsOfGraphs} together with results in
\cite{Thistlethwaite:AdequateKauffman}.
Lobb \cite{Lobb:Rasmussen} gave upper and lower bounds on the Rasmussen $s$ invariant. Lobb's bounds also depend on the diagram of the
knot. He used combinatorial data obtained from the oriented resolution of
the diagram. Our results are similar in nature, but we use combinatorial
data obtain from the all $A$ and all $B$ resolutions.
We conclude this section with a note on unknotting number. Since $|\frac{s(K)}{2}|$, $|\tau(K)|$, and $|\frac{\sigma}{2}|$ are all lower bounds the unknotting number of $K$, the above inequalities give us a way to possibly find a lower bound coming from a diagram of $D$. This lower bound is necessarily weaker than the bounds given by $s(K)$, $\tau(K)$, and $\sigma(K)$.
\begin{proposition}
Let $D$ be the diagram of a knot $K$, and let $G$ be its Tait graph. Denote the unknotting number of $K$ by $u(K)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $s_B(D) - E^-(G) - 1\geq 0$, then $s_B(D) - E^-(G) -1 \leq 2u(K)$.
\item If $s_A(D) - E^+(G) -1 \geq 0$, then $s_A(D) - E^+(G) -1 \leq 2u(K).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\section{Example: $3$-braid knots}
\label{sec::3braid}
In this section, we examine knots obtained as the closure of a $3$-braid, and compute the bounds of Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} for each such knot.
Let $B_3$ denote the braid group on three strands, generated by elements $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. Murasugi described the conjugacy classes of closed $3$-braids.
\begin{theorem}[Murasugi \cite{Murasugi:ThreeBraid}]
Any $3$-braid is conjugate to exactly one braid of the form $(\sigma_1\sigma_2)^{3n}\cdot w$, where $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $w$ is either
\begin{enumerate}
\item equal to $\sigma_1^{a_1}\sigma_2^{-b_1}\cdots\sigma_1^{a_k}\sigma_2^{-b_k}$, where $a_i,b_i>0$;
\item equal to $\sigma_2^k$ for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}$;
\item equal to $\sigma_1^m\sigma_2^{-1}$ where $m\in\{-1, -2, -3\}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We say a $3$-braid in one of the above forms is in Murasugi normal form. Closed $3$-braids whose Murasugi normal form is of type (2) or type (3) with $m=-2$ are links. A closed $3$-braid knot of type (3) is a $(3,k)$ torus knot.
\subsection{Torus knots}
Let $T(3,k)$ denote the $(3,k)$ torus knot. Throughout this subsection, we assume $k>0$. The computations for $k<0$ are similar.
Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o \cite{OzsvathSzabo:FourBallGenus} and Rasmussen \cite{Rasmussen:KhovanovSlice} computed the value of the $\tau$ and $s$ invariants for torus knots. In our case, we have
$$2\tau(T(3,k))=s(T(3,k))= 2k-2.$$
Gordon, Litherland, and Murasugi \cite{GLM:Signature} showed that the signature of a $(3,k)$ torus knot is given by
$$\sigma(T(3,6k+l))=-8k-2 l+2,$$
for $l=1,2,4$ or $5$. Therefore, the bounds from Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq::torusbound}
\left | \tau(T(3,6k+l))+\frac{\sigma(T(3,6k+l))}{2} \right | =\left| \frac{s(T(3,6k+l))+\sigma(T(3,6k+l))}{2}\right|=2 k,
\end{equation}
where $l=1, 2, 4$ or $5$.
In \cite{Lowrance:TwistedLinks}, the second author found knot diagrams $D_{k,l}$ of the knots $T(3,3k+l)$ such that the genus of the Turaev surface is given by
$$g(\Sigma_{D_{k,l}})=k,$$
where $l=1$ or $2$.
Therefore Equation \ref{eq::torusbound} and Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} imply that
$$g_T(T(3,6k+l))=2k,$$
for $l=1$ and $2$. Using other methods, it can be shown that $g_T(T(3,6k+l)) = 2k+1$ for $l=4$ and $5$. In this case, the Equation \ref{eq::torusbound} implies that the bounds from Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} are not sharp.
\subsection{Non-torus closed $3$-braids}
We now turn our attention to closed $3$-braid knots whose Murasugi normal form is of type (1). Throughout this subsection, we assume $n>0$. The computations when $n<0$ are similar. Erle calculated the signature of such a closed $3$-braid knot.
\begin{proposition}[Erle \cite{Erle:Signature}]
If $K_n$ is the closure of $(\sigma_1\sigma_2)^{3n} \sigma_1^{a_1}\sigma_2^{-b_1}\cdots\sigma_1^{a_k}\sigma_2^{-b_k}$, then $$\sigma(K_n) = -4n - \sum_{i=1}^k (a_i - b_i).$$
\end{proposition}
Using work of Van Cott \cite{VanCott:CableKnots}, Greene computed the Rasmussen $s$ invariant for such closed $3$-braids.
\begin{proposition}[Greene \cite{Greene:Unknotting}]
\label{prop::greene}
Let $K_n $ be a knot that is the closure of $(\sigma_1\sigma_2)^{3n} \sigma_1^{a_1}\sigma_2^{-b_1}\cdots\sigma_1^{a_k}\sigma_2^{-b_k}.$ Then
\begin{equation}
s(K_n) = \begin{cases} 6n - 2 -\sigma(K_0), & \text{if $n>0$;}\\
-\sigma(K_0), & \text{if $n=0$;}\\
6n + 2 - \sigma(K_0), & \text{if $n<0.$}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Greene's proof depends on the following facts.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For a quasi-alternating knot $s(K) = -\sigma(K)$.
\item $s$ is a homomorphism from the smooth knot concordance group $\mathcal{C}\to\mathbb{Z}$.
\item $|s(K)| \leq 2 g_4(K)$, where $g_4(K)$ is the $4$-genus of $K$.
\item $s$ of the $(m,n)$ torus knot is $(m-1)(n-1)$.
\end{enumerate}
Note that $(2) - (4)$ above are the conditions appearing in Van Cott's \cite{VanCott:CableKnots} work.
Each of $(1) - (4)$ also holds for $2\tau$, and so, using the notation of Proposition \ref{prop::greene}, we have
$$2\tau(K_n) = s(K_n).$$
Therefore
$$\left |\frac{s(K_n) + \sigma(K_n)}{2}\right | =\left |\tau(K_n)+\frac{\sigma(K_n)}{2}\right|=n-1.$$
The second author \cite{Lowrance:TwistedLinks} showed the $g_T(K_n)\leq n$. Hence Theorem \ref{thm::lowerbound} implies
$$g_T(K_n)=n-1~\text{or}~n.$$
|
\section{Motivation and summary}\label{secI}
This paper is the follow up of previous work \cite{Bl.al.10} (hereafter Paper I) where we demonstrated a very good agreement between the analytical post-Newtonian (PN) approximation and the numerical gravitational self-force (SF) for circular orbits in the perturbed Schwarzschild geometry. The first step had been taken by Detweiler \cite{De.08} who showed agreement at 2PN order using the existing PN metric \cite{Bl.al.98}.\footnote{As usual the $n$PN order refers to terms equivalent to $(v/c)^{2n}$ beyond Newtonian theory, where $v$ is a typical internal velocity of the material system and $c$ is the speed of light.} Motivated by this result we pushed the PN calculation in Paper I up to the 3PN level. This is particularly interesting because the 3PN approximation necessitates an extensive use of dimensional regularization to treat the divergent self-field of point particles. The successful comparison reported in Paper I confirmed the soundness of both the traditional PN expansion (see e.g. \cite{Bl.06}) and the perturbative SF analysis \cite{Mi.al.97,QuWa.97,DeWh.03,GrWa.08,Po.04} in describing the dynamics of compact binary systems --- notably, regarding subtleties associated with the self-field regularizations in use in both approaches. This comparison dealt with the conservative part of the dynamics, but previous comparisons between the PN and the SF had checked dissipative effects \cite{Po.93,Cu.al2.93,Po2.93,TaNa.94,Po.95,Ta.al.96,Ta.al2.96,PoSa.95}.
In Paper I we also showed that the quality of the numerical SF data is such that substantial physical information remains far beyond 3PN order, i.e. is contained within the numerically derived residuals obtained after subtracting the known 3PN terms from the data (see Fig.~3 of Paper I). In the present paper we explore further the higher-order PN nature of the numerical data. We point out that knowing analytically determined appropriate PN parameters helps tremendously in allowing our numerical data to be used to obtain higher order PN terms. In particular, we show that prior analytic information from PN theory regarding the presence of \textit{logarithmic} terms in the PN expansion is crucial for efficiently extracting from the SF data the numerical values of higher order PN coefficients.
The occurence of logarithmic terms in the PN expansion has been investigated in many previous works \cite{And,Ke1.80,Ke2.80,An.al.82,FuSc.83,Fu.83,BlDa.86,BlDa.88}. Notably Anderson \textit{et al.} \cite{An.al.82} found that the dominant logarithm arises at the 4PN order, and Blanchet \& Damour \cite{BlDa.88} (see also \cite{Bl.93}) showed that this logarithm is associated with gravitational wave tails modifying the usual 2.5PN radiation-reaction damping at the 1.5PN relative order. Furthermore the general structure of the PN expansion is known \cite{BlDa.86}: it is of the type $\sum (v/c)^k[\ln(v/c)]^q$, where $k$ and $q$ are positive integers, involving only powers of logarithms; more exotic terms such as $[\ln(\ln(v/c))]^q$ cannot arise. In the present paper we shall determine the leading 4PN logarithm and the next-to-leading 5PN logarithm in the conservative part of the dynamics of a compact binary system.
Consider two compact objects with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ (without spins) moving on exactly circular orbits. The dissipative effects associated with gravitational wave emission are neglected, which is formalized by assuming the existence of a helical Killing vector field $K^{\alpha}(x)$, being null on the light cylinder associated with the circular motion, time-like inside the light cylinder (for instance at the particle's location) and space-like outside (including a neighborhood of spatial infinity). Then we consider a particular gauge invariant observable quantity \cite{De.08} defined as the constant of proportionality between the four-velocity of one of the masses, say $m_1$, and the helical Killing vector evaluated at the location of that particle, i.e. $K_1^{\alpha}\equiv K^{\alpha}(y_1)$,
\begin{equation}\label{uTdef}
u_1^{\alpha} = u_1^T \,K_1^{\alpha}\,.
\end{equation}
The quantity $u_1^T$ represents the redshift of light rays emitted from the particle and received on the helical symmetry axis perpendicular to the orbital plane \cite{De.08}; we shall sometimes refer to it as the redshift observable. Adopting a coordinate system in which the helical Killing vector field reads $K^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha} = \partial_t + \Omega\,\partial_\varphi$, where $\Omega$ denotes the orbital frequency of the circular motion, we find that the redshift observable reduces to the $t$ component $u_1^t\equiv\mathrm{d} t/\mathrm{d}\tau_1$ of the particle's four-velocity, namely
\begin{equation}\label{uT}
u_1^T = u_1^t = \biggl( - g_{\alpha\beta}(y_1) \frac{v_1^{\alpha} v_1^{\beta}}{c^2} \biggr)^{-1/2} \,.
\end{equation}
Here $v_1^\alpha\equiv\mathrm{d} y_1^\alpha/\mathrm{d} t=(c,v_1^i)$ is the ordinary coordinate velocity used in PN calculations, and $g_{\alpha\beta}(y_1)$ denotes the metric being evaluated at the particle's location by means of an appropriate self-field regularization, i.e. mode-sum regularization in the SF approach, and dimensional regularization in the PN context.
The point is that $u_1^T$ can be computed as a function of the orbital frequency $\Omega$ in both the PN approach for any mass ratio, and in the perturbative SF framework when the mass $m_1$ is much smaller than $m_2$. Summarizing the analytical 3PN result of Paper I and present computation of the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic terms in Secs.~\ref{secII}--\ref{secV}, we obtain the SF contribution to the redshift observable \eqref{uT} as\footnote{Inspired by our earlier work \cite{Bl.al.10}, the easy calculation of the 4PN logarithm has already been given in \cite{Da.10}.}
\begin{align}\label{utSFintro}
u^T_{\mathrm{SF}} =& - y - 2 y^2 - 5 y^3 + \left(
- \frac{121}{3} + \frac{41}{32} \pi^2 \right) y^4 \nonumber\\&+ \left(
\alpha_4 - \frac{64}{5}\ln y\right) y^5 + \left(
\alpha_5 + \frac{956}{105}\ln y\right) y^6 + o(y^6)\,,
\end{align}
where $y=(G m_2 \Omega/c^3)^{2/3}$ is a PN parameter associated with the lighter mass $m_1$, and $\alpha_4$ and $\alpha_5$ denote some purely numerical coefficients left out in the PN calculation. However, having obtained theoretical predictions for the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic terms, we are able to perform an efficient fit to the numerical SF data and to accurately measure the other non-logarithmic 4PN and 5PN coefficients. We find $\alpha_4=-114.34747(5)$ and $\alpha_5=-245.53(1)$ where the uncertainty in the last digit is in parenthesis. Furthermore we can also measure the 6PN coefficients $\alpha_6$ and $\beta_6$ (such that $\alpha_6+\beta_6\ln y$ is the factor of $y^7$), and give an estimate of the total contribution of the 7PN coefficient (including both logarithmic and non-logarithmic terms); see Table \ref{bestfit} and Fig. \ref{bestfig} in Sec.~\ref{secVID}. The 3PN coefficient $\alpha_3 = - \frac{121}{3} + \frac{41}{32} \pi^2$ is also found to be in agreement with the SF data with high precision.
The non-logarithmic coefficients $\alpha_4$, $\alpha_5$, $\cdots$ would be extremely difficult to obtain with standard PN methods. Their computation would require in particular having a consistent self-field regularization scheme; for instance it is not guaranteed that dimensional regularization which has been so successful at 3PN order could be applied with equal success at much higher orders. Nevertheless these coefficients are obtained here for the first time with reasonable precision up to the impressive 7PN order. This emphasizes the powerfulness of the perturbative SF approach and its ability to describe the strong field regime of compact binary systems, which is inaccessible to the PN method. Of course, the limitation of the SF approach is the small mass-ratio limit; in this respect it is taken over by the PN method.
The analytical and numerical results obtained in this paper up to 7PN order could be used for the synthesis and calibration of template waveforms of extreme mass ratio inspirals to be observed by the space-based gravitational wave detector LISA. They are also relevant to analyses that combine numerical computations in a quantitative analytical framework for the generation of inspiral waveforms for the ground-based LIGO and Virgo detectors.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{secII} we perform a detailed analysis of the occurence of logarithmic terms in the near-zone expansion of an isolated source. This general discussion is followed in Sec.~\ref{secIII} by the explicit computation of the leading order 4PN and next-to-leading order 5PN logarithmic terms in the near-zone metric of an arbitrary post-Newtonian source, and then of a compact binary system. We proceed in Sec.~\ref{secIV} with the computation of these terms in the acceleration of the compact binary, as well as in the binary's conserved energy, and consider the restriction to circular orbits. This allows us to derive intermediate results necessary for the computation of the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic terms in the redshift observable \eqref{uT} for circular orbits; this is detailed in Sec.~\ref{secV}. Finally, Sec.~\ref{secVI} is devoted to a high-order PN fit of our numerical data for the SF effect on the redshift variable. The Appendix provides general formulas for the computation of logarithmic terms in PN theory.
\section{General structure of logarithmic terms}\label{secII}
\subsection{Near-zone expansion of the exterior metric}
\label{secIIA}
In this Section we study in a general way the PN orders at which logarithmic terms occur in the near-zone expansion of the metric of an isolated source. Our main tool will be the multipolar-post-Minkowskian (MPM) analysis of the vacuum field outside the compact support of the source \cite{BlDa.86,BlDa.88,Bl.93,Bl.98,PoBl.02}. The starting point is the general solution of the linearized vacuum Einstein field equations in harmonic coordinates, which takes the form of a multipolar expansion parametrized by mass-type $M_L$ and current-type $S_L$ multipole moments \cite{Th.80}\footnote{Our notation is as follows: $L = i_1 \cdots i_\ell$ denotes a multi-index composed of $\ell$ multipolar spatial indices $i_1, \cdots, i_\ell$ (ranging from 1 to 3); $\partial_L = \partial_{i_1} \cdots \partial_{i_\ell}$ is the product of $\ell$ partial derivatives $\partial_i \equiv \partial / \partial x^i$; $x_L = x_{i_1} \cdots x_{i_\ell}$ is the product of $\ell$ spatial positions $x_i$; similarly $n_L = n_{i_1} \cdots n_{i_\ell}$ is the product of $\ell$ unit vectors $n_i=x_i/r$; the symmetric-trace-free (STF) projection is indicated with a hat, i.e. $\hat{x}_L \equiv \text{STF}[x_L]$, $\hat{n}_L \equiv \text{STF}[n_L]$, $\hat{\partial}_L \equiv \text{STF}[\partial_L]$, or sometimes using brackets surrounding the indices, i.e. $x_{\langle L \rangle} \equiv \hat{x}_L$. In the case of summed-up (dummy) multi-indices $L$, we do not write the $\ell$ summations from 1 to 3 over their indices. The totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol is denoted $\varepsilon_{ijk}$; symmetrization over indices is denoted $(ij)=\frac{1}{2}(ij+ji)$; time-derivatives of the moments are indicated by superscripts $(n)$.}
\begin{subequations}\label{h1}
\begin{align}
h^{00}_{1} &= -\frac{4}{c^2}\sum_{\ell\geqslant 0}
\frac{(-)^\ell}{\ell !} \partial_L \left[ \frac{1}{r} M_L(u)
\right]\,, \label{h100}\\ h^{0i}_{1} &=
\frac{4}{c^3}\sum_{\ell\geqslant 1} \frac{(-)^\ell}{\ell !} \left\{
\partial_{L-1} \left[ \frac{1}{r} M_{iL-1}^{(1)}(u)
\right] + \frac{\ell}{\ell+1} \varepsilon_{iab} \partial_{aL-1}
\left[ \frac{1}{r} S_{bL-1}(u) \right]\right\}\,, \\
h^{ij}_{1} &= -\frac{4}{c^4}\sum_{\ell\geqslant 2}
\frac{(-)^\ell}{\ell !} \left\{ \partial_{L-2} \left[ \frac{1}{r}
M_{ijL-2}^{(2)}(u) \right] + \frac{2\ell}{\ell+1}
\partial_{aL-2} \left[ \frac{1}{r} \varepsilon_{ab(i}
S_{j)bL-2}^{(1)}(u) \right]\right\}\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The multipole moments $M_L$ and $S_L$ are symmetric and trace-free (STF) with respect to all their indices and depend on the retarded time $u\equiv t-r/c$ in harmonic coordinates. They describe a general isolated source and are unconstrained except that the mass monopole $M$ and current dipole $S_i$ are constant, and the mass dipole $M_i$ is varying linearly with time.
Starting from $h_{1}$ we define a full non-linear MPM series for the ``gothic'' metric deviation $h^{\alpha\beta}\equiv \sqrt{-g} \, g^{\alpha\beta}-\eta^{\alpha\beta}$ (where $g^{\alpha\beta}$ and $g$ denote the inverse and determinant of the usual covariant metric respectively, and where $\eta^{\alpha\beta}$ is the Minkowski metric) as
\begin{equation}\label{MPM}
h^{\alpha\beta} = \sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}G^n h_{n}^{\alpha\beta}\,,
\end{equation}
where the Newton constant $G$ serves at labelling the successive post-Minkowskian orders. Plugging this series into the (vacuum) Einstein field equations in harmonic coordinates we find at each order $\partial_\mu h_{n}^{\alpha\mu} = 0$, together with
\begin{equation}\label{EEn}
\Box h_{n}^{\alpha\beta} = N_{n}^{\alpha\beta}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Box=\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}$ is the flat d'Alembertian operator, and where $N_{n}$ denotes the $n$-th non-linear gravitational source term depending on previous iterations $h_{1}$, $\cdots$, $h_{n-1}$. An explicit ``algorithm'' has been proposed in \cite{BlDa.86} for solving \eqref{EEn} and the condition of harmonic coordinates at any post-Minkowskian order $n$.
We are interested in the expansion of the solution of \eqref{EEn} in the near-zone (NZ), i.e. formally when $r\rightarrow 0$ (but still outside the compact supported source). The general structure of that expansion is known \cite{Bl.93}. For the source term we have (the NZ expansion being indicated with an overbar)
\begin{equation}\label{Nexp}
\overline{N}_{n}^{\alpha\beta} = \sum_{E_n}\frac{1}{c^{3n+\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i+2}}\sum_{\ell, p, q\atop q\leqslant n-2}F_{Lpq}^{\alpha\beta}(t)\,\hat{n}_L\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)^p\left[\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\right]^q\,.
\end{equation}
We see that besides the normal powers of $r$ we have also powers of logarithms of $r$; $p$ is an integer ($p\in\mathbb{Z}$) bounded from below by some $p_0$ depending on $E_n$, and $q$ is a positive integer ($q\in\mathbb{N}$). We pose $\lambda=2\pi c/\Omega$, with $\Omega$ a typical frequency scale in the source to be identified later with the orbital frequency of the binary's circular orbit. We denote by $E_n=\{M_{L_1},M_{L_2},\cdots,\varepsilon_{ai_{\ell_n+1}i_{\ell_n}}S_{aL_n-1}\}$ a set of $n$ multipole moments, with the current moments endowed with their natural Levi-Civita symbol. We pose $\underline{\ell}_i=\ell_i$ for mass moments and $\underline{\ell}_i=\ell_i+1$ for current moments, so that $\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i$ is the total number of indices carried by the moments of the set $E_n$. On the other hand $\ell$ is the number of indices carried by the STF multipolar factor $\hat{n}_L$. The multipole functions in \eqref{Nexp} admit the general structure \cite{Bl.93}
\begin{equation}\label{FLpq}
F_{Lpq}^{\alpha\beta}(t)=\int\mathrm{d} u_1\cdots\int\mathrm{d} u_n\,\mathcal{K}_{L\underline{L}_1\cdots\underline{L}_n}^{\alpha\beta}(t,u_1,\cdots,u_n) \, M_{L_1}^{(a_1)}(u_1)\cdots\varepsilon_{ai_{\ell_n+1}i_{\ell_n}}S_{aL_n-1}^{(a_n)}(u_n)\,,
\end{equation}
where the kernel $\mathcal{K}$ has an index structure made only of Kronecker symbols and is only a function of time variables: the current time $t$, the $n$ integration arguments $u_i$ (satisfying $u_i\leqslant t$) and the period $P=\lambda/c$ of the source. Then with this convention we see that the powers of $1/c$ in \eqref{Nexp} are set by dimensionality. A useful lemma \cite{Bl.93} is the fact that the multipolar order $\ell$ is necessarily constrained by the following two inequalities:
\begin{equation}\label{lemma}
-\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i+4-s\,\leqslant\,\ell\,\leqslant\,\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i+s\,.
\end{equation}
Here $s$ is the number of spatial indices among $\alpha$ and $\beta$, i.e. the ``spin'' given by $s=0,1,2$ according to $\alpha\beta=00,0i,ij$.
The lemma \eqref{lemma} will serve at controlling the PN order of ``branches'' of logarithmic terms arising in the MPM iteration of the external field. Already we know \cite{BlDa.86} that the powers of the logarithms are limited to $q\leqslant n-2$ in the source term $\overline{N}_{n}$. After integration of the source term $\overline{N}_{n}$ we shall find the corresponding solution $\overline{h}_{n}$ which will admit the same type of NZ expansion as its source. However the maximal power of the logarithms in the solution will be increased by one unit with respect to the source and is thus limited by $n-1$, i.e. $q\leqslant n-1$ in $\overline{h}_{n}$. For instance this means that logarithms squared cannot arise before the cubic non-linear order $n=3$.
To control the occurence of logarithms in the near-zone it will be sufficient to integrate the source \eqref{Nexp} by means of the integral of the ``instantaneous'' potentials defined by formal PN iteration of the inverse Laplace operator $\Delta^{-1}$, say $\Box^{-1}=\Delta^{-1}+c^{-2}\partial_t^2\Delta^{-2}+\cdots$. This is because any homogeneous solution to be added to that particular solution will have the structure of a free multipolar wave (retarded or advanced) whose near-zone expansion cannot contain any logarithms. However, when acting on a multipolar expanded source term, valid only in the exterior of the matter source and becoming singular in the formal limit $r\rightarrow 0$, we must multiply the source term by a regulator $(r/\lambda)^B$, where $B$ is a complex number and $\lambda=cP$ is the length scale associated with the orbital motion. After applying the instantaneous propagator we take the finite part (FP) of the Laurent expansion when $B\rightarrow 0$. Thus the solution reads as
\begin{equation}\label{hexp}
\overline{h}_{n}^{\alpha\beta} = \mathop{\mathrm{FP}}_{B=0}\,\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{\partial}{c\partial t}\right)^{2k}\!\!\Delta^{-k-1}\left[\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)^B \overline{N}_{n}^{\alpha\beta}\right] + \overline{H}_{n}^{\alpha\beta}\,.
\end{equation}
Later, in \eqref{instpot} below, we shall denote by $\mathcal{I}^{-1}$ the particular ``instantaneous'' regularized propagator appearing in \eqref{hexp}. The term $\overline{H}_{n}$ denotes the NZ expansion of an homogeneous solution of the d'Alembert equation. In the general case this solution will be a mixture of purely retarded and advanced multipolar waves, say of the type $\sum\hat{\partial}_L\{R_L(t-r/c)/r\}$ and $\sum\hat{\partial}_L\{A_L(t+r/c)/r\}$, but the point is that the NZ expansion of $\overline{H}_{n}$ when $r\rightarrow 0$ clearly does not contain any logarithms. So in order to control the logarithms we can ignore the homogeneous piece $\overline{H}_{n}$.
As argued in \cite{Bl.93} the use of the latter ``instantaneous'' propagator, say $\mathcal{I}^{-1}$, corresponds to keeping only the conservative part of the dynamics, i.e. neglecting the dissipative part associated with gravitational radiation-reaction. Below we shall implement the restriction to the conservative case by looking at circular orbits with helical Killing symmetry. We expect that a solution admitting this symmetry should be given by \eqref{hexp} where the homogeneous part $\overline{H}_{n}$ is of the symmetric type $\sum\hat{\partial}_L\{[S_L(t-r/c)+S_L(t+r/c)]/r\}$. In this ``symmetric'' situation, where the radiation-reaction is neglected, the solution should depend on the length scale $\lambda$ appearing in the first term of \eqref{hexp}. Indeed this length scale is introduced in the problem by our assumption of having the helical Killing symmetry with Killing vector $K^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha} = \partial_t + \Omega\,\partial_\varphi$ where $\Omega=2\pi c/\lambda$.
\subsection{Near-zone versus far-zone logarithms}
\label{secIIB}
Inserting the general form of the source term \eqref{Nexp} into \eqref{hexp}, and ignoring from now on the homogeneous term $\overline{H}_{n}$ which does not contain logarithms, we obtain (dropping the space-time indices $\alpha\beta$ for clarity)
\begin{equation}\label{hexp2}
\overline{h}_{n} =\sum_{E_n}\frac{1}{c^{3n+\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i+2}}\sum_{\ell, p, q\atop q\leqslant n-2} \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}
\frac{F_{Lpq}^{(2k)}(t)}{c^{p+2k}}\mathop{\mathrm{FP}}_{B=0}\Delta^{-k-1}\left\{\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)^B\hat{n}_L \,r^{p}\left[\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\right]^q\right\}\,.
\end{equation}
We can explicitly integrate the iterated Poisson integral and find
\begin{equation}\label{mathieu}
\Delta^{-k-1}\left\{\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)^B\hat{n}_L \,r^{p}\left[\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\right]^q\right\} = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial B}\right)^q\left[\alpha_{\ell, p, k}(B)\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)^B\hat{n}_L \,r^{p+2+2k}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
with $B$-dependent coefficients
\begin{equation}\label{alphaB}
\alpha_{\ell, p, k}(B)=\prod_{i=0}^{k}\frac{1}{(B+p+2+2i-\ell)(B+p+3+2i+\ell)}\,.
\end{equation}
We shall now control the occurence of a pole $\propto 1/B$ in the latter expression which, after taking the finite part in \eqref{hexp2}, will generate a logarithm $\ln r$. Actually, since we have to differentiate $q$ times with respect to $B$, the pole in $\alpha_{\ell, p, k}(B)$ (which is necessarily a simple pole) will yield multiple poles $\propto 1/B^{m}$, and we shall finally end up with powers of logarithms $(\ln r)^{m}$, where here $m\leqslant q+1$ --- hence the increase by one of the powers of logarithms from the source to the solution, as discussed previously.
Inspection of Eq.~\eqref{alphaB} readily shows that there are two types of poles. First we have the poles for which $p+2=\ell-2i$. These will be qualified as ``near-zone poles'', and the structure of the solution for these poles reads
\begin{equation}\label{NZpole}
\left(\overline{h}_{n}\right)_\text{NZ pole} = \sum_{\ell,j\geqslant 0\atop m\leqslant n-1}\frac{1}{c^{3n+\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i+\ell}}\,G_{Ljm}(t)\,\hat{x}_L\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)^{2j}\left[\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\right]^m\,,
\end{equation}
where $j=k-i\geqslant 0$ and the functions $G_{Ljm}(t)$ have a structure similar to \eqref{FLpq}. Note that \eqref{NZpole} is perfectly regular when $r\rightarrow 0$ [at least when $\ell+j\geqslant 1$] and will therefore be valid (after matching) inside the matter source. On the other hand the ``far-zone poles'' for which $p+2=-\ell-1-2i$ have the structure
\begin{equation}\label{FZpole}
\left(\overline{h}_{n}\right)_\text{FZ pole} = \sum_{\ell,j\geqslant 0\atop m\leqslant n-1}\frac{1}{c^{3n+\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i-\ell-1}}\,K_{Ljm}(t)\,\hat{\partial}_L\!\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)^{2j}\left[\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\right]^m\,.
\end{equation}
These poles become singular when $r\rightarrow 0$. We shall argue later that the associated logarithms do not contribute to the PN expansion of quantities we compute in this paper (like the redshift observable or the conserved energy of a compact binary system).
We can now easily control the PN order of these poles. Taking into account all the powers of $1/c$ and the fact that $j\geqslant 0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{NZordre0}
\left(\overline{h}_{n}\right)_\text{NZ pole} = \sum_\ell \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{3n+\sum_{i=1}^n\underline{\ell}_i+\ell}}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
Next, the inequality in the left of the lemma \eqref{lemma} provides a uniform bound of the PN order of each of the terms in \eqref{NZordre0}, leading to
\begin{equation}\label{NZordre}
\left(\overline{h}_{n}\right)_\text{NZ pole} = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{3n+4-s}}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
This means that the NZ poles in the $n$-th non-linear metric are produced at least at the $\frac{3n+2}{2}$PN level; note that the power of $1/c$ in the $ij$ components of the perturbation $\overline{h}_{n}$, such that $s=2$, gives immediately the PN order. Similarly we find, using now the inequality on the right of \eqref{lemma}, that the FZ poles are produced at the level
\begin{equation}\label{FZordre}
\left(\overline{h}_{n}\right)_\text{FZ pole} = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{3n-1-s}}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
corresponding to (at least) the $\frac{3n-3}{2}$PN order. Notice that the far-zone poles come earlier than the near-zone ones in the PN iteration.
We use these general results to control the occurence of (powers of) logarithms in the PN expansion. First be careful that our findings do not mean that all the logarithms at some $n$-th non-linear order will have the PN orders \eqref{NZordre} and \eqref{FZordre}; it states that whenever \textit{new logarithms} appear they are necessarily produced at least at these PN levels. However, once a ``new'' logarithm has been produced in $\overline{h}_{n}$, it will contribute in the source term $\overline{N}_{n+1}$ of the next iteration, and therefore will also appear in the corresponding solution $\overline{h}_{n+1}$ where it needs not to be associated with a pole occuring at that order. In fact we expect that the vast majority of logarithms only come from the iteration of original logarithms seeded by poles. Such ``iterated'' logarithms will escape the rules \eqref{NZordre} and \eqref{FZordre}.
Given a logarithm at order $n$ coming from a NZ pole and being thus at least of order $\frac{3n+2}{2}$PN, we can check that it will generate iterated logarithms at any subsequent non-linear order $n+p$, with $p\geqslant 1$, and that those will be at least of order $\frac{3n+2p}{2}$PN. We can therefore always bound the PN order of the complete family of iterated NZ logarithms by the order $\frac{3n+2}{2}$PN of the ``seed'' logarithm.\footnote{When $p=1$ we get the same PN order as the seed logarithm because according to \eqref{NZordre} the $ij$ component of the metric perturbation $h_n^{\alpha\beta}$ is of order $1/c^{3n+2}$, and hence generates at the next iteration a term of order $1/c^{3n+4}$ in the 00 component of the metric perturbation $h_{n+1}^{\alpha\beta}$ (via the non-linear source term $h_n^{ij}\partial_{i}\partial_{j}h_1^{00}$), which is still of $\frac{3n+2}{2}$PN order. We shall use later the trick that by gauging away the $ij$ component of the metric perturbation we can greatly simplify the computation of the subsequent iteration.} The same reasoning applies for the PN orders of the iterated FZ logarithms which are bounded from below by the $\frac{3n-3}{2}$PN order of the seed.
When $n=2$ we find from \eqref{NZordre} that there is a family of NZ logarithms starting at the 4PN order. We know that the 4PN logarithmic term is associated with gravitational wave tails; it has been computed for general matter sources in \cite{BlDa.88}. Conjointly with this 4PN logarithm there will be also logarithms at 5PN and higher orders, all of them at quadratic order $n=2$, and all these quadratic logarithms will have to be iterated at the next cubic order $n=3$, and so on. As we discussed this defines a complete family of NZ logarithms, and this family will be sufficient to control all the NZ logarithms at 4PN and 5PN orders. Indeed, we expect that at cubic order $n=3$ a new family of NZ logarithms will appear, but according to the result \eqref{NZordre} this new family will be of order 5.5PN at least. In particular this reasonning shows that the dominant NZ logarithm \textit{squared} $[\ln(r/\lambda)]^2$ is at least 5.5PN order. Such 5.5PN logarithm would be time odd in a time reversal and belongs to the dissipative radiation-reaction part of the dynamics so we shall ignore it. Similarly the next family coming at the quartic approximation $n=4$ will be at least 7PN --- thus the dominant $[\ln(r/\lambda)]^3$ is expected to appear at least at 7PN order.
We shall now argue that only the family of NZ logarithms starting at the 4PN order needs to be considered for the present computation, because quite generally the FZ logarithms cannot contribute to the conserved part of the dynamics of a compact binary system.
\subsection{Argument that far-zone logarithms give zero contribution}
\label{secIIC}
The FZ logarithms are generated by seeds whose PN order is controlled by the estimate \eqref{FZordre}. First one can check that due to the particular structure of the quadratic metric $n=2$ there is no FZ pole at the quadratic order \cite{BlDa.88}. The FZ logarithms come only at the cubic order $n=3$ and from the estimate \eqref{FZordre} we see that they arise dominantly at 3PN order, i.e. earlier than the NZ logarithms at 4PN order. The 3PN far-zone logarithms have been investigated in \cite{BlDa.88} and also in previous work \cite{An.al.82}. However we do not need to consider these and other FZ logarithms in the present calculation as the following argument shows.
The NZ and FZ logarithms were investigated using the operator of the ``instantaneous'' potentials defined by [see Eq.~\eqref{hexp}]
\begin{equation}\label{instpot}
\mathcal{I}^{-1}\left[\overline{N}_{n}\right] = \mathop{\mathrm{FP}}_{B=0}\,\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{\partial}{c\partial t}\right)^{2k}\!\!\Delta^{-k-1}\left[\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)^B \overline{N}_{n}\right]\,.
\end{equation}
This propagator depends on the length scale $\lambda$. Now our basic assumption is that in order to treat the conservative part of the dynamics, admitting the helical Killing vector $K^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha} = \partial_t + \Omega\,\partial_\varphi$ in the two-body case, one should integrate the field equations with the propagator \eqref{instpot} in which we set $\lambda=2\pi c/\Omega$. In this way the conservative dynamics will fundamentally depend on the scale $\lambda$ coming from the Killing symmetry and explicitly introduced through the propagator \eqref{instpot}.
By contrast, in a physical problem where we look for the complete dynamics including both conservative and dissipative (radiation-reaction) effects, there is no preferred scale such as $\lambda$ --- indeed, nothing suggests that the dynamics should depend on some pre-defined scale $\lambda$. In this case we integrate the field equations using the standard retarded integral, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{retpot}
\Box_R^{-1}\left[N_{n}\right] = \mathop{\mathrm{FP}}_{B=0}\,\frac{-1}{4\pi}\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3 x'}{\vert\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'\vert}\left(\frac{\vert\mathbf{x}'\vert}{\lambda}\right)^B N_{n}\left(\mathbf{x}',t-\vert\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'\vert/c\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The non-linear source term $N_{n}$ is in unexpanded form since we integrate in all the exterior of the source and not only in the NZ as in \eqref{instpot}. But, as in \eqref{instpot}, we have introduced a regulator $(\vert\mathbf{x}'\vert/\lambda)^B$ and a finite part to cure the divergencies of the multipole expansion at the origin of the coordinates. Because of this regulator, the retarded integral \eqref{retpot} depends on the scale $\lambda$ which must therefore be \textit{cancelled} by other terms in the physical metric. What happens is that the dependence on $\lambda$ coming from integrating the non-linearities using \eqref{retpot} is cancelled by a related dependence on $\lambda$ of the multipole moments of the source which parametrize the linear (retarded) approximation. The source multipole moments can be written as integrals over the pseudo stress-energy tensor of the matter and gravitational fields \cite{Bl.98}. Because of the non-compactness of the gravitational field the integral extends up to infinity and involves a similar regulator $(\vert\mathbf{x}'\vert/\lambda)^B$ dealing with the boundary of the integral at infinity. The final independence of the physical metric on $\lambda$ can be checked by formally differentiating the general expression of the metric found in \cite{Bl.98}. The cancellation of $\lambda$ has been explicitly verified up to the 3PN order in the case of compact binaries \cite{Bl.al2.02}.
What is the difference between the physical situation and the ``unphysical'' one in which we would use the propagator \eqref{instpot}\,? To compare the two situations we expand the retarded integral \eqref{retpot} in the near-zone. Recalling that the overbar refers to the NZ expansion, we obtain \cite{Bl.93,PoBl.02}
\begin{equation}\label{retpotbar}
\overline{\Box_R^{-1}\left[N_{n}\right]} = \mathcal{I}^{-1}\left[\overline{N}_{n}\right] + \sum_{\ell\geqslant 0}\frac{(-)^\ell}{\ell!}\hat{\partial}_L\left\{\frac{T_L(t-r/c)-T_L(t+r/c)}{2r}\right\}\,,
\end{equation}
showing that the two solutions differ by an homogeneous solution of the wave equation which is of the anti-symmetric type (i.e. retarded minus advanced) and is therefore \textit{regular} in the source. We know that the multipolar functions $T_L(u)$ parametrizing this solution are associated with non-linear tails and their expressions can be found in \cite{Bl.93,PoBl.02}. In the physical case, the homogeneous solution in \eqref{retpotbar} will remove the $\lambda$-dependence located in the NZ logarithms appearing from the first term, and which have the symbolic NZ structure $\sim \hat{x}_L\ln(r/\lambda)$. On the other hand the $\lambda$-dependence in the FZ logarithms $\sim \hat{\partial}_L(1/r)\ln(r/\lambda)$, is removed by the retarded homogeneous solution we start with at the linear approximation.
Now in the unphysical situation we shall want to subtract the anti-symmetric solution in \eqref{retpotbar} in order to use the instantaneous propagator $\mathcal{I}^{-1}$. Therefore the scale $\lambda$ will no longer be cancelled from the \textit{near-zone} logarithms $\sim \hat{x}_L\ln(r/\lambda)$ which will thus remain as they are. Suppose that they are evaluated at the location of a body in a two-body system, then the NZ logarithms become $\sim \hat{y}_1^L\ln(\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert/\lambda)$ where $\mathbf{y}_1$ is the position of the body, and hence $\sim \hat{y}_1^L\ln(r_{12}/\lambda)$ in the frame of the center of mass, where $r_{12}$ is the two-body's separation. Using Kepler's law the logarithm becomes $\ln(r_{12}/\lambda)=\frac{1}{2}\ln\gamma$ where $\gamma=G m/(r_{12}c^2)$ is a standard PN parameter, showing that the NZ logarithms do contribute to the final result.
On the contrary the FZ logarithms $\sim \hat{\partial}_L(1/r)\ln(r/\lambda)$ will not. Indeed the scale $\lambda$ therein will still be cancelled out by the linear retarded solution.\footnote{The argument could be extended to an unphysical solution which would be truly symmetric in time, i.e. which would start with a symmetric (retarded plus advanced) linear approximation and integrate the non-linearities by means of the propagator $\mathcal{I}^{-1}$.} This means that in the application to binary systems the final FZ logarithms are scaled not by $\lambda$ but rather by the size $r_{12}$ of the orbit, and become some $\sim \hat{\partial}_L(1/r)\ln(r/r_{12})$. When considered at the location of one of the bodies we get $\sim \hat{\partial}_L(1/\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert)\ln(\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert/r_{12})$ which clearly does not contribute in the center-of-mass frame. The latter reasoning is rather formal because the multipole expansion is valid only outside the source and it does not \textit{a priori} make sense to apply it ``at the location of one particle.'' However the reasoning may be better justified from a matching argument suggesting that the multipole expansion is valid ``everywhere'', in a restricted sense of formal asymptotic series.
Our conclusion is that we do not need to consider the FZ logarithms. From the previous investigation we see that it is sufficient to consider the family of iterated NZ logarithms generated at the quadratic order $n=2$, and to compute the 4PN and 5PN logarithms within this family. We devote the next Section to this task.
\section{The 4PN and 5PN near-zone logarithms}\label{secIII}
\subsection{External near-zone post-Newtonian metric}\label{secIIIA}
Following \cite{BlDa.88,Bl.93} we know that the dominant logarithms in the near-zone metric are coming from ``tails'' generated by quadratic coupling between the constant total mass $M$ of the system (i.e. the ADM mass) and the time varying multipole moments $M_L$ or $S_L$. Let us define $z_{1}^{\alpha\beta}(\mathbf{n},u)$ as being the coefficient of the leading $1/r$ piece in the non-stationary or ``dynamical'' part $(h_1^{\alpha\beta})_\text{dyn}$ of the linearized metric given by \eqref{h1}, i.e. such that $(h_{1}^{\alpha\beta})_\text{dyn}=r^{-1}z_{1}^{\alpha\beta}+\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})$. This quantity is a functional of the time varying moments (i.e. having $\ell\geqslant 2$) evaluated at retarded time $u=t-r/c$, and explicitly reads
\begin{subequations}\label{zmunu}
\begin{align}
z_{1}^{00} &= - 4 \sum_{\ell\geqslant 2}\frac{n_L}{c^{\ell+2}\ell!}M_L^{(\ell)}(u)\,,\\
z_{1}^{0i} &= - 4 \sum_{\ell\geqslant 2}\left[\frac{n_{L-1}}{c^{\ell+2}\ell!}M_{iL-1}^{(\ell)}(u) - \frac{\ell}{c^{\ell+3}(\ell+1)!}\varepsilon_{iab}\,n_{aL-1}S_{bL-1}^{(\ell)}(u)\right]\,,\\
z_{1}^{ij} &= - 4 \sum_{\ell\geqslant 2}\left[\frac{n_{L-2}}{c^{\ell+2}\ell!}M_{ijL-2}^{(\ell)}(u) -\frac{2\ell}{c^{\ell+3}(\ell+1)!}n_{aL-2}\,\varepsilon_{ab(i}S_{j)bL-2}^{(\ell)}(u)\right]\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
All the logarithms in the quadratic metric $h_{2}^{\alpha\beta}$ will be generated from the leading $1/r^2$ piece in the quadratic source, defined by $N_{2}^{\alpha\beta}=r^{-2}Q_{2}^{\alpha\beta}(\mathbf{n},u)+\mathcal{O}(r^{-3})$. The coefficient is computed from the quantity \eqref{zmunu} as $Q_{2}^{\alpha\beta} = \frac{4 M}{c^4}\,{}^{(2)}z_{1}^{\alpha\beta} + \frac{k^\alpha k^\beta}{c^2}\sigma$, where the first term will generate the tails, and the second term is associated with the stress-energy of gravitational waves, with $k^\alpha=(1,\mathbf{n})$ the Minkowskian outgoing null vector, and $\sigma=\frac{1}{2}{}^{(1)}{z_{1}}^{\mu\nu}{}^{(1)}{z_{1}}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}{}^{(1)}{z_{1}}^{\mu}_{\mu}{}^{(1)}{z_{1}}^{\nu}_{\nu}$. Now, as shown in Appendix \ref{appA}, the logarithms produced by the second term $\propto k^\alpha k^\beta$ are pure gauge, so only the first term dealing with tails is responsible for the near-zone logarithms. Hence the part of the NZ expansion of the quadratic metric $\overline{h}_{2}$ containing those logarithms is given by
\begin{equation}\label{deltah2}
\delta\overline{h}_{2}^{\alpha\beta} = \mathop{\mathrm{FP}}_{B=0}\,\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{\partial}{c\partial t}\right)^{2k}\!\!\Delta^{-k-1}\left[\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)^B\frac{4 M}{r^2 c^4} \mathop{z_{1}}^{(2)}\!{}^{\alpha\beta}(\mathbf{n},u)\right]\,.
\end{equation}
We substitute the explicit expression \eqref{zmunu} into \eqref{deltah2}, expand the retardation $u=t-r/c$ in the source term when $r\rightarrow 0$, and integrate using Eqs.~\eqref{mathieu}--\eqref{alphaB}. Then we look for the poles $\propto 1/B$ and after applying the finite part get the logarithms. Some general formulas for obtaining the logarithms directly from the unexpanded source are relegated to Appendix \ref{appA}. We readily recover that the dominant logarithms arise at 4PN order. We limit our computation to the leading order 4PN and next-to-leading order 5PN logarithms, and find
\begin{subequations}\label{deltah2exp}
\begin{align}
\delta\overline{h}_{2}^{00} &= - \frac{8 M}{15 c^{10}}\left\{x^{ab}\left[M^{(6)}_{ab}+\frac{1}{14}\frac{r^2}{c^2}M^{(8)}_{ab}\right]-\frac{1}{21}\frac{x^{abc}}{c^2}M^{(8)}_{abc}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{14}}\right)\,,\\
\delta\overline{h}_{2}^{0i} &= \frac{8 M}{3 c^{9}}\left\{x^{a}\left[M^{(5)}_{ai}+\frac{1}{10}\frac{r^2}{c^2}M^{(7)}_{ai}\right]-\frac{1}{15}\frac{x^{ab}}{c^2}M^{(7)}_{abi}+\frac{2}{15}\varepsilon_{iab}\frac{x^{ac}}{c^2}S^{(6)}_{bc}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{13}}\right)\,,\\
\delta\overline{h}_{2}^{ij} &= -\frac{8 M}{c^{8}}\left\{M^{(4)}_{ij}+\frac{1}{6}\frac{r^2}{c^2}M^{(6)}_{ij}-\frac{1}{9}\frac{x^{a}}{c^2}M^{(6)}_{aij}+\frac{4}{9}\frac{x^{a}}{c^2}\varepsilon_{ab(i}S^{(5)}_{j)b}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{12}}\right)\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
The mass-type quadrupole moment $M_{ij}$, mass octupole moment $M_{ijk}$ and current quadrupole $S_{ij}$ in Eqs.~\eqref{deltah2exp} are functions of coordinate time $t$. The indicated PN remainders $\mathcal{O}(c^{-p})$ refer only to the logarithmic terms.
We now want to iterate the expressions \eqref{deltah2exp} at higher non-linear order in order to get the complete family of logarithms generated by that ``seed''. To do that it is very convenient to perform first a change of gauge. Starting from \eqref{deltah2exp}, which is defined in some harmonic gauge, we pose $\overline{k}^{\alpha\beta}_{2}=\overline{h}^{\alpha\beta}_{2}+2\partial^{(\alpha}\xi_{2}^{\beta)}-\eta^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\mu\xi_{2}^\mu$ with gauge vector
\begin{subequations}\label{xi2}
\begin{align}
\xi_{2}^{0} &= \frac{M}{c^{9}}\left\{\frac{2}{3}x^{ab}M^{(5)}_{ab}+\frac{1}{21}\frac{r^2}{c^2}x^{ab}M^{(7)}_{ab}-\frac{2}{135}\frac{x^{abc}}{c^2}M^{(7)}_{abc}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\,,\\
\xi_{2}^{i} &= \frac{M}{c^{8}}\left\{4x^aM^{(4)}_{ai}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{r^2}{c^2}x^{a}M^{(6)}_{ai}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{x^{iab}}{c^2}M^{(6)}_{ab}-\frac{2}{9}\frac{x^{ab}}{c^2}M^{(6)}_{abi}+\frac{16}{9}\varepsilon_{iab}\frac{x^{ac}}{c^2}S^{(5)}_{bc}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
This gauge transformation will have the effect of moving many 4PN logarithmic terms into the 00 component of the (ordinary covariant) metric. As a result the implementation of the non-linear iteration in that new gauge will be especially simple. Since our aim is to compute the gauge invariant quantity \eqref{uT} we can work in any convenient gauge. Our chosen gauge is very similar to the generalization of the Burke-Thorne gauge introduced in \cite{Bl.97} to deal with higher-order (2.5PN and 3.5PN) radiation-reaction effects. We obtain
\begin{subequations}\label{deltak2}
\begin{align}
&\delta\overline{k}_{2}^{00}+\delta\overline{k}_{2}^{ii} = \frac{M}{c^{10}}\left\{-\frac{16}{5}x^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}-\frac{8}{35}\frac{r^2}{c^2}x^{ab}M^{(8)}_{ab}+\frac{16}{189}\frac{x^{abc}}{c^2}M^{(8)}_{abc}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{14}}\right)\,,\label{deltak200}\\
&\delta\overline{k}_{2}^{0i} = \frac{M}{c^{11}}\left\{\frac{16}{21}\hat{x}^{iab}M^{(7)}_{ab}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}x^{ac}S^{(6)}_{bc}\right\}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{13}}\right)\,,\\
&\delta\overline{k}_{2}^{ij} = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{12}}\right)\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
In this gauge the iteration at cubic non-linear order is very simple. To control all the 5PN logarithmic terms at cubic order $n=3$ we need only to solve the Poisson equation $\Delta[\delta\overline{k}_{3}^{00}+\delta\overline{k}_{3}^{ii}] = - 2 \partial_j\overline{h}_{1}^{00}\,\partial_j\delta\overline{k}_{2}^{00} + \mathcal{O}(c^{-14})$, where $\overline{h}_{1}^{00}$ denotes the NZ expansion of the linearized metric \eqref{h100}, and we can use for $\delta\overline{k}_{2}^{00}$ the leading 4PN approximation given by the first term in \eqref{deltak200}. Posing $\overline{h}_{1}^{00}=-4\overline{U}/c^2+\mathcal{O}(c^{-4})$, the latter equation is integrated as\footnote{Actually the integration yields in addition to the near-zone 5PN logarithm \eqref{deltak3} the extra far-zone 5PN logarithmic contribution
$$\left(\delta\overline{k}_{3}^{00}+\delta\overline{k}_{3}^{ii}\right)_\text{FZ} = -\frac{64M}{c^{12}} M_{ab}^{(6)}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)\sum_{\ell\geqslant0}\frac{(-)^\ell}{(2\ell+5)\ell!}\partial_L\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)M_{Lab}\,.$$
We argued on general grounds in Sec.~\ref{secIIC} that FZ logarithms do not have to be considered for the present computation, so we drop this term out in the following.}
\begin{equation}\label{deltak3}
\delta\overline{k}_{3}^{00}+\delta\overline{k}_{3}^{ii} = - \frac{64M}{5c^{12}}\overline{U} x^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{14}}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
with the explicit expression
\begin{equation}\label{Ubar}
\overline{U} = \sum_{\ell=0}^{+\infty}\frac{(-)^\ell}{\ell!}M_L\,\partial_L\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
We readily check that the quartic and higher non-linear iterations ($n\geqslant 4$) are not needed for controlling the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic terms (cf. the discussion at the end of Sec.~\ref{secIIB}).
\subsection{Internal near-zone post-Newtonian metric}\label{secIIIB}
The metric we computed so far is in the form of a multipolar expansion valid in the exterior of an isolated source. We now want to deduce from it the metric \textit{inside} the matter source. First of all, since the expressions \eqref{deltak2} are regular at the origin $r\rightarrow 0$, we find using a matching argument that they are necessarily also valid inside the matter source. On the other hand it is clear that the expression \eqref{deltak3} will also be valid inside the source provided that we match the multipole expansion $\overline{U}$ given by \eqref{Ubar} with the actual Newtonian potential of the source. From the known Newtonian limit of the multipole moments $M_L=\int\mathrm{d}^3x\,\hat{x}^L\rho(\mathbf{x},t)+\mathcal{O}(c^{-2})$, where $\rho$ is the Newtonian source density in the source, we get $G\overline{U}=U+\mathcal{O}(c^{-2})$ where
\begin{align}\label{Upoisson}
U = G \int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3x'}{\vert\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'\vert}\,\rho(\mathbf{x}',t)\,.
\end{align}
From the latter arguments we therefore obtain the piece of the inner metric of any isolated source (coming back to the usual covariant metric $g_{\alpha\beta}$) that depends logarithmically on the distance $r$ to the source's center at 4PN and 5PN orders as
\begin{subequations}\label{deltag'}
\begin{align}
\delta'{g}_{00} &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}\left[\frac{8}{5}\left(1-\frac{2U}{c^2}\right)x^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}+\frac{4}{35c^2}r^2x^{ab}M^{(8)}_{ab}-\frac{8}{189c^2}x^{abc}M^{(8)}_{abc}\right]\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{14}}\right)\,,\label{deltag00}\\
\delta'{g}_{0i} &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{11}}\left[\frac{16}{21}\hat{x}^{iab}M^{(7)}_{ab}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}x^{ac}S^{(6)}_{bc}\right]\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right) + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{13}}\right)\,,\\
\delta'{g}_{ij} &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}\left[\frac{8}{5}x^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}\delta_{ij}\right]\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right) + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{12}}\right)\,,
\end{align}\end{subequations}
where $U$ is the Newtonian potential \eqref{Upoisson} valid all over the source.
However we now discuss other pieces of the inner metric whose near-zone expansion does not explicitly depend on the logarithms of $r$ but which involve new inner potentials integrating over a logarithmically modified source density. The first of these pieces comes from the fact that the 4PN modification of the metric given by the first term in \eqref{deltag00} implies a modification of the stress-energy tensor of the matter fluid at the 5PN order; in particular the fluid's source density, say $\sigma=T^{00}/c^2$, gets modified by the amount
\begin{equation}\label{deltarho}
\frac{\delta\sigma}{\rho} = -\frac{4}{5}\frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}x^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{12}}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand the 4PN term of the metric will induce a 4PN change in the acceleration of the fluid motion given by
\begin{equation}\label{deltaacc}
\delta a^i = \frac{8}{5}\frac{G^2M}{c^{8}}x^{a}M^{(6)}_{ai}\ln\left(\frac{r}{\lambda}\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{10}}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
When computing the inner metric at the 1PN order we have to take into account the retardation due to the propagation of gravity, using say $\Box^{-1}=\Delta^{-1}+c^{-2}\partial_t^2 \Delta^{-2}+\mathcal{O}(c^{-4})$. The time derivatives at 1PN order will yield an acceleration and the modification of the acceleration \eqref{deltaacc} will give a contribution at 5PN order. We find that the sum of the two effects gives the following extra contribution to the inner metric at 5PN order
\begin{equation}\label{deltag''}
\delta''{g}_{00} = -\frac{8}{5}\frac{G^3M}{c^{12}}x^{a}M^{(6)}_{ab}\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3x'}{\vert\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'\vert}\,\rho'\,x'^{b}\ln\left(\frac{r'}{\lambda}\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{c^{14}}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
This 5PN contribution is present only in the 00 component of the metric.\footnote{Interestingly, it was found in Ref.~\cite{IyWi.95} (following \cite{IyWi.93}) that a similar looking contribution must also be taken into account when computing the higher-order (3.5PN) radiation-reaction force for compact binary systems from a near-zone radiation-reaction formalism defined in \cite{Bl.97}. Actually the 2.5PN+3.5PN near-zone radiation-reaction formalism \cite{Bl.97} (see in particular Eqs.~(2.16) there) is quite similar to the present 4PN+5PN near-zone conservative logarithm formalism.} The complete logarithmic contributions we shall consider in this paper are thus given by
\begin{equation}\label{deltag}
\delta{g}_{\alpha\beta} = \delta'{g}_{\alpha\beta} + \delta''{g}_{\alpha\beta}\,.
\end{equation}
These contributions exhaust the possibilities of having 4PN and 5PN near-zone logarithmic terms in the gauge invariant observable quantity \eqref{uT}.
\subsection{Application to compact binary systems}\label{secIIIC}
Let us now apply the previous results to the specific problem of a system of two point particles. The Newtonian mass density in that case is $\rho = \sum_a m_a\delta(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}_a)$ where $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function. The trajectory of the $a$-th particle ($a$=1,2) is denoted $\mathbf{y}_a(t)$; the ordinary coordinate velocity will be $\mathbf{v}_a=\mathrm{d} \mathbf{y}_a/\mathrm{d} t$. The two masses $m_a$ have sum $m=m_1+m_2$, reduced mass $\mu=m_1m_2/m$ and symmetric mass ratio $\nu=\mu/m$. The Newtonian potential of the system reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{U}
U = \frac{G m_1}{r_1} + \frac{G m_2}{r_2}\,,
\end{equation}
where $r_a=\vert\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}_a\vert$ is the distance from particle $a$. The regularized value of that potential at the location of particle 1 is simply
\begin{equation}\label{U1}
U_1 = \frac{G m_2}{r_{12}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $r_{12}=\vert\mathbf{y}_1-\mathbf{y}_2\vert$. Similarly we evaluate the logarithmic contributions at the location of particle 1. Concerning the first piece \eqref{deltag'} we find (no longer mentioning the PN remainder)
\begin{subequations}\label{deltag'1}
\begin{align}
\delta'{g}_{00}(\mathbf{y}_1) &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}\left[\frac{8}{5}\left(1-\frac{2U_1}{c^2}\right)y_1^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}+\frac{4}{35c^2}y_1^2y_1^{ab}M^{(8)}_{ab}-\frac{8}{189c^2}y_1^{abc}M^{(8)}_{abc}\right]\ln\left(\frac{\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert}{\lambda}\right)\,,\\
\delta'{g}_{0i}(\mathbf{y}_1) &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{11}}\left[\frac{16}{21}\hat{y}_1^{iab}M^{(7)}_{ab}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}y_1^{ac}S^{(6)}_{bc}\right]\ln\left(\frac{\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert}{\lambda}\right)\,,\\
\delta'{g}_{ij}(\mathbf{y}_1) &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}\left[\frac{8}{5}y_1^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}\delta_{ij}\right]\ln\left(\frac{\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert}{\lambda}\right) \,,
\end{align}\end{subequations}
which involves the logarithm $\ln(r/\lambda)$ evaluated on the particle 1, i.e. $\ln(\vert\mathbf{y}_1\vert/\lambda)$. As for the second piece \eqref{deltag''} we compute the Poisson integral using $\rho = \sum_a m_a\delta(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}_a)$ and perform a regularization on the particle 1 to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{deltag''1}
\delta''{g}_{00}(\mathbf{y}_1) = -\frac{8}{5}\frac{G^2M}{c^{12}}\,U_1\,y_1^{a}y_2^{b}M^{(6)}_{ab}\,\ln\left(\frac{\vert\mathbf{y}_2\vert}{\lambda}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
which is proportional to the logarithm $\ln(\vert\mathbf{y}_2\vert/\lambda)$ associated with the other particle. These results are valid in a general frame. However we shall later specify the origin of the coordinate system to be the center of mass of the binary system. In that case we have $\ln(\vert\mathbf{y}_a\vert/\lambda)=\ln(r_{12}/\lambda)+\ln(\mu/m_a)+\mathcal{O}(c^{-2})$, where the PN remainder does not involve any logarithmic term, and the logarithm of the mass ratio is a constant, and is therefore clearly irrelevant to our search of logarithmic terms; so $\ln(r_{12}/\lambda)$ is in fact the only relevant logarithm and we shall now systematically replace all $\ln(\vert\mathbf{y}_a\vert/\lambda)$'s by $\ln(r_{12}/\lambda)$. Finally we end up with the following contributions of the 4PN and 5PN logarithms to the near-zone metric evaluated at the location of particle 1 in our chosen gauge,
\begin{subequations}\label{deltag1}
\begin{align}
\delta{g}_{00}(\mathbf{y}_1) &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}\left[\frac{8}{5}\left(1-\frac{2U_1}{c^2}\right)y_1^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}-\frac{8}{5c^2}U_1y_1^{a}y_2^{b}M^{(6)}_{ab}\right.\nonumber\\&\left.\qquad\quad+\frac{4}{35c^2}y_1^2y_1^{ab}M^{(8)}_{ab}-\frac{8}{189c^2}y_1^{abc}M^{(8)}_{abc}\right]\ln\left(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}\right)\,,\\
\delta{g}_{0i}(\mathbf{y}_1) &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{11}}\left[\frac{16}{21}\hat{y}_1^{iab}M^{(7)}_{ab}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}\,y_1^{ac}S^{(6)}_{bc}\right]\ln\left(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}\right)\,,\\
\delta{g}_{ij}(\mathbf{y}_1) &= \frac{G^2M}{c^{10}}\left[\frac{8}{5}y_1^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}\delta_{ij}\right]\ln\left(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}\right)\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
Note that this result is complete but not fully explicit because we have still to replace all the multipole moments $M_L$ and $S_L$ by their expressions valid for point mass binary systems. In particular the quadrupole mass moment $M_{ij}$ should be given with 1PN relative precision as ($1\leftrightarrow 2$ means adding the same terms for particle 2)
\begin{equation}\label{Mij1PN}
M_{ij} = m_1\left\{\left[1+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}v_1^2-\frac{G m_2}{r_{12}}\right)\right]\hat{y}_1^{ij}+\frac{1}{14c^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d} t^2}\left(y_1^2\hat{y}_1^{ij}\right)-\frac{20}{21c^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t}\left(v_1^k\hat{y}_1^{ijk}\right)\right\}+ 1\leftrightarrow 2\,,
\end{equation}
and its time derivatives should consistently use the 1PN equations of motion. Besides $M_{ij}$ we also need the constant mass monopole or total mass $M$ at 1PN order, namely
\begin{equation}\label{M1PN}
M = m_1\left[1+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}v_1^2-\frac{G m_2}{2r_{12}}\right)\right]+ 1\leftrightarrow 2\,.
\end{equation}
All the other moments are only required at the Newtonian accuracy, and read
\begin{subequations}\label{MLSL}
\begin{align}
M_{L} &= m_1\,\hat{y}_1^L + 1\leftrightarrow 2\,,\\
S_L &= m_1\,\varepsilon^{ab\langle i_\ell} \,y_1^{L-1\rangle a}v_1^b + 1\leftrightarrow 2\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
However in applications it is often better to postpone the (messy) replacements of the multipole moments by their explicit values \eqref{Mij1PN}--\eqref{MLSL} and to use more compact expressions such as \eqref{deltag1}.
\section{Logarithms in the equations of motion and energy}\label{secIV}
\subsection{General orbits}\label{secIVA}
With the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic contributions in the near-zone metric \eqref{deltag1} we now derive the corresponding terms in the acceleration of point particle binary systems. The computation is straightforward from the geodesic equation. A subtle point is that we must take into account the coupling between the 1PN terms in the metric and the 4PN logarithm to produce new 5PN logarithms. On the other hand one must be careful about the replacement of accelerations in 1PN terms by the 4PN acceleration to also produce 5PN logarithms. The final result, valid for generic (non-circular) orbits in an arbitrary frame, is
\begin{align}\label{deltaa1}
\delta a_1^i &= \frac{G^2M}{c^8}\left[\frac{8}{5}y_1^aM^{(6)}_{ia}\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{c^2}\left( \frac{8}{5}v_1^2y_1^aM^{(6)}_{ia}-\frac{32}{5}U_1y_1^aM^{(6)}_{ia}+\frac{28}{5}U_1y_2^aM^{(6)}_{ia}+\frac{16}{5}U_1r_{12}^{-2}y_{12}^iy_1^{ab}M^{(6)}_{ab}\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+\frac{4}{5}U_1r_{12}^{-2}y_{12}^iy_1^{a}y_2^{b}M^{(6)}_{ab}-\frac{68}{105}y_1^{iab}M^{(8)}_{ab}+\frac{44}{105}y_1^2y_1^{a}M^{(8)}_{ia}-\frac{4}{63}y_1^{ab}M^{(8)}_{iab}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad-\frac{32}{5}v_1^{ia}y_1^{b}M^{(6)}_{ab}-\frac{12}{5}v_1^{i}y_1^{ab}M^{(7)}_{ab}-\frac{32}{15}y_1^{ia}v_1^{b}M^{(7)}_{ab}+\frac{32}{15}(y_1v_1)y_1^{a}M^{(7)}_{ia}\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad\left.\left.+\frac{128}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}v_1^{a}y_1^{c}S^{(6)}_{bc}+\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}y_1^{a}v_1^{c}S^{(6)}_{bc}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{abc}y_1^{a}v_1^{c}S^{(6)}_{ib}+\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}y_1^{ac}S^{(7)}_{bc}\right)\right]\ln\left(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}\right)\,,
\end{align}
where the multipole moments are given by \eqref{Mij1PN}--\eqref{MLSL}.
An important check of this result is that the acceleration should be purely \textit{conservative}, by which we mean that there should exist some corresponding contributions at the 4PN and 5PN orders in the conserved energy, angular momentum, linear momentum and center-of-mass position of the binary system. Let us see how this works in the case of the energy. The modification at 4PN and 5PN of the energy, say $\delta E$, should be such that $\mathrm{d} \delta E/\mathrm{d} t$ exactly balances the replacement of accelerations by \eqref{deltaa1} in the time derivative of the known expression of the energy up to 1PN order (say $E_\text{1PN}$). This requirement yields
\begin{equation}\label{dtdeltaE}
\frac{\mathrm{d} \delta E}{\mathrm{d} t} = - m_1\left[v_1^i + \frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{3}{2} v_1^2 v_1^i +\frac{G m_2}{r_{12}}\left[-\frac{1}{2}(n_{12}v_2) n_{12}^i + 3v_{1}^i - \frac{7}{2}v_{2}^i\right]\right)\right]\delta a_1^i + 1 \leftrightarrow 2\,.
\end{equation}
Plugging \eqref{deltaa1} into \eqref{dtdeltaE} and using the expressions of the multipole moments \eqref{Mij1PN}--\eqref{MLSL}, we indeed find that the right-hand-side of \eqref{dtdeltaE} takes the form of a total time derivative, and we are thus able to infer the contribution to the energy,
\begin{align}\label{deltaE}
\delta E &= \frac{G^2M}{c^8}\left[-\frac{4}{5}M^{(5)}_{ab}M^{(1)}_{ab}+\frac{4}{5}M^{(4)}_{ab}M^{(2)}_{ab}-\frac{2}{5}M^{(3)}_{ab}M^{(3)}_{ab}\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{4}{189}M^{(7)}_{abc}M^{(1)}_{abc}-\frac{4}{189}M^{(6)}_{abc}M^{(2)}_{abc}+\frac{4}{189}M^{(5)}_{abc}M^{(3)}_{abc}-\frac{2}{189}M^{(4)}_{abc}M^{(4)}_{abc}\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad \quad\quad+\frac{64}{45}S^{(6)}_{ab}S_{ab}-\frac{64}{45}S^{(5)}_{ab}S^{(1)}_{ab}+\frac{64}{45}S^{(4)}_{ab}S^{(2)}_{ab}-\frac{32}{45}S^{(3)}_{ab}S^{(3)}_{ab}+\frac{12}{5}M^{(6)}_{ab}Q_{ab}\nonumber\\
&\quad \quad\quad\left.\left.+\frac{2}{35}M^{(6)}_{ab}H^{(2)}_{ab}-\frac{2}{35}M^{(7)}_{ab}H^{(1)}_{ab}-\frac{16}{21}M^{(6)}_{ab}K^{(1)}_{ab}+\frac{16}{21}M^{(7)}_{ab}K_{ab}\right)\right]\ln\left(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}\right)\,.
\end{align}
In addition to the standard multipole moments \eqref{Mij1PN}--\eqref{MLSL}, we have also introduced the supplementary moments (needed only at Newtonian accuracy)
\begin{subequations}\label{HKQ}
\begin{align}
H_L &= m_1 y_1^2 \,\hat{y}_1^L + 1\leftrightarrow 2\,,\\
K_L &= m_1 v_1^i \,\hat{y}_1^{iL} + 1\leftrightarrow 2\,,\\
Q_L &= m_1 v_1^2 \,\hat{y}_1^L + 1\leftrightarrow 2\,.
\end{align}\end{subequations}
By the same method we have also computed the modification of another integral of the motion, namely the center-of-mass position $G^i$. The result is
\begin{align}\label{deltaGi}
\delta G^i &= \left[ \frac{2GM}{c^3} M_i^{(1)} + \frac{G^2M}{c^8} \left( \frac{16}{5}M^{(1)}_{a}M^{(3)}_{ai}-\frac{8}{5}M_{a}M^{(4)}_{ai}\right)\right.\nonumber\\ &\quad\quad + \frac{G^2 M}{c^{10}}\left(\frac{68}{105}M^{(6)}_{ab}M_{iab}-\frac{20}{63}M^{(5)}_{ab}M^{(1)}_{iab}+\frac{16}{63}M^{(4)}_{ab}M^{(2)}_{iab}-\frac{4}{21}M^{(3)}_{ab}M^{(3)}_{iab}\right.\nonumber\\ &\quad \quad\quad +\frac{4}{21}M^{(2)}_{ab}M^{(4)}_{iab}-\frac{8}{63}M^{(1)}_{ab}M^{(5)}_{iab}+\frac{4}{63}M_{ab}M^{(6)}_{iab}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}M_{ac}S^{(5)}_{bc}\nonumber\\ &\quad \quad\quad+\frac{32}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}M^{(1)}_{ac}S^{(4)}_{bc}+\frac{32}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}M^{(4)}_{ac}S^{(1)}_{bc}-\frac{64}{45}\varepsilon_{iab}M^{(5)}_{ac}S_{bc}\nonumber\\ &\quad \quad\quad\left.\left.-\frac{32}{15}S_{a}S^{(4)}_{ia}-\frac{4}{25}H_{a}M^{(6)}_{ia}\right)\right]\ln\left(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}\right)\,,
\end{align}
and will be useful when restricting our general result for the redshift observable --- valid for a generic orbit in an arbitrary frame --- to circular orbits described in the center-of-mass frame.
\subsection{Circular orbits}
Let us now focus our attention on the case of circular orbits. We look for the 4PN and 5PN logarithms $\delta a_{12}^i$ in the relative acceleration $a_{12}^i=a_1^i-a_2^i$ of the particles for circular orbits. The first contribution to $\delta a_{12}^i$ will evidently come from the difference $\delta a_1^i-\delta a_2^i$. We insert the center-of-mass relations $y_a^i=Y_a^i[\mathbf{y}_{12},\mathbf{v}_{12}]$, expressing the individual positions in terms of the relative position $y_{12}^i=y_1^i-y_2^i$ and relative velocity $v_{12}^i=v_1^i-v_2^i=\mathrm{d} y_{12}^i/\mathrm{d} t$. At 1PN order and for circular orbits these expressions simply reduce to the Newtonian relations $y_1^i=X_2 \, y_{12}^i$ and $y_2^i=-X_1 \, y_{12}^i$, where $X_a=m_a/m$. All the multipole moments and their time derivatives are replaced by their expressions for circular orbits given in terms of $y_{12}^i$ and $v_{12}^i$ (and masses). However there is also another contribution which comes from the known relative acceleration at 1PN order (say $a_\text{1PN}^i$) when reduced to circular orbits. As usual we perform an iterative computation: knowing first $\delta a_{12}^i$ at 4PN order we use the result to find the next order 5PN correction. In this computation we use the fact that the center-of-mass relations $y_a^i=Y_a^i[\mathbf{y}_{12},\mathbf{v}_{12}]$ are not modified by logarithmic terms before the 5PN order. This is checked using the modification of the integral of the center-of-mass $\delta G^i$ given in \eqref{deltaGi} (see also the result \eqref{deltaGic} for circular orbits below, which is clearly a 5PN effect). Finally the modification of the acceleration is found to be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{deltaa}
\delta a_{12}^i = - \delta\Omega^2 \,y_{12}^i\,,
\end{equation}
where the total change in the orbital frequency (squared) for circular orbits due to 4PN and 5PN logarithms reads
\begin{equation}\label{deltaOm2}
\delta\Omega^2 = \frac{G m}{r_{12}^3} \left[ \frac{128}{5} + \left(-\frac{8572}{35}-112\nu\right)\gamma \right] \nu\,\gamma^4\,\ln\gamma \,.
\end{equation}
The orbital separation is $r_{12}=\vert\mathbf{y}_{12}\vert$, and we have introduced the convenient post-Newtonian parameter (where $m=m_1+m_2$)
\begin{equation}\label{gamma}
\gamma = \frac{G m}{r_{12} c^2}\,.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{deltaOm2} we have the relation between the orbital frequency and the parameter $\gamma$. Inverting this relation we obtain $\gamma$ as a function of the orbital frequency or, rather, of the parameter $x$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{x}
x = \left(\frac{G \, m \, \Omega}{c^3}\right)^{2/3}\,.
\end{equation}
We find that the 4PN and 5PN logarithms in $\gamma$ as a function of $x$ are
\begin{align}\label{deltagam}
\delta\gamma = \left[-\frac{128}{15} + \left(\frac{508}{105}+\frac{944}{15}\nu\right)x\right] \nu\,x^5\,\ln x\,.
\end{align}
We have taken into account in \eqref{deltaOm2} and \eqref{deltagam} the important fact that the length scale $\lambda=cP$ is related to the period $P=2\pi/\Omega$, and hence contributes to the logarithm. As already mentioned, using Kepler's third law we have $\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}=\frac{\sqrt{\gamma}}{2\pi}$, so that $\ln(\frac{r_{12}}{\lambda}) = \frac{1}{2}\ln\gamma$ plus an irrelevant constant. Post-Newtonian corrections to Kepler's law do not change the argument, which applies with $x$ as well as with $\gamma$. Recall that $\lambda=2\pi c/\Omega$ was introduced in the problem when we assumed the existence of the helical Killing vector $K^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha} = \partial_t + \Omega\,\partial_\varphi$ to describe exactly circular orbits. Then this scale entered explicitly into the propagator we used to integrate the field [see \eqref{hexp} or \eqref{deltah2}], and it is thus no surprise that it contributes to the final result. Of course we could have chosen any other scale proportional to $\lambda$ without changing the result which concerns only the logarithmic dependence.
To be clearer about formulas such as \eqref{deltaOm2} and \eqref{deltagam} we would need to give the more complete formulas including also the known contributions up to 3PN order. However we must be careful since these formulas depend on the gauge. Thus $\delta\Omega^2$ and $\delta\gamma$ are to be added to the 3PN expressions given by Eqs.~(188) and (191) in \cite{Bl.06} when working in Hadamard regularization gauge, or by Eqs.~(B6) and (B7) in Paper I when working in dimensional regularization gauge. Also the 4PN and 5PN terms computed in \eqref{deltaOm2} and \eqref{deltagam} themselves depend on the choice of gauge at the 4PN and 5PN orders (see Sec.~\ref{secIII}).
It is much better to turn to gauge invariant quantities. The most obvious one is the conserved energy $E$ for circular orbits as a function of the orbital frequency $\Omega$. As for the previous computation of the acceleration we have two contributions, one coming directly from the general-orbit modification of the energy given by \eqref{deltaE}, and one coming from the circular-orbit reduction of the 1PN energy $E_\text{1PN}$. We first express the results entirely in terms of the parameter $\gamma$ using \eqref{deltaOm2} and then replace all the $\gamma$'s by functions of the $x$'s using \eqref{deltagam}. The result for the 4PN and 5PN logarithms is (where $\mu = m_1 m_2 / m$)
\begin{equation}\label{deltaEx}
\delta E = -\frac{1}{2} \mu \, c^2 x \left[ \frac{448}{15} + \left(-\frac{4988}{35}-\frac{1904}{15}\nu\right)x \right] \nu\,x^4\,\ln x \,.
\end{equation}
Beware that $\delta E$ here has not the same meaning as in \eqref{deltaE} because of the additional terms coming from the circular-orbit reduction of the 1PN energy $E_\text{1PN}$.
Since the energy as a function of $x$ is a gauge invariant relation, let us also provide the complete result including all the known terms up to 3PN order, and also the 4PN and 5PN terms in the test-mass limit for one of the particles known from the exact result $\lim_{\nu\rightarrow 0}E/(\mu c^2)=(1-2x)(1-3x)^{-1/2}-1$. We have
\begin{align}\label{Ecomplet}
E =& -\frac{1}{2} \mu \, c^2 x \left\{ 1 + \left( -\frac{3}{4} - \frac{\nu}{12} \right) x + \left( - \frac{27}{8} + \frac{19}{8} \nu - \frac{\nu^2}{24} \right) x^2 \right. \nonumber \\ &\qquad+ \left. \left( - \frac{675}{64} + \left[ \frac{34445}{576} - \frac{205}{96} \pi^2 \right] \nu - \frac{155}{96} \nu^2 - \frac{35}{5184} \nu^3 \right) x^3 \right. \nonumber \\ &\qquad+ \left. \left(-\frac{3969}{128} + \nu \,e_4(\nu) + \frac{448}{15}\nu\ln x\right) x^4\right. \nonumber \\ &\qquad+ \left. \left(-\frac{45927}{512} + \nu \,e_5(\nu) + \left[-\frac{4988}{35}-\frac{1904}{15}\nu\right]\nu\ln x\right) x^5\right\} \,.
\end{align}
Here $e_4(\nu)$ and $e_5(\nu)$ denote some unknown 4PN and 5PN coefficients which are some polynomials in the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$ --- this can be proved from the fact that the energy function for general orbits (i.e. before restriction to circular orbits) must be a polynomial in the two separate masses $m_1$ and $m_2$. This 5PN accurate formula could be used to compute the location of the innermost circular orbit (ICO) in the comparable mass regime, which also coincides with the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) in the extreme mass ratio regime. The shift of the Schwarzschild ISCO due to the conservative part of the self-force has been recently computed \cite{BaSa.09}. A high-order PN comparison with this result would be interesting, but requires at least the evaluation of the coefficients $e_4(\nu)$ and $e_5(\nu)$ in the extreme mass ratio regime, i.e. the knowledge of $e_4(0)$ and $e_5(0)$.
\section{The gauge invariant redshift observable}\label{secV}
We are now ready to implement our computation of the gauge invariant redshift observable \eqref{uT}. We replace the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic terms in the metric coefficients evaluated on the particle \eqref{deltag1} into \eqref{uT}. We are careful at including also the metric up to 1PN order because of the coupling between 1PN and 4PN orders which produce 5PN terms. The result is valid for any orbit in a general frame. Next we go to the frame of the center-of-mass defined by $G^i=0$, where $G^i$ is the conserved integral of the center of mass. We have found the 4PN and 5PN logarithms in $G^i$ in Eq.~\eqref{deltaGi}, and from this we compute the displacement of the center of mass for circular orbits. As already used in Sec.~\ref{secIV} we find that the first logarithmic terms in the center-of-mass integral for circular orbits arise only at 5PN order. We obtain
\begin{equation}\label{deltaGic}
\delta G^i = -\frac{324}{7}\,m\,\nu^2\,\Delta\,\gamma^5\,\ln\gamma\;y_{12}^i\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta=(m_2-m_1)/m=\sqrt{1-4\nu}$ is the relative mass difference. The correction to the individual center-of-mass positions will thus be given by $\delta y_a^i=-\delta G^i/m$ for $a$=1,2 (see e.g. the Appendix B in Paper I), and similarly $\delta v_a^i = - \delta \dot{G}^i / m$ for the individual center-of-mass velocities. We already notice that because of the factor $\nu^2$ in \eqref{deltaGic} this correction will not influence the SF limit. Next we reduce the latter expression to circular orbits, replacing all orbital frequencies by their expressions in terms of $\gamma$, and then replacing all $\gamma$'s by their expressions in terms of $x$. The formulas \eqref{deltaOm2} and \eqref{deltagam} for the 4PN and 5PN logarithms play of course the crucial role. Finally we end up with the full correction due to the 4PN and 5PN logarithmic terms for circular orbits in our redshift observable $u^T$ as (removing now the index 1 indicating the smaller mass)
\begin{equation}\label{uTpn}
\delta u^T = \left[-\frac{32}{5} - \frac{32}{5}\Delta +\frac{64}{15}\nu + \left(\frac{478}{105}+\frac{478}{105}\Delta+\frac{1684}{21}\nu+\frac{4388}{105}\Delta\nu-\frac{3664}{105}\nu^2\right)x\right] \nu\,x^5\,\ln x\,.
\end{equation}
This correction is valid for any mass ratio $q=m_1/m_2$ and is to be added to the 3PN expression for $u^T$ obtained in Eq.~(4.10) of Paper I. Being proportional to the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$, the correction \eqref{uTpn} vanishes in the test-mass limit, which is to be expected since the Schwarzschild result for $u^T(\Omega)$ does not involve any logarithm.
We now investigate the small mass ratio regime $q\ll 1$. As in Paper I we introduce a convenient PN parameter appropriate to the small mass limit of particle 1:
\begin{equation}\label{y}
y \equiv \left( \frac{G\,m_2\,\Omega}{c^3} \right)^{2/3}\,.
\end{equation}
We immediately obtain, up to say the quadratic order in $q$, and keeping only the relevant logarithmic terms,
\begin{equation}\label{deltauT}
\delta u^T = q\left[-\frac{64}{5} + \left(\frac{956}{105}+\frac{4588}{35}q\right)y\right] y^5\,\ln y + \mathcal{O}(q^3)\,.
\end{equation}
Our complete redshift observable, expanded through post-self-force order, is of the type
\begin{equation}\label{utexp}
u^T = u^T_\mathrm{Schw} + q \, u^T_\mathrm{SF} + q^2 \, u^T_\mathrm{PSF} + \mathcal{O}(q^3) \,,
\end{equation}
where the Schwarzschild result is known in closed form as $u^T_\mathrm{Schw} = \left( 1 - 3 y \right)^{-1/2}$. Adding back the 3PN results of Paper I (see Eq. (5.5) there), we thus find that the self-force contribution is given by\footnote{For clarity we add the Landau $o$ symbol for remainders which takes the standard meaning.}
\begin{align}\label{utSF}
u^T_\mathrm{SF} &= - y - 2 y^2 - 5 y^3 + \left(
- \frac{121}{3} + \frac{41}{32} \pi^2 \right) y^4 \nonumber\\&+ \left(
\alpha_4 - \frac{64}{5}\ln y\right) y^5 + \left(
\alpha_5 + \frac{956}{105}\ln y\right) y^6 + o(y^6)\,.
\end{align}
The expansion \eqref{utSF} was determined up to 2PN order $\propto y^3$ in \cite{De.08} based on the Hadamard-regularized 2PN metric given in \cite{Bl.al.98}. The result at 3PN order $\propto y^4$ was obtained in Paper I using the powerful dimensional regularization (as opposed to Hadamard's regularization which found its limits at that order). By contrast our analytic determination of the logarithmic terms at 4PN and 5PN orders depends only marginally on the regularization scheme.
The coefficients $\alpha_4$ and $\alpha_5$ denote some unknown purely numerical numbers which would be very difficult to compute with PN methods, and should depend crucially on having a consistent regularization scheme. By comparing the expansion \eqref{utSF} with our accurate numerical SF data for $u^T_\text{SF}$, we shall be able to measure these coefficients with at least 8 significant digits for the 4PN coefficient $\alpha_4$, and 5 significant digits for the 5PN coefficient $\alpha_5$. These results, as well as the estimation of even higher-order PN coefficients, will be detailed in Sec.~\ref{secVI}.
Similarly, adding up the results of Paper I for the post-self-force term, we get
\begin{align}\label{utpSF}
u^T_\mathrm{PSF} &= y + 3 y^2 + \frac{97}{8} y^3 + \left(
\frac{725}{12} - \frac{41}{64} \pi^2 \right) y^4 \nonumber\\&+ \epsilon_4 \,y^5 + \left(\epsilon_5 + \frac{4588}{35}\ln y\right) y^6 + o(y^6)\,.
\end{align}
Note that there is no logarithm at 4PN order in the post-self-force term, as is also seen from Eq.~\eqref{deltauT}; the next 4PN logarithm would arise at cubic order $q^3$, i.e. at the post-post-SF level. The coefficients $\epsilon_4$ and $\epsilon_5$ in \eqref{utpSF} are unknown, and unfortunately they are expected to be extremely difficult to obtain, not only analytically in the standard PN theory, but also numerically as they require a second-order perturbation SF scheme.
\section{Numerical evaluation of post-Newtonian coefficients}\label{secVI}
In the self-force limit, the SF effect $u^T_{\text{SF}}$ on the redshift observable $u^T$ is related to the regularized metric perturbation ${h^\text{R}_{\alpha\beta}}$ at the location of the particle through
\begin{equation}
u^T_{\text{SF}} =
\frac12 (1 - 3y)^{-1/2} \, {\bar u}^\alpha {\bar u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta} \, ,
\label{uTeqn}
\end{equation}
where ${\bar u}^\alpha$ is the background four-velocity of the particle. Beware that here ${h^\text{R}_{\alpha\beta}}$ stands in fact for the perturbation \textit{per unit mass ratio}, denoted ${h^\text{R}_{\alpha\beta}}/q$ in Paper I (cf. Eq.~(2.11) there). In SF analysis, the combination ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ arises more naturally than $u^T_{\text{SF}}$; this is the quantity we shall be interested in fitting in this Section. However our final results in Table \ref{bestfit} will include the corresponding values of the coefficients for the redshift variable $u^T_{\text{SF}}$. We refer to Sec. II of Paper I for a discussion of the computation of the regularized metric perturbation ${h^\text{R}_{\alpha\beta}}$, and the invariant properties of the combination ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ with respect to the choice of perturbative gauge. In this Section we often use $r = 1/y$, a gauge invariant measure of the orbital radius scaled by the black hole mass $m_2$ [see Eq.~\eqref{y}].
Our earlier numerical work, partially reported in \cite{De.08} and in Paper I, provided values of the function ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}(r)$ which cover a range in $r$ from $4$ to $750$. Following a procedure described in \cite{De.al.03}, we have used Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the accuracy of our values for ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$. As was reported in Paper I, this gives us confidence in these base numbers to better than one part in $10^{13}$. We denote a standard error $\sigma$ representing the numerical error in ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ by
\begin{equation}
\sigma \simeq |{\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}| \times {\rm E}\times10^{-13},
\label{asymp}
\end{equation}
where $\rm E \simeq 1$ is being used as a placeholder to identify our estimate of the errors in our numerical results.
\subsection{Overview}
\label{secVIA}
A common task in physics is creating a functional model for a set of data. In our problem we have a set of $N$ data points $f_i$ and associated uncertainties $\sigma_i$, with each pair evaluated at an abscissa $r_i$. We wish to represent this data as some model function $f(r)$ which consists of a linear sum of $M$ basis functions $F_j(r)$ such that
\begin{equation}
f(r) = \sum_{j=1}^M c_j F_j(r) \, .
\end{equation}
The numerical goal is to determine the $M$ coefficients $c_j$ which yield the best fit in a least squares sense over the range of data. That is, the $c_j$ are to be chosen such that
\begin{equation}
{\chi^2} \equiv \sum_{i=1}^N
\left[\frac{f_i - \sum_{j=1}^M c_j F_j(r_i)}{\sigma_i}\right]^2
\label{chi2def}
\end{equation}
is a minimum under small changes in the $c_j$. For our application we choose the basis functions $F_j(r)$ to be a set of terms which are typical in PN expansions, such as $r^{-1}$, $r^{-2}$, \ldots, and also terms such as $r^{-5}\ln(r)$.
Our analysis depends heavily upon Ref.~\cite{PrTeVeFl}; we use both the methods and the computer code for solving systems of linear algebraic equations as described therein. While we do employ standard, least squares methods for solving a system of linear equations to determine the $c_j$, we also recognize that a solution to this extremum problem is not guaranteed to provide an accurate representation of the data $(r_i, f_i,\sigma_i)$. The quality of the numerical fit is measured by ${\chi^2}$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{chi2def}). If the model of the data is a good one, then the $\chi^2$ statistic itself has an expectation value of the number of degrees of freedom in the problem, $N-M$, with an uncertainty (standard deviation) of $\sqrt{2(N-M)}$. In particular, a large residual ${\chi^2}$ would correspond to under-fitting the data whereas a ${\chi^2}$ that is too small corresponds to over-fitting the data, which amounts to fitting randomness in the residuals.
The numerical evaluation of the fitting coefficient $c_j$ includes a determination of its uncertainty $\Sigma_j$ which depends upon i) the actual values of $r_i$ in use, ii) all of the $\sigma_i$, and iii) the set of basis functions $F_j(r)$. In fact, the estimate of the $\Sigma_j$ depends solely upon the design matrix
\begin{equation}
A_{ij} \equiv \frac{F_j(r_i)}{\sigma_i} \, ,
\end{equation}
and not at all on the data (or residuals) being fitted. However, the estimates of the $\Sigma_j$ are only valid if the data are well represented by the set of basis functions. For emphasis: the $\Sigma_j$ depend upon $F_j(r_i)$ and upon $\sigma_i$ but \textit{are completely independent} of the $f_i$. Only if the fit is considered to be good, could the $\Sigma_j$ give any kind of realistic estimate for the uncertainty in the coefficients $c_j$. If the fit is not of high quality (unacceptable ${\chi^2}$), then the $\Sigma_j$ bear no useful information \cite{PrTeVeFl}. We will come back to this point in the discussion below.
A further remark concerning the meaning of the $\Sigma_j$ is appropriate. Fitting the data as described to determine the coefficients is a standard, well defined statistical procedure. If we were to change the integration routine used to generate the ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}(r_i)$, which are the set of input data values $f_i$, with the restriction that we maintained the same numerical accuracy then the $f_i$ would each change in a random way governed by $\sigma_i$. If the coefficients $c_j$ were then determined for this second data set, the statistical analysis ensures that the $\Sigma_j$ associated with this second data set would be identical to those of the first set and the newly determined estimates of the $c_j$ would differ from the initial ones in a statistical fashion governed by the $\Sigma_j$. Recall that the $\Sigma_j$ depend upon the choice of the $r_i$, upon the $\sigma_i$ for the individual data points and upon the set of basis functions $F_j(r)$. The $\Sigma_j$ are completely independent of the data values $f_i$.
Now we consider two other possible changes. If we add an extra data point, or if we add another basis function not orthogonal to the others (this would be typical over a finite set of data points, unless we carefully engineered otherwise) the design matrix changes accordingly, all estimated coefficients $c_j$ change accordingly, and the estimated $\Sigma_j$ change in ways which are not easily related to the previous results. In particular, if we add an additional basis function $F_{M+1}$ to the previous set, so there is now one more coefficient $c_{M+1}$ to be fit, and we compare the first $M$ values of the new $c_j$ to their earlier values, their differences need not be closely related to either the first or second set of $\Sigma_j$. Thus, a change in the design matrix of the problem leads to an inability to make any intuitive prediction about what to expect for the new $c_j$, and there is no reason to expect that the differences of the $c_j$ respect the values of the $\Sigma_j$ for these two different statistical problems.
We also should remark that the task of determining coefficients in the $1/r$ characterization of our numerical data is almost incompatible with the task of determining an asymptotic expansion of ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ from an analytic analysis. Analytically, the strict $r\rightarrow+\infty$ limit is always technically possible, whereas numerically, not only is that limit {\it never} attainable, but we must always contend with function evaluations at just a finite number of discrete points, obtained within a finite range of the independent variable, and computed with finite numerical precision. Nevertheless, this is what we intend to do.
In practice, the numerical problem is even more constrained. At large $r$, even though the data may still be computable there, the higher order terms for which we are interested in evaluating PN coefficients rapidly descend below the error level of our numerical data. This is clearly evident in Fig.~\ref{bestfig} below. For small $r$, the introduction of so many PN coefficients is necessary that it becomes extremely difficult to characterize our numerical data accurately. Thus, in practice, we find ourselves actually working with less than the full range of our available data. At large $r$ we could effectively drop points because they contribute so little to any fit we consider. At the other extreme, the advantage of adding more points in going to smaller $r$ is rapidly outweighed by the increased uncertainty in every fitted coefficient. This results from the need to add more basis functions in an attempt to fit the data at small $r$. Further details will become evident in Sec.~\ref{secVID} below.
\subsection{Framework for evaluating PN coefficients numerically}
\label{secVIB}
In a generic fashion we describe an expansion of ${\bar u}^\alpha {\bar u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}$ in terms of PN coefficients $a_j$ and $b_j$ with
\begin{equation}
{\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}} = \sum_{j\geqslant0} \frac{a_j}{r^{j+1}} - \ln r \sum_{j\geqslant4} \frac{b_j}{r^{j+1}} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $a_0$ is the Newtonian term, $a_1$ is the 1PN term and so on. Similarly, for use in applications involving $u^T$ we also introduce the coefficients $\alpha_j$ and $\beta_j$ in the expansion of the SF contribution
\begin{equation}
u^T_\text{SF} = \sum_{j\geqslant0} \frac{\alpha_j}{r^{j+1}} - \ln r \sum_{j\geqslant4} \frac{\beta_j}{r^{j+1}} \, .
\end{equation}
These series allow for the possibility of logarithmic terms, which are known not to start before the 4PN order. We also concluded in Sec.~\ref{secII} that $(\ln{r})^2$ terms cannot arise before the 5.5PN order. Since we are computing a conservative effect, possible time-odd logarithmic squared contributions at the 5.5PN or 6.5PN orders do not contribute. But there is still the possibility for a conservative 7PN $(\ln{r})^2$ effect, probably originating from a tail modification of the dissipative 5.5PN $(\ln{r})^2$ term. However, we shall not permit for such a small effect in our fits. As discussed below in Sec.~\ref{secVID}, we already have problems distinguishing the 7PN linear $\ln{r}$ term from the 7PN non-logarithmic contribution.
The analytically determined values of the coefficients $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ and $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ computed in Ref.~\cite{De.08} and Paper I are reported in Table \ref{known}, together with the new results $b_{4}=-\frac{128}{5}$, $b_{5}=\frac{5944}{105}$ and $\beta_{4}=-\frac{64}{5}$, $\beta_{5}=\frac{956}{105}$ of the present work.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | c || c | c}
\hline\hline
coeff. & value & coeff. & value \\
\hline
$a_0$ & $-2$ & $\alpha_0$ & $-1$ \\
$a_1$ & $-1$ & $\alpha_1$ & $-2$ \\
$a_2$ & $-\frac{7}{4}$ & $\alpha_2$ & $-5$ \\
$a_3$ & $-\frac{1387}{24} + \frac{41}{16}\pi^2$ & $\alpha_3$ & $-\frac{121}{3}+\frac{41}{32}\pi^2$ \\
$b_4$ & $-\frac{128}{5}$ & $\beta_4$ & $-\frac{64}{5}$ \\
$b_5$ & $+\frac{5944}{105}$ & $\beta_5$ & $+\frac{956}{105}$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The analytically determined PN coefficients for ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ (left) and $u^T_\text{SF}$ (right).} \label{known}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Verifying analytically determined PN coefficients}
\label{secVIC}
In this Section we investigate the use of our data for ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ and the fitting procedures we have described above (and expanded upon in the beginning of Sec.~\ref{secVID}). We will begin by fitting for enough of the other PN coefficients to be able to verify numerically the various coefficients $a_3$, $b_4$ and $b_5$ now known from PN analysis. We choose a starting point for the inner boundary of the range, and each range continues out to $r=700$. The results of a series of fits are displayed in Tables \ref{a3fit} and \ref{1stfit}. First we remark that bringing the outer boundary inward as far as to $300$ has very little effect on the outcome of any of these fits, except that the $\chi^2$ statistic decreases as expected with the number of degrees of freedom.
As a first step in this Section, we will complete the task we began in Paper I, namely, the numerical determination of the coefficient $a_3$ (and $\alpha_3$), this time taking fully into account the known logarithmic terms at 4PN and 5PN order. For illustrative purposes only, these results are given in Table \ref{a3fit}. We were able to obtain a fit with six undetermined parameters, and could include data from $r=700$ down to $r=35$. Note that, with the inclusion of the $b_4$ and $b_5$ coefficients, the precision of our tabulated value for $a_3$ has increased by more than four orders of magnitude from Paper I, although our accuracy is still no better than about $2\Sigma$. Such a discrepancy is not uncommon. The uncertainty, $\Sigma$, reflects only how well the data in the given, finite range can be represented by a combination of the basis functions. It is not a measure of the quality of a coefficient when considered as a PN expansion parameter, which necessarily involves an $r\rightarrow+\infty$ limiting process.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | l l}
\hline\hline
coeff. &~~& \hspace{0.7cm} value \\
\hline
$a_3$ && $-32.5008069(7)$ \\
$a_4$ && $-121.30254(30)$ \\
$a_5$ && $-42.99(5)$ \\
$a_6$ && $-228(6)$ \\
$b_6$ && $+677(2)$ \\
$a_7$ && $-8226(27)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
The results of a numerical fit for a set of coefficients which includes the analytically known $a_3$. Thus this is \textit{not} the best-fit of our data possible, but it allows for a comparison with Table \ref{bestfit}. The uncertainty in the last digit or two is in parentheses. The range runs from $r=35$ to $r=700$, with 266 data points and a respectable ${\chi^2}$ of 264.}
\label{a3fit}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Our next step is to include the known value for $a_3$ and to use our numerical data to estimate values for the $b_4$ and $b_5$ coefficients. Our best quality numerical result was obtained with five fitted parameters, over a range from $r=700$ down to only $r=65$, and is given in the first row of Table \ref{1stfit}. Notice that while our $b_4$ is determined relatively precisely, it has only about $6\Sigma$ accuracy. The higher order coefficient $b_5$ is more difficult to obtain and, at this point, it is very poorly determined. It corresponds to a term which falls off rapidly with increasing $r$ and is significant over a relatively small inner part of the fitted range.
We can of course use the known value of $b_4$ in order to improve the accuracy for $b_5$. If we do this without adding another parameter to fit, we immediately get a fit of very poor quality, since we have moved $b_4$ far from its best-fit value; as shown in the second row of Table \ref{1stfit}, we must move the inner boundary out to $r=85$ to re-establish a good fit.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | l | l | l | l | l | l | l | l | l}
\hline\hline
$r_\text{min}$ & deg. & \hspace{0.04cm} $\chi^2$ & \hspace{0.8cm} $a_4$ & \hspace{0.9cm} $b_4$ & \hspace{0.6cm} $a_5$ & \hspace{0.5cm} $b_5$ & \hspace{0.6cm} $a_6$ & \hspace{0.3cm} $b_6$ & \hspace{0.7cm} $a_7$ \\
\hline
65 & 231 & 222 & $-121.40(1)$ & $-25.6116(20)$ & $-102(1)$ & $45.5(3)$ & $-2081(9)$ &&\\
85 & 212 & 207 & $-121.3180(7)$ & & $-91.45(70)$ & $48.48(15)$ & $-2170(8)$ &&\\
65 & 231 & 222 & $-121.313(1)$ & & $-79(2)$ & $50.6(4)$ & $-1868(44)$ & $131(21)$ \\
40 & 255 & 247 & $-121.3052(6)$ & & $-47(1)$ & $55.7(2)$ & $-359(41)$ & $625(15)$ & $-7722(162)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numerically determined PN coefficients for ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$. Each row represents a different fit. The first three columns give the starting point $r_\text{min}$ at the inner boundary of the fitting range, the degrees of freedom of the fit, $N-M$, and the $\chi^2$ statistic for the chosen fit. If a value for a coefficient is not shown, then either that parameter was not included in that particular fit (far right) or its analytically known value was used (e.g., $b_4$). The formal uncertainty of a coefficient in the last digit or two is in parentheses. The outer boundary is $700$ in each case.} \label{1stfit}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The inclusion of basis functions for the higher order coefficients, $b_6$ and $a_7$, as shown in the third and fourth rows, respectively, allows the inner boundary for the fit to move to smaller $r$ where the higher PN terms are more important. The third row of the table shows that adding another parameter allows us to move the inner boundary to $r=65$, while the final row shows that we can now add one further fitted parameter, and obtain a good quality fit by pushing the inner boundary to $r=40$. Only in this row is the $b_5$ parameter close to its known value, but it is still off by around $4.5\Sigma$ (see Table~\ref{analytic} below). Moreover, we have reached a limit for treating our data in this way, adding further parameters and inner points does not result in any higher quality fit.
By now we have presented enough to show that we have data which allows high precision, with an accuracy that we now have some experience in relating to the computed error estimates. This experience will be valuable when we come to discuss further results in the next Section. For convenience, we summarize the relevant information further, in Table \ref{analytic}, referring just to our estimates of known PN parameters, and relating our error estimates to the observed accuracy.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l | c | l | l | l }
\hline\hline
source & coeff. & \hspace{0.5cm} estimate & accuracy & \hspace{0.3cm} exact result\\
\hline
Paper I & $\alpha_3$ & $-27.677(5)$ & $\rightarrow(11) $ &
$-27.6879\cdots$ \\
Table \ref{a3fit} & $a_3$ & $-32.5008069(7)$ & $\rightarrow(15) $ &
$-32.5008054\cdots$ \\
Table \ref{1stfit} & $b_4$ & $-25.6116(20)$ & $\rightarrow(116)$ &
$-25.6$ \\
Table \ref{1stfit} & $b_5$ & $+55.7(2)$ & $\rightarrow(9) $ &
$+56.6095\cdots$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparing the analytically known PN coefficients (column 5) with their numerically determined counterparts (column 3), and comparing the numerically determined error estimates (column 3) with the apparent accuracy (column 4). The source of the data is given in column 1.} \label{analytic}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Determining higher order PN terms numerically}\label{secVID}
In this Section we turn our attention to using our numerical SF data and fitting procedures to obtain as many as possible unknown PN coefficients, by making maximum use of the coefficients which are already known. We find that in our \textit{best fit} analysis we can use a set of five basis functions corresponding to the unknown coefficients $a_4$, $a_5$, $a_6$, $b_6$ and $a_7$.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | l || c | l}
\hline\hline
coeff. & \hspace{0.5cm} value & coeff. & \hspace{0.5cm} value \\
\hline
$a_4$ & $-121.30310(10)$ & $\alpha_4$ & $-114.34747(5)$ \\
$a_5$ & $-42.89(2)$ & $\alpha_5$ & $-245.53(1)$ \\
$a_6$ & $-215(4)$ & $\alpha_6$ & $-695(2)$ \\
$b_6$ & $+680(1)$ & $\beta_6$ & $+339.3(5)$ \\
$a_7$ & $-8279(25)$ & $\alpha_7$ & $-5837(16)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numerically determined values of higher-order PN coefficients for ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ (left) and for $u_\text{SF}^T$ (right). The uncertainty in the last digit or two is in parentheses. The range runs from $r=40$ to $r=700$, with 261 data points being fit. The ${\chi^2}$ statistic is 259. We believe that a contribution from a $b_7$ term piggybacks on the $a_7$ coefficient. Both terms fall off rapidly and have influence over the fit only at small $r$. And the radial dependence of these two terms only differ by a factor of $\ln r$ [or possibly $(\ln r)^2$] which changes slowly over their limited range of significance.} \label{bestfit}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
In Table \ref{bestfit}, we describe the numerical fit of our data over a range in $r$ from $40$ to $700$. The ${\chi^2}$ statistic is 259 and slightly larger than the degrees of freedom, 256, which denotes a good fit. Further, we expect that a good fit would be insensitive to changes in the boundaries of the range of data being fit, and we find, indeed, that if the outer boundary of the range decreases to $300$ then essentially none of the data in the Table changes, except for ${\chi^2}$ and the degrees of freedom which decrease in a consistent fashion. Figure \ref{bestfig} shows that in the outer part of the range ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ is heavily dominated by only a few lower order terms in the PN expansion --- those above the lower black double-dashed line in the figure.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[clip,angle=0,width=15.5cm,]{plt35-700_8-5e_mod.pdf}
\caption{The absolute value of the contributions of the numerically determined post-Newtonian terms to $r^5{\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$. Here PNL refers to just the logarithm term at the specified order. The contribution of $a_4$ is not shown but would be a horizontal line (since the 4PN terms behaves like $r^{-5}$) at approximately 121.3\,. The remainder after $a_4$ and all the known coefficients are removed from $r^5{\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ is the top (red) continuous line. The lower (black) dotted line labelled ``err'' shows the uncertainty in $r^5{\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$, namely $2{\rm E} \, r^4 \times10^{-13}$. The jagged (green) line labelled ``$|$res$|$'' is the absolute remainder after all of the fitted terms have been removed. The figure reveals that, with regard to the uncertainty of the calculated ${\bar{u}^\alpha \bar{u}^\beta h^{\text{R}}_{\alpha\beta}}$, the choice $E\simeq 1$ was slightly too large.}
\label{bestfig}
\end{figure}
The inner edge of the range is more troublesome. The importance of a given higher order PN term decreases rapidly with increasing $r$. Moving the inner boundary of the range outward might move a currently well determined term into insignificance. This could actually lead to a smaller ${\chi^2}$, but it would also lead to an increase in the $\Sigma_j$ of every coefficient. Moving the inner edge of the range inward might require that an additional higher order term be added to the fit. This extra term loses significance quickly with increasing $r$ so the new coefficient will be poorly determined and also result in an overall looser fit with an increase of $\Sigma_j$ for all of the coefficients. If the inner boundary and the set of basis functions are chosen properly, then a robust fit is revealed when the parameters being fit are insensitive to modest changes in the boundaries of the range. The fit described in Table \ref{bestfit} appears to be robust. The parameters in this Table are consistent with all fits with the inner boundary of the range varying from 35 to 45 and the outer boundary varying from 300 to 700.
If an additional term, with coefficient $b_7$, is added to the basis functions then, for identical ranges, each of the $\Sigma_j$ increases by a factor of about ten, and the changes in $a_4$ and $a_5$ are within this uncertainty. The coefficient $a_6$ changes sign and $b_6$ and $a_7$ change by an amount significantly larger than the corresponding $\Sigma_j$. And the new coefficient $b_7$ is quite large. In the context of fitting data to a set of basis functions these are recognized symptoms of over-fitting and imply that the extra coefficient degrades the fit.
How should we (and others) interpret the data in Table \ref{bestfit}? To guide our discussion of this very important question, we assemble together into Table \ref{numerical} all the relevant results from the earlier fits of Sec.~\ref{secVIC} which relate to the best prior estimates we have there for $a_4$, $a_5$, $a_6$, $b_6$ and $a_7$ which we have finally calculated here. As was shown in Table \ref{analytic} and is now evident in Table \ref{numerical}, our numerical accuracy tends to be in the range of $2-6 \Sigma$, both when comparing the best results for $a_4$, $a_5$, $a_6$, $b_6$ and $a_7$ from Sec.~\ref{secVIC} with those obtained here and, we would suggest, for the purposes of comparing the results of this Section with future PN coefficients.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | l | l | l }
\hline\hline
coeff. & \hspace{0.00cm} Table \ref{bestfit} (best) & \hspace{1.1cm} Table \ref{a3fit} & \hspace{0.9cm} Table \ref{1stfit} \\
\hline
$a_4$ & $-121.30310(10) $ & $-121.30254(30) \rightarrow(56) $ &
$-121.3052(6)\rightarrow(21) $ \\
$a_5$ & $-42.89(2) $ & $-42.99(5) \rightarrow(10) $ & $-47(1)
\rightarrow(4) $ \\
$a_6$ & $-215(4) $ & $-228(6) \rightarrow(13) $ &
$-359(41) \rightarrow(144) $ \\
$b_6$ & $+680(1) $ & $+677(2) \rightarrow(3) $ &
$+625(15) \rightarrow(55) $ \\
$a_7$ & $-8279(25) $ & $-8226(27) \rightarrow(53)$ &
$-7722(162) \rightarrow(557) $ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparing the ``best fit'' numerical values and statistical uncertainties of the estimated PN coefficients in Table \ref{bestfit} to other numerical evaluations of these same quantities in Sec.~\ref{secVIC}.}
\label{numerical}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Summary}\label{secVIE}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm,angle=-90]{uT_SF.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize The self-force contribution $u^T_\mathrm{SF}$ to $u^T$ plotted as a function of the gauge invariant variable $y^{-1}$. Note that $y^{-1}$ is an invariant measure of the orbital radius scaled by the black hole mass $m_2$ [see Eq. \eqref{y}]. The ``exact'' numerical points are taken from Ref.~\cite{De.08}. Here, PN refers to all terms, including logarithms, up to the specified order (however recall that we did not include in our fit a log-term at 7PN order).}
\label{uT_SF}
\end{figure}
Our best fit can be visualized in Fig.~\ref{uT_SF}, where we plot the self-force effect $u_\text{SF}^T$ on the redshift variable $u^T$ as a function of $r=y^{-1}$, as well as several truncated PN series up to 7PN order, based on the analytically determined coefficients summarized in Table \ref{known}, as well as our best fit of the higher-order PN coefficients reported in Table \ref{bestfit}. Observe in particular the smooth convergence of the successive PN approximations towards the exact SF results. Note, though, that there is still a small separation between the 7PN curve and the exact data in the very relativistic regime shown at the extreme left of Fig.~\ref{uT_SF}.
We have found that our data in the limited range of $35 \leqslant r \leqslant 700$ can be extremely well characterized by a fit with five appropriately chosen (basis) functions. That is, the coefficients in Table \ref{bestfit} are well determined, with small uncertainties, and small changes in the actual details of the fit result in coefficients lying within their error estimates. Fewer coefficients would result in a very poor characterization of the same data while more coefficients result in large uncertainties in the estimated coefficients, which themselves become overly sensitive to small changes in specific details (such as the actual choice of points to be fitted). In practice, over the data range we finally choose, and with the five coefficients we fit for, we end up with exceedingly good results for the estimated coefficients, and with residuals which sink to the level of our noise. We have a very high quality fit which is quite insensitive to minor details. Nevertheless, as Tables \ref{analytic} and \ref{numerical} hint, error estimates for these highest order coefficients should be regarded with an appropriate degree of caution.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
SD and BFW acknowledge support through grants PHY-0555484 and PHY-0855503 from the National Science Foundation. LB and ALT acknowledge support from the Programme International de Coop\'eration Scientifique (CNRS--PICS).
|
\section{Introduction}\label{section-introduction}
In this article we are interested in the classification of contact Fano manifolds.
We review the relevant definitions in \S\ref{section-preliminaries}.
So far the only known examples of contact Fano manifolds are obtained as follows.
For a simple Lie group $G$ consider its adjoint action on $\PP(\gotg)$,
where $\gotg$ is the Lie algebra of $G$.
This action has a unique closed orbit $X$ and this $X$ has a natural contact structure.
In this situation $X$ is called a \emph{projectivised minimal nilpotent orbit},
or the \emph{adjoint variety} of $G$.
By the duality determined by the Killing form,
equivalently we can consider the coadjoint action of $G$ on $\PP(\gotg^*)$ and $X$ is isomorphic
to the unique closed orbit in $\PP(\gotg^*)$.
In order to study the non-homogeneous contact manifolds (potentially non-existent) it is natural to assume
$\Pic X \simeq \ZZ$ and further that $X$ is not isomorphic to a projective space.
This only exludes the adjoint varieties of types $A$ and $C$
(see \S\ref{section-preliminaries} for more details).
With this assumption,
we take a closer look at three pieces of the homogeneous structure on adjoint varieties:
the Killing form $B$ on $\gotg$, the Lie algebra grading
$\gotg = \gotg_{-2} \oplus \gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_{0} \oplus \gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_{2}$
(see \cite[\S6.1]{landsbergmanivel02} and references therein)
and a part of the Lie bracket on $\gotg$.
Understanding the underlying geometry allows us to define the appropriate generalisations of these notions
on arbitrary contact Fano manifolds.
An essential building block for our constructions is the notion of a \emph{contact line}
(or simply \emph{line})
on $X$.
These contact lines were studied by Kebekus \cite{kebekus_lines1}, \cite{kebekus_lines2} and
\Wisniewski{} \cite{wisniewski}.
Also they are an instance of minimal rational curves, which are studied extensively.
The geometry of contact lines was the original motivation to study Legendrian subvarieties in projective space
(see \cite{jabu_dr} for an overview and many details).
We briefly review the subject of lines on contact Fano manifolds in \S\ref{section-review-lines}.
The key ingedient is the construction of a family of divisors $D_x$ parametrised by points $x \in X$
(see \S\ref{section-define-Dx}).
These divisors are swept by pairs of intersecting contact lines, one of which passes through $x$.
In other words, set theoretically $D_x$ is the set of points of $X$,
which can be joined with $x$ using at most $2$ intersecting contact lines.
The idea to study these loci comes from \Wisniewski{} \cite{wisniewski}
where he observed, that (under an additional minor assumption)
these loci contain some non-trivial divisorial components
and he studied the intersection numbers of certain curves on $X$ with the divisorial components.
Here we prove all the components of $D_x$ are divisorial and draw conclusions from that observation
going into a different direction than those of \cite{wisniewski}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality}
Let $X$ be a contact Fano manifold with $\Pic X \simeq \ZZ $
and assume $X$ is not isomorphic to a projective space.
Then the locus $D_x \subset X$
swept by the pairs of intersecting contact lines, one of which passes through $x \in X$
is a of pure codimension $1$ and thus $D_x$ determines a divisor on $X$.
Let ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} \subset H^0(\ccO(D_x))$ be the linear system spanned by these divisors.
Let $\phi\colon X \to \PP{\LinSyst^*}$ be the map determined by the linear system ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$
and let $\psi\colon X \to \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ be the map $x\mapsto D_x$.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item both $\phi$ and $\psi$ are regular maps.
\item there exists a unique up to scalar non-degenerate bilinear form $B$ on ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$,
which determines an isomorphism $\PP{\LinSyst^*} \simeq \PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$
making the following diagram commutative:
\[
\[email protected]@R0.5pc{
& & & \PP {\LinSyst^*} \ar[dd]^{\simeq} \\
X\ar[urrr]^{\phi} \ar[drrr]^{\psi} && \\
& & & \PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}.}
\]
\item The bilinear form $B$ is either symmetric or skew-symmetric.
\item If $X \subset \PP(\gotg^*)$ is the adjoint variety of simple Lie group $G$,
then ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} = \gotg$ and $B$ is the Killing form on $\gotg$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
With the notation of the theorem,
after fixing a pair of general points $x, w \in X$
there are certain natural linear subspaces of ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$,
which we denote ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{-2}$, ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{-1}$, ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{0}$, ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{1}$ and ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{2}$
(see \S\ref{section-grading} for details).
\begin{thm} \label{thm-grading-for-homogeneous}
If $X \subset \PP(\gotg^*)$ is the adjoint variety of a simple Lie group $G$ with $\Pic X \simeq Z$
and $X$ not isomorphic to a projective space,
then there exists a choice of a maximal torus of $G$
and a choice of order of roots of $\gotg$,
such that
${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{i} = \gotg_{i}$ for every $i \in \set{-2,-1,0,1,2}$,
where $\gotg = \gotg_{-2} \oplus \gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_{0} \oplus \gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_{2}$
is the Lie algebra grading of $\gotg$.
\end{thm}
Finally, if $X$ is the adjoint variety of $G$,
then there is a rational map
\[
[\cdot, \cdot]\colon X \times X \dashrightarrow \PP(\gotg),
\]
which is the Lie bracket on $\gotg$ (up to projectivisation).
Also there is a divisor $D \subset X \times X$,
such that for general $(x,z) \in D$
the Lie bracket $[x,z]$ is in $X$.
We recover this bracket restricted to $D$ for general contact manifolds:
\begin{thm} \label{thm-bracket}
For $X$ and $D_x$ and in Theorem \ref{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality},
let $D \subset X \times X$ be the divisor consisting of pairs $(x,z) \in X \times X$,
such that $z \in D_x$.
There exists a rational map $[\cdot , \cdot ]\colon D \dashrightarrow X$,
such that $[x,z] = y$,
where $y$ is an intersection point of a pair of contact lines that join $x$ and $z$.
In particular, this intersection point $y$ and the pair of lines are unique for general pair $(x,z)$ $ \in D$.
Moreover, if $X$ is the adjoint variety of a simple Lie group $G$, then $[ \cdot, \cdot]$ is the restricion of the Lie bracket.
\end{thm}
In \S\ref{section-preliminaries} we introduce and motivate our assumptions and notation.
In \S\ref{section-loci-swept-by-lines} we review the notion of contact lines and their properties.
We continue by studying certain types of loci swept by those lines and calculate their dimensions.
In particular we prove there Theorem~\ref{thm-Dx-is-a-divisor},
which is a part of results summarised in Theorem~\ref{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality}.
We also study the tangent bundle to $D_x$ as a subspace of $TX$.
In \S\ref{section-duality} we study the duality of maps $\phi$ and $\psi$
introduced in Theorem~\ref{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality} together with the consequences of this duality.
This section is culminated with the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality}.
In \S\ref{section-grading} we generalise the Lie algebra grading to arbitrary contact manifolds
and prove Theorem~\ref{thm-grading-for-homogeneous}.
In \S\ref{section-cointegrable} we prove that certain lines are integrable with respect to
a special distribution on $D_x$ and we apply this to prove Theorem~\ref{thm-bracket}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author is supported by Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship.
The author would like to thank the following people for many enlightening
discussions:
Jun-Muk Hwang,
Stefan Kebekus,
Joseph M.~Landsberg,
\Jaroslaw{} \Wisniewski{}
and Fyodor L.~Zak.
Comments of Laurent Manivel helped to improve the presentation in the paper.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{section-preliminaries}
Throughout the paper all our projectivisations $\PP$ are naive.
This means, if $V$ is a vector space, then $\PP V = (V \setminus 0)/ \CC^*$,
and similarly for vector bundles.
A complex manifold $X$ of dimension $2n+1$ is \emph{contact}
if there exists a vector subbundle $F \subset TX$ of rank $2n$ fitting into an exact sequence:
\ContactDistributionSequence{X}
such that the derivative $\ud \theta \in H^0(\Wedge{2} F^* \otimes L)$
of the twisted form $\theta \in H^0(T^*X \otimes L)$ is nowhere degenerate.
In particular, $\ud \theta_x$ is a symplectic form on the fibre of contact distribution $F_x$.
See \cite[\S{}E.3 and Chapter~C]{jabu_dr} and references therein for an overview of the subject.
A projective manifold $X$ is Fano, if its anticanonical divisor ${K_X}^*=\Wedge{\dim X} TX$ is ample.
If $X$ is a projective contact manifold,
then by Theorem of Kebekus, Peternell, Sommese and \Wisniewski{} \cite{4authors}
combined with a result by Demailly \cite{demailly},
$X$ is either a projectivisation of a cotangent bundle
to a smooth projective manifold
or $X$ is a contact Fano manifold, with $\Pic X \simeq \ZZ$.
In the second case, since $K_X \simeq (L^*)^{\otimes(n+1)}$, by \cite{kobayashi_ochiai},
either $X \simeq \PP^{2n+1}$ or $\Pic X = \ZZ \cdot [L]$.
Here we are interested in the case $X \not \simeq \PP^{2n+1}$.
Thus our assumption spelled out below only exclude some well understood cases
(the projectivised cotangent bundles and the projective space)
and they agree with the assumptions of
Theorems~\ref{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality}, \ref{thm-grading-for-homogeneous} and~\ref{thm-bracket}.
\begin{notation}\label{notation-with-assumptions-about-contact-mflds}
Throughout the paper $X$ denotes a contact Fano manifold with $\Pic X$ generated by the class of $L$,
where $L= TX/F$ and $F\subset TX$ is the contact distribution on $X$.
We also assume $\dim X = 2n +1$.
\end{notation}
From Theorem of Ye \cite{ye} it follows that $n \ge 2$.
We will also consider the homogeneous examples of contact manifolds (i.e. the adjoint varieties).
Thus we fix notation for the Lie group and its Lie algebra.
\begin{notation}\label{notation-with-assumptions-about-group}
Throughout the paper $G$ denotes a simple complex Lie group, not of types $A$ or $C$
(i.e.~not isomorphic to $SL_n$ nor $Sp_{2n}$ nor their discrete quotients).
Further $\gotg$ is the Lie algebra of $G$.
Thus $\gotg$ is one of $\gotso_n$ (types $B$ and $D$),
or one of the exceptional Lie algebras
$\gotg_2$, $\gotf_4$, $\gote_6$, $\gote_7$ or $\gote_8$.
\end{notation}
The contact structure on $\PP^{2n-1} = \PP(\CC^{2n})$ is determined by a symplectic form
$\omega$ on $\CC^{2n}$.
The precise relation between the contact and symplectic structures is decribed for instance in
\cite[\S{}E.1]{jabu_dr} (see also \cite[Ex.~2.1]{lebrun}).
In particular, for all $x \in X$, the projectivisation of a fibre of the contact distribution $\PP F_x$
comes with a natural contact structure.
Let $M$ be a projective contact manifold
(in our case $M = X$ with $X$ as in Notation~\ref{notation-with-assumptions-about-contact-mflds}
or $M = \PP^{2n-1}$).
A subvariety $Z \subset M$ is \emph{Legendrian},
if for all smooth points $z \in Z$ the tangent space $T_z Z$
is contained in the contact distribution of $M$ and $Z$ is of pure dimension $\half(\dim M -1)$.
Recall from \cite[Lecture~20]{harris} or \cite[III.\S3,\S4]{mumford} the notion of \emph{tangent cone}.
For a subvariety $Z \subset X$, and a point $x \in Z$ let $\tau_x Z \subset T_x X$
be the tangent cone of $Z$ at $x$.
In this article we will only need the following elementary properties of the tangent cone:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tau_x Z$ is an affine cone (i.e.~it is invariant under the standard action of $\CC^*$ on $T_x X$).
\item $\dim_x Z = \dim \tau_x Z$ and thus if $Z$ is irreducible, then $\dim Z = \dim \tau_x Z$.
\item If $x \in Z_1 \subset Z_2 \subset X$, then $\tau_x Z_1 \subset \tau_x Z_2$.
\item If $Z$ is smooth at $x$, then $\tau_x Z = T_x Z$.
\end{itemize}
Since $\tau_x Z$ is a cone, let $\PP \tau_x Z \subset \PP T_x$ be the corresponding projective variety.
\section{Loci swept out by lines}
\label{section-loci-swept-by-lines}
A rational curve $l \subset X$ is a \emph{contact line} (or simply a \emph{line})
if \mbox{$\deg L|_{l} =1$}.
Let $RatCurves^n(X)$ be the normalised scheme parametrising rational curves on $X$,
as in \cite[II.2.11]{kollar_book_rational_curves}.
Let $Lines(X) \subset RatCurves^n(X)$ be the subscheme parametrising lines.
Then every component of $Lines(X)$ is a minimal component of $X$ in the sense
of \cite{hwang_mok_birationality}.
We fix $\ccH \ne \emptyset$ a union of some irreducible components of $Lines(X)$.
By a slight abuse of notation, from now on we say $l$ is a \emph{(contact) line}
if and only if $l \in \ccH$.
For simplicity, the reader may choose to restrict his attention to one of the extreme cases:
either to the case $\ccH = Lines(X)$
(and thus be consistent with \cite{wisniewski} and the first sentence of this section)
or to the case where $\ccH$ is one of the irreducible components of $Lines(X)$
(and thus be consistent with \cite{kebekus_lines1, kebekus_lines2}).
In general it is expected that $Lines(X)$
(with $X$ as in Notation~\ref{notation-with-assumptions-about-contact-mflds})
is irreducible and all the cases are the same.
\subsection{Legendrian varieties swept by lines}\label{section-review-lines}
We denote by $C_x \subset X$ the locus of contact lines through $x \in X$.
Let $\mathscr{C}{}_x:= \PP\tau_x C_x \subset \PP(T X)$.
Note that with our assumptions both $C_x$ and $\mathscr{C}{}_x$ are closed subsets of
$X$ or $\PP(T_x X)$ respectively.
The following theorem briefly summarises results of \cite{kebekus_lines2} and earlier:
\begin{thm} \label{thm-properties-of-Cx}
With $X$ as in Notation~\ref{notation-with-assumptions-about-contact-mflds} let $x\in X$ be any point.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{item-exist-lines}
There exist lines through $x$, in particular $C_x$ and $\mathscr{C}{}_x$ are non-empty.
\item\label{item-Cx-Yx-Legendrian}
$C_x$ is Legendrian in $X$ and $\mathscr{C}{}_x \subset \PP(F_x)$ and $\mathscr{C}{}_x$
is Legendrian in $\PP(F_x)$.
\item\label{item-Yx}
If in addition $x$ is a general point of $X$,
then $\mathscr{C}{}_x$ is smooth and each irreducible component of $\mathscr{C}{}_x$
is linearly non-degenerate in $\PP(F_x)$.
Further $C_x$ is isomorphic to the projective cone over $\mathscr{C}{}_x \subset \PP(F_x)$,
i.e.~$C_x \simeq \tilde{\mathscr{C}{}_x} \subset \PP(F_x \oplus \CC)$,
in such a way that lines through $x$ are mapped bijectively onto the generators of the cone
and restriction of $L$ to $C_x$ via this isomorphism
is identified with the restriction of $\ccO_{\PP(F_x \oplus \CC)}(1)$ to $\tilde{\mathscr{C}{}_x}$.
In particular all lines through $x$ are smooth and two different lines intersecting at $x$ will
not intersect anywhere else, nor they will share a tangent direction.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}
Part~\ref{item-exist-lines} is proved in \cite[\S2.3]{kebekus_lines1}.
The proof of \ref{item-Cx-Yx-Legendrian} is essentially contained in \cite[Prop.~2.9]{4authors}.
Explicit statements are in \cite[Prop.~4.1]{kebekus_lines1} for $C_x$
and in \cite[Lemma~5]{wisniewski} for $\mathscr{C}{}_x$.
Also \cite{hwang_mok_VMRTs} may claim the authorship of this observation,
since the proof in the homogeneous case is no different than in the general case.
Assume $x\in X$ is a general point.
The statements of \ref{item-Yx} are basically \cite[Thm~1.1]{kebekus_lines2},
which however assumes (in the statement) that $\ccH$ is irreducible.
This is never used in the proof, with the exception of the argument for the irreducibility of $C_x$
--- see however Remark~\ref{remark-kebekus-irreducibility}.
Thus $\mathscr{C}{}_x$ is smooth and $C_x$ is isomorphic to the cone over $\mathscr{C}{}_x$ as claimed.
Each irreducible component $\mathscr{C}{}_x$ is non-degenerate on $\PP F_x$ by \cite[Thm~4.4]{kebekus_lines1}
--- again the statement is only for $\mathscr{C}{}_x$, not for its components,
however the proof stays correct in this more general setup.
In particular, \cite[Lemma~4.3]{kebekus_lines1} implies that
$C_x$ polarised by $L|_{C_x}$ is not isomorphic with a linear subspace
with polarised by $\ccO(1)$.
Thus the other results of this theorem give alternate (but more complicated)
proof of that generalised non-degeneracy.
\end{prf}
\begin{rem}\label{remark-kebekus-irreducibility}
Note that (assuming $\ccH$ is irreducible)
Kebekus \cite{kebekus_lines2} also stated that $C_x$ and $\mathscr{C}{}_x$
are irreducible for general $x$.
However it was observed by Kebekus himself together with the author that
there is a gap in the proof.
This gap is on page 234 in Step~2 of proof of Proposition~3.2
where Kebekus claims to construct ``a well defined family of cycles'' parametrised by a divisor $D^0$.
This is not necessarily a well defined family of cycles:
Condition (3.10.4) in \cite[\S{}I.3.10]{kollar_book_rational_curves}
is not necessarily satisfied if $D^0$ is not normal
and there seem to be no reason to expect that $D^0$ is normal.
As a consequence the map $\Phi\colon D^0 \to \operatorname{Chow}(X)$
is not necessarily regular at non-normal points of $D^0$ and it might contract some curves.
\end{rem}
Let us define:
\begin{align*}
C^2 & \subset X \times X \\
C^2 & := \set{ (x, y) \mid y \in C_{x}},
\end{align*}
i.e.~this is the locus of those pairs $(x, y)$, which are both on the same contact line.
Again this locus is a closed subset of $X \times X$.
Analogously, define:
\[
C^3 : = C^2 \times_X C^2
\]
so that:
\begin{align*}
C^3 & \subset X \times X \times X\\
C^3 & := \set{ (x, y, z) \mid y \in C_{x}, z \in C_{y}}.
\end{align*}
Finally, for $x \in X$ we also define $C^2_x$:
\begin{align*}
C^2_x & \subset X \times X \simeq \set{x} \times X \times X \\
C^2_x & := \set{ (y, z) \mid y \in C_{x}, z \in C_{y}},
\end{align*}
with the scheme structure of the fibre of $C^3$ under the projection on the first coordinate.
Since for all $x \in X$ all irreducible components of $C_x$ are of dimension~$n$
(see Theorem~\ref{thm-properties-of-Cx})
we conclude:
\begin{prop}\label{prop-dimensions-of-Cs}
All $C^2$, $C^2_x$, $C^3$ are projective subschemes, they are all of pure dimension,
and their dimensions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\dim C^2 = 3n+1$.
\item $\dim C^2_x = 2n$.
\item $\dim C^3 = 4n+1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\noprf
\subsection{Joins and secants of Legendrian subvarieties}
For subvarieties $Y_1, Y_2 \subset \PP^N$ recall that their \emph{join} $Y_1*Y_2$
is the closure of the locus of lines between points $y_1\in Y_1 $ and $y_2 \in Y_2$.
Note that the expected dimension of $Y_1*Y_2$ is $\dim Y_1 + \dim Y_2 +1$.
We are only concerned with two special cases: either $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are disjoint or
$Y_1=Y_2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-join-of-two-disjoint-varieties}
If $Y_1, Y_2 \subset \PP^N$ are two disjoint subvarieties of dimensions $k-1$ and $N-k$
respectively, then their join $Y_1 * Y_2$ fills out the ambient space,
i.e.~this join is of expected dimension.
\end{lemma}
\begin{prf}
Let $p\in \PP^N$ be a general point and consider the projection
$\pi:\PP^N \dashrightarrow \PP^{N-1}$ away from $p$.
Let $Z_i = \pi(Y_i)$ for $i =1,2$.
Since $p$ is general, $\dim Z_i = \dim Y_i$ and thus $Z_1 \cap Z_2$ is non-empty.
Let $q\in Z_1 \cap Z_2$ be any point.
The preimage $\pi^{-1}(q)$ is a line in $\PP^N$ intersecting both $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ and passing through $p$.
\end{prf}
Recall, that the special case of join is when $Y=Y_1 =Y_2$
and $\sigma_2(Y) := Y*Y$ is the \emph{secant variety} of $Y$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop-secant-of-Legendrian}
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $Y \subset \PP^{2n-1}$ be an irreducible linearly non-degenerate Legendrian variety.
Then $\sigma_2(Y) = \PP^{2n-1}$.
\item Let $Y_1,Y_2 \subset \PP^{2n-1}$ be two disjoint Legendrian subvarieties.
Then $Y_1*Y_2 = \PP^{2n-1}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
If $Y$ is irreducible, then this is proved in the course of proof of Prop.~17(2)
in \cite{landsbergmanivel04}.
If $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are disjoint,
then the result follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma-join-of-two-disjoint-varieties}.
\end{prf}
\subsection{Divisors swept by broken lines}\label{section-define-Dx}
Following the idea of \Wisniewski{} \cite{wisniewski}
we introduce the locus of broken lines
(or reducible conics, or chains of $2$ lines) through $x$:
\[
{D}_x := \bigcup_{y \in C_x} C_y.
\]
Note that ${D}_x$ is a closed subset of $X$
as it can be interpreted as the image of projective variety $C^2_x \subset X \times X$ under a proper map,
which is the projection onto the last coordinate.
By analogy to the case of lines consider also:
\begin{align*}
{D}^2 & \subset X \times X \\
{D}^2 & := \set{ (x, z) \mid \exists_{y \in C_{x}} \text{ s.t. } z \in C_{y}},
\end{align*}
i.e.~${D}^2$ is the projection of $C^3$ onto first and third coordinates.
Thus again ${D}^2$ is a closed subset of the product.
Set theoretically ${D}_x$ is the fibre over $x$ of
(either of) the projection ${D}^2 \to X$ and if we consider ${D}^2$ as a reduced scheme,
then we can assign to ${D}_x$ the scheme structure of the fibre.
It follows immediately from the above discussion and Proposition \ref{prop-dimensions-of-Cs},
that every component of ${D}_x$ has dimension at most $2n$ and
every component of ${D}^2$ has dimension at most $4n+1$.
In fact the equality holds.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm-Dx-is-a-divisor}
Let $x \in X$ be any point.
Then the locus ${D}_x$ is of pure codimension~$1$.
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}
Assume first that $x\in X$ is a general point.
Recall, that $C^2_x \subset X \times X$ has two projections:
\[
\xymatrix{ C^2_x \ar@{->>}[r]^{\pi_2} \ar@{->>}[d]^{\pi_1} & D_x \\
C_x}
\]
Fix $\component{D_x}$ to be an irreducible component of $D_x$.
Then $\component{D_x}$ is dominated
by some component $\component{C^2_x}$ of $C^2_x$.
Dimension of $\component{C^2_x}$ is equal to $2n$ by Proposition~\ref{prop-dimensions-of-Cs}.
For $y \in C_x$ the fiber ${\pi_1}^{-1}(y) \subset C^2_x$
is equal to $\set{y} \times C_y$.
In particular,
by Theorem~\ref{thm-properties-of-Cx}\ref{item-Cx-Yx-Legendrian}
the fibers of $\pi_1$ have constant dimension $n$.
Thus $\component{C^2_x}$ is mapped onto an irreducible component $\component{C_x}$ of $C_x$.
Finally, let $C'$ be an irreducible component of the preimage ${\pi_1}^{-1}(x)$
which is contained in $\component{C^2_x}$.
Note that $C'$ can be identified with an irreducible component of $C_x$,
because ${\pi_1}^{-1}(x) = \set{x} \times C_x$.
We claim that the projectivised tangent cone $\PP \tau_x \component{D_x}$ contains
the join of two tangent cones
\[
(\PP\tau_x C') * (\PP\tau_x \component{C_x}) \subset \PP F_x \subset \PP T_x X.
\]
The proof of the claim is a baby version of \cite[Thm~3.11]{hwang_kebekus_chains}.
There however Hwang and Kebekus assume $C_x$ is irreducible and thus their
results do not neccessarily apply directly here.
Let $l_0$ be a general line through $x$ contained in $C'$
and let $l$ be a general line through $x$ contained in $\component{C_x}$.
To prove the claim it is enough to show there exists
a surface $S\subset D_x$ containing $l_0$ and $l$ which is smooth at $x$,
since in such a case $T_x S \subset \tau_x D_x$ and
$\PP T_x S$ is the line between $\PP T_x l$ and $\PP T_x l_0$.
We obtain $S$ by varying $l_0$.
Consider $\ccH_l \subset \ccH$ the parameter space for lines on $X$,
which intersect $l$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm-properties-of-Cx}\ref{item-Yx} the space $\ccH_l$ comes with a projection
$\xi\colon \ccH_l \dashrightarrow l$,
which maps $l'\in \ccH_l$ to the intersection point of $l$ and $l'$,
and which is well defined on an open subset containg all lines through $x$.
By generality of our choices, $l_0$ is a smooth point of $\ccH_l$ and $\xi$ is submersive at $l_0$.
In the neighbourhood of $l_0$ choose a curve $A \subset \ccH_l$ smooth at $l_0$
for which $\xi|_A$ is submersive at $l_0$.
Then the locus in $X$ of lines which are in $A$ sweeps a surface $S \subset X$,
which is smooth at $x$, contains $l_0$, and contains an open subset of $l$ around $x$.
Thus the claim is proved and:
\begin{equation}\label{equ-join-is-contained-in-tangent-to-Dx}
(\PP\tau_x C') * (\PP\tau_x \component{C_x}) \subset \PP \tau_x \component{D_x}
\end{equation}
Now we claim that $F_x \subset \tau_x D_x$.
For this purpose we separate two cases.
In the first case $C' = \component{C_x}$.
Then $\PP\tau_x C'$ is non-degenerate by Theorem~\ref{thm-properties-of-Cx} and thus
\[
(\PP\tau_x C') * (\PP\tau_x \component{C_x}) = \sigma_2(\PP\tau_x C') = \PP(F_x)
\]
by Proposition~\ref{prop-secant-of-Legendrian}.
Combining with \eqref{equ-join-is-contained-in-tangent-to-Dx} we obtain the claim.
In the second case $C'$ and $\component{C_x}$ are different components of $C_x$.
Then by generality of $x$ and by Theorem~\ref{thm-properties-of-Cx},
the two tangent cones $(\PP\tau_x C')$ and $(\PP\tau_x \component{C_x})$ are disjoint.
Thus again
\[
(\PP\tau_x C') * (\PP\tau_x \component{C_x}) = \PP(F_x)
\]
by Proposition~\ref{prop-secant-of-Legendrian}.
Combining with \eqref{equ-join-is-contained-in-tangent-to-Dx} we obtain the claim.
Thus in any case for a general $x \in X$, every component of $D_x$ has dimension at least $2n$.
The dimension can only jump up
at special points when one has a fibration,
thus also at special points every component of $D_x$ has dimension at least $2n$.
Earlier we observed that $\dim D_x \le 2n$, thus the theorem is proved.
\end{prf}
\begin{prop}\label{prop-what-is-Dx-for-X-homogeneous}
If $X$ is the adjoint variety of $G$, and $x\in X$, then $D_x$
is the hyperplane section of $X \subset \PP(\gotg)$
perpendicular to $x$ via the Killing form.
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
Let $X = G/P$, where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup preserving $x$.
Notice, that $D_x$ must be reduced (because $D$ is reduced and $D_x$ is a general fibre of $D$).
Also $D_x$ is $P$-invariant, because the set of lines is $G$ invariant
and $D_x$ is determined by $x$ and the geometry of lines on $X$.
We claim, there is a unique $P$-invariant reduced divisor on $X$,
and thus it must be the hyperplane section as in the statment of proposition.
So let $\Delta$ be a $P$-invariant divisor linearly equivalent to $L^k$ for some $k \ge 0$.
Also let $\rho_{\Delta}$ be a section of $L^k$ which determines $\Delta$.
The module of sections $H^0(L^k)$ is an irreducible $G$-module by Borel-Weil theorem
(see \cite{serre_representations}), with some highest weight $\omega$.
Since the Lie algebra $\gotp$ of $P$ contains all positive root spaces,
by \cite[Prop.~14.13]{fultonharris} there is a unique $1$-dimensional $\gotp$-invariant
submodule of $H^0(L^k)$, it is the highest weight space $H^0(L^k)_{\omega}$.
So $\rho_{\Delta} \in H^0(L^k)_{\omega}$ and $\Delta$ is unique.
The hyperplane section of $X \subset \PP(\gotg)$
perpendicular to $x$ via the Killing form is a divisor in $\lvert L \rvert$, and it is $P$-invariant,
and so are its multiples in $\lvert L^k \rvert$.
So by the uniqueness $\Delta$ must be equal to $k$ times this hyperplane section.
Thus $\Delta$ is reduced if and only $k=1$ and so $D_x$ is the hyperplane section.
\end{prf}
\subsection{Tangent bundles restricted to lines}
Let $l$ be a line through a general point $y\in X$.
Recall from \cite[Fact~2.3]{kebekus_lines2} that:
\begin{align}
T X|_{l} & \simeq {\ccO_l}(2) \oplus {\ccO_l}(1)^{n-1} \oplus {\ccO_l}^{n-1} \oplus {\ccO_l}^{2}
\nonumber
\label{equ-splitting-type-of-TX-on-l}\\
\nonumber
F|_{l} & \simeq {\ccO_l}(2) \oplus {\ccO_l}(1)^{n-1} \oplus {\ccO_l}^{n-1} \oplus {\ccO_l}(-1) \\
\nonumber
T l & \simeq {\ccO_l}(2)\\
\intertext{and for general $z \in l$:}
\nonumber
T C_z|_{l \setminus \set{z}} & \simeq {\ccO_l}(2) \oplus {\ccO_l}(1)^{n-1}.
\end{align}
If $x \in X$ is a general point and $y \in C_x$
is a general point of any of the irreducible components of $C_x$
and $l$ is a line through $y$,
then we want to express $T D_x |_{l}$ in terms of those splittings.
In a neighbourhood of $l$ the divisor $D_x$ is swept by deformations $l_t$ of $l =l_0$
such that $l_t$ intersects $C_x$.
By the standard deformation theory argument taking derivative of $l_t$ by $t$ at a point $z \in l$,
we obtain that:
\begin{equation}\label{equ-for-tangent-space-of-Dx}
T_{z} D_x
\supset \set{s(z) \in T_z X \mid \exists s \in H^0(T X|_{l}) \ \text{ s.t. } s(y) \in T_y C_x}
\end{equation}
Moreover, at a general point $z$ we have equality in \eqref{equ-for-tangent-space-of-Dx}.
If we mod out $T X|_l$ by the rank $n$ positive bundle $(T X|_l)^{>0}:= {\ccO_l}(2) \oplus {\ccO_l}(1)^{n-1}$,
then we are left with a trivial bundle ${\ccO_l}^{n+1}$.
Thus, since by Theorem~\ref{thm-Dx-is-a-divisor} the dimension of $T_z D_x = 2n$ for general $z \in l$,
the vector space $T_y C_x$ must be transversal to $(TX|_l)^{>0}$ at $y$.
In particular, if $z\ne y$,
then dimension of the right hand side in \eqref{equ-for-tangent-space-of-Dx} is $2n$
and thus \eqref{equ-for-tangent-space-of-Dx} is an equality for each point $z\in l$,
such that $z$ is a smooth point of $D_x$.
We conclude:
\begin{prop}\label{prop-tangent-to-Dx}
Let $x \in X$ be a general point and $y \in C_x$
be a general point of any of the irreducible components of $C_x$
and $l$ be any line through $y$.
Then there exists a subbundle $\varGamma \subset TX|_l$
such that:
\begin{align*}
\varGamma & = {\ccO_l}(2) \oplus {\ccO_l}(1)^{n-1} \oplus {\ccO_l}^{n},\\
\varGamma \cap F|_{l}
& = {\ccO_l}(2) \oplus {\ccO_l}(1)^{n-1} \oplus {\ccO_l}^{n-1} = (F|_l)^{\ge 0}
\end{align*}
and if $z \in l$ is a smooth point of $D_x$, then $T_z D_x = {\varGamma}_z$.
\end{prop}
\noprf
\section{Duality}
\label{section-duality}
An effective divisor $\Delta$ on $X$ is an element of divisor group
(and thus a positive integral combination of codimension $1$ subvarieties of $X$)
and also a point in the projective space $\PP(H^0 \ccO_X(\Delta))$ or a hyperplane
in $\PP(H^0 \ccO_X(\Delta)^*)$.
In this section we will constantly interchange these three interpretations of $\Delta$.
In order to avoid confusion we will write:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\divisor{\Delta}$ to mean the divisor on $X$;
\item $\point{\Delta}$ to mean the point in $\PP(H^0 \ccO_X(\Delta))$
or in a fixed linear subsystem.
\item $\hyperplane{\Delta}$ to mean the hyperplane in $\PP(H^0 \ccO_X(\Delta)^*)$
or in dual of the fixed subsystem.
\end{itemize}
In \S\ref{section-define-Dx} we have defined $D \subset X \times X$,
which we now view as a family of divisors on $X$ parametrised by $X$.
Since the Picard group of $X$ is discrete and $X$ is smooth and connected,
it follows that all the divisors $D_x$ are linearly equivalent.
Thus let $E \simeq L^{\otimes k}$ be the line bundle $\ccO_X(D_x)$.
Consider the following vector space ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} \subset H^0(E)$:
\[
{\left\langle D \right\rangle} := \sspan \set{s_x : x \in X} \text { where $s_x$ is a section of $E$ vanishing on $D_x$.}
\]
Hence $\PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ is the linear system spanned by all the $D_x$.
Further, consider the map
\[
\phi: X \to \PP {\LinSyst^*}
\]
determined by the linear system ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$,
i.e.~mapping point $x \in X$ to the hyperplane in $\PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$
consisting of all divisors containing $x$.
\begin{rem}\label{rem-phi-is-regular}
Note that $\phi$ is regular, since for every $x \in X$ there exists $w \in X$,
such that $x \notin D_w$
(or equivalently, $w \notin D_x$).
\end{rem}
Since $E$ is ample, it must intersect every curve in $X$ and hence
$\phi$ does not contract any curve. Therefore $\phi$ is finite to one.
\begin{prop} \label{prop-homogeneous-iff-k-eq-1}
If $X$ is an adjoint variety, then $k=1$, i.e.~$E \simeq L$.
If $k=1$ and the automorphism group of $X$ is reductive,
then $X$ is isomorphic to an adjoint variety.
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
If $X$ is the adjoint variety of $G$, and $x\in X$, then $D_x$
is the hyperplane section of $X \subset \PP(\gotg)$
by Proposition~\ref{prop-what-is-Dx-for-X-homogeneous}.
If $k=1$ and the automorphism group of $X$ is reductive,
since $\phi$ is finite to one, we can apply
Beauville Theorem \cite{beauvillefano}.
Thus $X$ is isomorphic to an adjoint variety.
\end{prf}
\subsection{Dual map}\label{section-dual-map}
In algebraic geometry it is standard to consider maps
determined by linear systems (such as $\phi$ defined above).
However in our situation, we also have another map determined by
the family of divisors $D$.
Namely:
\begin{align*}
\psi\colon X & \to \PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle} \\
x & \mapsto \point{D_x}.
\end{align*}
So let $\ccS \subset \ccO_X \otimes {\LinSyst^*} \simeq X \times {\LinSyst^*}$
be the pullback under $\phi$ of the universal hyperplane bundle, i.e.
the corank 1 subbundle
such that the fibre of $\ccS$ over $x$
is $\hyperplane{D_x} \subset {\LinSyst^*}$.
We note that $\PP(\ccS)$ is both a projective space bundle on $X$
and also it is a divisor on $X\times \PP {\LinSyst^*}$.
Also $D= (\id_X \times \phi)^* \PP(\ccS)$ as divisors.
We can also consider the line bundle dual to the cokernel of $\ccS \to \ccO_X \otimes {\LinSyst^*}$,
i.e.~the subbundle ${\ccS}^{\perp} \subset \ccO_X \otimes {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$.
This line subbundle determines section $X \to X\times \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}$,
where $x \mapsto (x , \point{D_x})$.
So $\psi$ is the composition of the section and the projection:
\[
X \to X\times \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle} \to \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}.
\]
Every map to a projective space is determined by some linear system.
We claim the $\psi$ is determined by ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$,
precisely the system that defines $\phi$
and thus that there is a natural linear isomorphism between
$\PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ and $\PP {\LinSyst^*}$.
\begin{prop}
We have $\psi^* \ccO_{\PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}}(1) \simeq E$ and
the linear system cut out by hyperplanes
\[
\psi^* H^0 \left( \ccO_{\PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}}(1) \right) := \set{\psi^* s : s \in {\LinSyst^*}} \subset H^0(E)
\]
is equal to ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
For fixed $x\in X$ let $\phi(x)^{\perp} \subset \PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ be the hyperplane dual to
$\phi(x) \in \PP {\LinSyst^*}$.
To prove the proposition it is enough to prove
\begin{equation} \label{equ-pullback-by-psi-is-Dx}
\psi^*(\phi(x)^{\perp}) = \divisor{D_x}.
\end{equation}
Since we have the following symmetry property of $D$:
\[
x \in D_y \iff y \in D_x,
\]
the set theoretic version of \eqref{equ-pullback-by-psi-is-Dx}
follows easily:
\[
y \in \psi^*(\phi(x)^{\perp})
\iff \psi(y) \in \phi(x)^{\perp}
\iff \hyperplane{D_y} \ni \phi(x)
\iff D_y \ni x.
\]
However, in order to prove the equality of divisors in \eqref{equ-pullback-by-psi-is-Dx}
we must do a bit more of gymnastics, which translates the equivalences above into
local equations.
The details are below.
The pull back of $\phi(x)^{\perp}$ by the projection $X\times \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle} \to \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ is just
$X\times \phi(x)^{\perp}$.
Then the pull-back of the product by the section $X \to X\times \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}$
associated to ${\ccS}^{\perp}$ is just the subscheme of $X$ defined by
$\set{y \in X \mid ({\ccS}^{\perp})_y \subset \phi(x)^{\perp}}$
(locally, this
is just a single equation: the spanning section of ${\ccS}^{\perp}$
satisfies the defining equation of $\phi(x)^{\perp}$).
But this is clearly
equal to the dual equation $\set{y \mid \PP(\ccS_y) \ni \phi(x) }$.
If we let $\rho_x$ be the section
\begin{align*}
\rho_x\colon X&\to X \times X \\
\rho_x (y) & := (y,x)
\end{align*}
then we have:
\[
\psi^*(\phi(x)^{\perp}) = {\rho_x}^* \circ (\id_X \times \phi)^* (\PP(\ccS)) = {\rho_x}^* (D)
= \divisor{D_x}
\]
as claimed.
\end{prf}
Thus we have a canonical linear isomorphism
$f\colon \PP {\LinSyst^*} \to \PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ giving rise to the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation} \label{equ-duality-diagram}
\[email protected]@R0.5pc{
& & & \PP {\LinSyst^*} \ar[dd]^{\simeq} \\
X\ar[urrr]^{\phi} \ar[drrr]^{\psi} && \\
& & & \PP {\left\langle D \right\rangle}.}
\end{equation}
We will denote the underlying vector space isomorphism ${\LinSyst^*} \to {\left\langle D \right\rangle}$
(which is unique up to scalar) with the same letter $f$.
The choice of $f$
combined with the canonical
pairing ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} \times {\LinSyst^*} \to \CC$,
determines a non-degenerate bilinear form
$B: {\left\langle D \right\rangle} \times {\left\langle D \right\rangle} \to \CC$,
with the following property:
\begin{equation}\label{equ-defining-h}
B(\phi(x),\phi(y)) =0 \iff (x,y) \in D \iff x \in D_y \iff y \in D_x.
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}\label{prop-Killing-form-for-homogeneous}
If $X$ is the adjoint variety of $G$,
then ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} = H^0(L) \simeq \gotg$ and $B$ is (up to scalar) the Killing form on $\gotg$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
Follows immediately from Proposition~\ref{prop-what-is-Dx-for-X-homogeneous}
and Equation \ref{equ-defining-h}.
\end{prf}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor_when_D_x_equals_D_y}
$\phi(x) = \phi(y)$ if and only if $D_x = D_y$.
\end{cor}
\begin{prf}
It is immediate from the definition of $\psi$
and from Diagram \eqref{equ-duality-diagram}.
\end{prf}
\subsection{Symmetry}
Note that $B$ has the
property that for $x\in X$,
\[
B(\phi(x),\phi(x))=0
\]
(because $x\in D_x$).
\begin{prop}
\label{h_is_sym_or_skew}
The bilinear form $B$ is either symmetric or skew-symmetric.
\end{prop}
\begin{prf}
Consider two linear maps ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} \to {\LinSyst^*}$:
\[
\alpha(v):= B(v, \cdot) \ \text{ and } \ \beta(v):= B( \cdot,v).
\]
If $v= \phi(x)$ for some $x \in X$, then
\[
\ker\bigl(\alpha(v)\bigr)
= \sspan\Bigl(\ker\bigl(\alpha(v)\bigr) \cap \phi(X)\Bigr)
= \sspan\bigl(\phi(D_x)\bigr)
\]
and analogously $\ker(\beta(v)) = \sspan(\phi(D_x))$.
So $\ker(\alpha(v)) = \ker(\beta(v))$
and hence $\alpha(v)$ and $\beta(v)$ are proportional.
Therefore there exists a function $\lambda: X \rightarrow \CC$ such that:
\[
\lambda(x) \alpha(\phi(x)) = \beta(\phi(x)).
\]
So for every $x,y \in X$ we have:
\[
B(\phi(x),\phi(y)) =
\lambda(x) B(\phi(y),\phi(x)) =
\lambda(x)\lambda(y) B (\phi(x),\phi(y))
\]
and hence:
\[
\forall {(x,y) \in X\times X \setminus D} \qquad \lambda(x)\lambda(y) = 1.
\]
Taking three different points we see that $\lambda$ is constant and $\lambda \equiv \pm 1$.
Therefore $\pm \alpha(\phi(x)) = \beta(\phi(x))$
and by linearity this extends to
$\pm \alpha = \beta$ so $B$ is either symmetric or skew-symmetric as stated in the proposition.
\end{prf}
\begin{example}
If $X$ is one of the adjoint varieties, then $B$ is symmetric (because the Killing form is symmetric).
\end{example}
\begin{rem}
Consider $\PP^{2n+1}$ with a contact structure arising from a symplectic form $\omega$ on $\CC^{2n+2}$.
Recall, that this homogeneous contact Fano manifold does not satisfy our assumptions,
namely, its Picard group is not generated by the equivalence class of $L$
--- in this case $L \simeq \ccO_{\PP^{2n+1}}(2)$.
However, \Wisniewski{} in \cite{wisniewski} considers also this generalised situation
and defines $D_x$ to be the divisor swept by contact conics
(i.e.~curves $C$ with degree of $L|_C = 2$)
tangent to the contact distribution $F$.
Then for the projective space $D_x$ is just the hyperplane perpendicular to $x$ with respect to $\omega$.
And thus in this case ${\left\langle D \right\rangle} = H^0\left(\ccO_{\PP^{2n+1}}(1)\right)$
and the bilinear form $B$ defined from such family of divisors would be proportional to $\omega$,
hence skew-symmetric.
\end{rem}
\begin{prf}[ of Theorem~\ref{thm-exist-Dx-and-duality}]
$D_x$ is a divisor by Theorem~\ref{thm-Dx-is-a-divisor}.
$\phi$ is regular by Remark~\ref{rem-phi-is-regular}.
$\psi$ is regular by \eqref{equ-duality-diagram}.
The non-degenerate bilinear form $B$ is constructed in \S\ref{section-dual-map}.
It is either symmetric or skew-symmetric by Proposition~\ref{h_is_sym_or_skew}.
In the adjoint case $B$ is the Killing form by Proposition~\ref{prop-Killing-form-for-homogeneous}.
\end{prf}
\begin{cor}
If $B$ is symmetric, then $\psi(X) \subset \PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}$ is contained in the quadric
$B(v,v)=0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
If $x\in X$, then $\psi(C_x)$ is contained in a linear subspace of dimension
at most $\left\lfloor \frac{\dim {\left\langle D \right\rangle}}{2} \right\rfloor$.
\end{cor}
\begin{prf}
If $y,z \in C_x$, then $z\in D_y$, so $B(\psi(y), \psi(z))=0$.
Therefore $\sspan(\psi(C_x))$ is an isotropic linear subspace, which
cannot have dimension bigger than $\left\lfloor\frac{\dim {\left\langle D \right\rangle}}{2}\right\rfloor$.
\end{prf}
\section{Grading}\label{section-grading}
Suppose $X \subset \PP \gotg$ is the adjoint variety of $G$.
Assume further that a maximal torus and an order of roots in $\gotg$ has been chosen,
then $\gotg$ has a natural grading (see \cite[\S6.1]{landsbergmanivel02}):
\[
\gotg = \gotg_{-2} \oplus \gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_{0} \oplus \gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_{2}
\]
where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\gotg_{0} \oplus \gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_{2}$ is the parabolic subalgebra $\gotp$
of $X$.
\item $\gotg_{0}$ is the maximal reductive subalgebra of $\gotp$.
\item for all $i \in \set{-2,-1,0,1,2}$ the vector space $\gotg_{i}$ is a $\gotg_0$-module.
\item $\gotg_{2}$ is the $1$-dimensional highest root space,
\item $\gotg_{-2}$ is the $1$-dimensional lowest root space.
\item The restriction of the Killing form to each
$\gotg_{2} \oplus \gotg_{-2}$, $\gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_{-1}$ and $\gotg_0$
is non-degenerate,
and the Killing form $B(\gotg_i, \gotg_j)$ is identically zero
for $i \ne -j$.
\item The Lie bracket on $\gotg$ respects the grading, $[\gotg_i, \gotg_j] \subset \gotg_{i+j}$
(where $\gotg_k = 0$ for $k \notin \set{-2,-1,0,1,2}$).
\end{enumerate}
In fact the grading is determined by $\gotg_{-2}$ and $\gotg_{2}$ together with the geometry of $X$ only.
So let $X$ be as in Notation \ref{notation-with-assumptions-about-contact-mflds}
and let $x$ and $w$ be two general points of $X$.
Define the following subspaces of ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{2}$ to be the $1$-dimensional subspace $\psi(x)$;
\item ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{-2}$ to be the $1$-dimensional subspace $\psi(w)$;
\item ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{1}$ to be the linear span of affine cone of $\psi(C_x \cap D_w)$;
\item ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{-1}$ to be the linear span of affine cone of $\psi(C_w \cap D_x)$;
\item ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{0}$ to be the vector subspace of ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}$,
whose projectivisation is:
\[
\bigcap_{y\in C_x \cup C_w} f(\hyperplane{D_y})
\]
\end{itemize}
In the homogeneous case this is precisely the grading of $\gotg$.
\begin{prf}[ of Theorem~\ref{thm-grading-for-homogeneous}]
First note that the classes of the 1-dimensional linear subspaces $\gotg_{2}$ and $\gotg_{-2}$
are both in $X$ (as points in $\PP \gotg$).
Moreover, they are a pair of general points, because the action of the parabolic subgroup $P < G$
preserves $\gotg_2$ and moves freely $\gotg_{-2}$.
This is because $\hat{T}_{[\gotg_{-2}]} X = [\gotg_{-2} , \gotg] = [\gotg_{-2} , \gotp]$.
So fix $x = [\gotg_2]$ and $w= [\gotg_{-2}]$.
We claim the linear span of $C_x$ (respectively $C_w$)
is just $\gotg_2 \oplus \gotg_1$ (respectively $\gotg_{-2} \oplus \gotg_{-1}$).
To see that, the lines on $X$ through $x$ are
in the intersection of $X$ and the projectivised tangent space $\PP(\hat{T}_x X) \subset \PP(\gotg)$.
In fact this intersection is equal to $C_x$:
if $y \ne x$ is a point of the intersection,
then the line in $\PP \gotg$ through $x$ and $y$ intersects $X$ with multiplicity at least $3$,
but $X$ is cut out by quadrics (see for instance \cite[\S10.6.6]{procesi_book}),
so this line must be contained in $X$.
Also $C_x$ is non-degenerate in $\PP(\hat{F}_x) \subset \PP(\hat{T}_x X)$.
However $\hat{F}_x$ is a $\gotp$-invariant hyperplane in $\PP(\hat{T}_x X)$
and the unique $\gotp$-invariant hyperplane in
\[
\hat{T}_x X = [ \gotg, \gotg_2] = [ \gotg_{-2}, \gotg_2] \oplus \gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_2
\]
is
\[
\hat{F}_x = [\gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_0 \oplus \gotg_1 \oplus \gotg_2, \gotg_2 ] = \gotg_{1} \oplus \gotg_2.
\]
Further we have seen in Proposition~\ref{prop-what-is-Dx-for-X-homogeneous}
that $D_x$ (respectively $D_w$)
is the intersection of
$\PP({\gotg_2}^{\perp_{B}}) = \PP(\gotg_2 \oplus \gotg_1 \oplus \gotg_0 \oplus \gotg_{-1})$ and $X$
(respectively $\PP(\gotg_{-2} \oplus \gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_0 \oplus \gotg_{1})$ and $X$).
Equivalently, $f(\hyperplane{D_x}) = \PP(\gotg_2 \oplus \gotg_1 \oplus \gotg_0 \oplus \gotg_{-1})$.
Thus:
\[
C_x \cap D_w = C_x \cap f(\hyperplane{D_w})
= C_x \cap \PP(\gotg_{-2} \oplus \gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_0 \oplus \gotg_{1})
= C_x \cap \PP(\gotg_{1}).
\]
$C_x \cap \PP(\gotg_{1})$ is non-degenerate in $\PP(\gotg_{1})$,
thus ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{1} = \gotg_1$ and analogously ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{-1} = \gotg_{-1}$.
It remains to prove ${\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{0} = \gotg_0$.
\begin{align*}
\PP{\left\langle D \right\rangle}_{0} & = \bigcap_{y\in C_x \cup C_w} f(\hyperplane{D_z})\\
& = (C_x \cup C_w)^{\perp_{B}} \\
& = \PP(\gotg_2 \oplus \gotg_1 \oplus \gotg_{-1} \oplus \gotg_{-2})^{\perp_{B}} \\
& = \PP(\gotg_0).
\end{align*}
\end{prf}
We also note the following lemma in the homogeneous case:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-homogeneous-then-X-cap-g1-subset-Cx}
If $X$ is the adjoint variety of $G$,
then
\[
X \cap \PP(\gotg_1) \subset C_x
\]
where $x$ is the point of projective space corresponding to $\gotg_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{prf}
Suppose $y \in X \cap \PP \gotg_1$
and let $l \subset \PP \gotg$ be the line through $x$ and $y$.
Note that $l \subset \PP(\gotg_1 \oplus \gotg_2)$
Since $\gotg_1 \oplus \gotg_2 \subset [\gotg,\gotg_2] = \hat{T}_x X$,
hence $l \cap X$ has multiplicity at least $2$ at $x$.
Thus $l\cap X$ has degree at least $3$ and since $X$ is cut out by quadrics,
$l$ is contained in $X$.
\end{prf}
\section{Cointegrable subvarieties}
\label{section-cointegrable}
\begin{defin}
A subvariety $\Delta \subset X$ is \emph{$F$-cointegrable}
if $T_x \Delta \cap F_x \subset F_x$ is a coisotropic subspace for general point $x$ of each
irreducible component of $\Delta$.
\end{defin}
Note that this is equivalent to the definition given in \cite[\S{}E.4]{jabu_dr}
--- this follows from the local description of the symplectic form
on the symplectisation of the contact manifold (see \cite[(C.15)]{jabu_dr}).
Clearly, every codimension $1$ subvariety of $X$ is $F$-cointegrable.
Assume $\Delta \subset X$ is a subvariety of pure dimension, which is $F$-cointegrable
and let $\Delta_0$
be the locus where $T_x \Delta \cap F_x \subset F_x$ is a coisotropic subspace
of dimension $\dim \Delta-1$.
We define the \emph{$\Delta$-integrable distribution $\Delta^{\perp}$}
to be the distribution defined over $\Delta_0$ by:
\[
{\Delta^{\perp}}_x:=\left(T_x \Delta \cap F_x \right)^{\perp_{\ud \theta}} \subset F_x
\]
We say an irreducible subvariety $A \subset X$ is \emph{$\Delta$-integral}
if $A \subset \Delta$, $A \cap \Delta_0 \ne \emptyset$,
and $T A \subset \Delta^{\perp}$ over the smooth points of $A \cap \Delta_0$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-integral-is-unique}
Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be two irreducible $\Delta$-integral subvarieties.
Assume $\dim A_1 =\dim A_2 = \codim_X \Delta$.
Then either $A_1=A_2$ or $A_1 \cap A_2 \subset \Delta \setminus \Delta_0$.
\end{lemma}
\noprf
\begin{thm}
Consider a general point $x \in X$.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item-Dx-cointegrable}
$D_x$ (as reduced, but possibly not irreducible subvariety of $X$) is $F$-cointe\-grable.
\item \label{item-lines-are-Dx-integrable}
For general $y$ in any of the irreducible components of $C_x$ all lines through $y$
are $D_x$-integral.
\item \label{item-unique-presentation-as-sum-of-2-lines}
For general $z$ in any of the irreducible components of $D_x$
the intersection $C_x \cap C_z$ is a unique point
and the chain of two lines connecting $x$ to $z$ is unique.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}
Part \ref{item-Dx-cointegrable} is immediate, since $D_x$ is a divisor,
by Theorem \ref{thm-Dx-is-a-divisor}.
To prove part \ref{item-lines-are-Dx-integrable} let $l$ be a line through $y$.
Then by Proposition \ref{prop-tangent-to-Dx}:
\[
T_z D_x \cap F_{z} = (F|_{l})^{\ge 0}
\]
and for general $z \in l$ we have $(T_z D_x \cap F_{z})^{\perp_{\ud \theta_z}} \subset F_{z}$ is the $\ccO(2)$ part,
i.e.~the part tangent to $l$. So $l$ is $D_x$-integral as claimed.
To prove \ref{item-unique-presentation-as-sum-of-2-lines},
let $U \subset X$ be an open dense subset of points $u \in X$ where two different lines through $u$
do not share the tangent direction and do not meet in any other point.
Note that since $x$ is a general point, $x \in U$
and thus each irreducible component of $C_x$ and $D_x$ intersects $U$.
Thus generality of $z$ implies that $z \in U$
and thus each irreducible component of $C_z$ and $D_z$ intersects $U$.
Also $C_x \cap C_z$ intersects $U$. So fix $y \in C_x \cap C_z \cap U$.
By \ref{item-lines-are-Dx-integrable} and Lemma \ref{lemma-integral-is-unique}
the line $l_z$ through $z$ which intersects $C_x$ is unique.
In the same way let $l_x$ be the unique line through $x$ intersecting $C_z$.
Thus
\[
C_x \cap C_z = l_x \cap l_z.
\]
In particular, $y \in l_x \cap l_z$.
But since $y \in U$ the intersection $l_x \cap l_z$ is just one point and therefore:
\[
C_x \cap C_z = \set{y}.
\]
\end{prf}
As a consequence of part \ref{item-unique-presentation-as-sum-of-2-lines} of the theorem
the surjective map $\pi_{13}\colon C^3 \to D$ is birational.
Thus consider the inverse rational map $D \dashrightarrow C^3$ and compose it with
the projection on the middle coordinate $\pi_2: C^3 \to X$.
We define the composition to be the \emph{bracket map}:
\[
[\cdot, \cdot]^D \colon D \dashrightarrow C^3 \stackrel{\pi_2}{\to} X.
\]
In this setting, for $(x,z) \in D$, one has $[x,z]^D = y = C_x \cap C_z$,
whenever the intersection is just one point.
\begin{thm}
If $X$ is the adjoint variety of $G$, then the bracket map defined above agrees with the Lie bracket on
$\gotg$, in the following sense:
Let $\xi, \zeta \in \gotg$ and set $\eta := [\xi,\zeta]$ (the Lie bracket on $\gotg$).
Denote by $x$, $y$ and $z$ the projective classes in $\PP \gotg$
of $\xi$, $\eta$ and $\zeta$ respectively.
If $x \in D_z$ and $\eta \ne 0$,
then the bracket map satisfies $[x,z]^D=y$.
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}
It is enough to prove the statement for a general pair $(x,z) \in D$.
Suppose further $w \in C_z$ is a general point.
Then the pair $(x,w) \in X \times X$ is a general pair.
Thus by Proposition~\ref{thm-grading-for-homogeneous},
we may assume $\xi \in \gotg_2$ and $\zeta \in \gotg_{-1}$.
The restriction of the Lie bracket to $[\xi , \gotg_{-1}]$
determines an isomorphism $\gotg_{-1} \to \gotg_{1}$
of $\gotg_0$-modules.
In particular the minimal orbit $X \cap \PP\gotg_{-1}$
is mapped onto $X \cap \PP\gotg_{1}$ under this isomorphism.
In particular $y \in X \cap \PP\gotg_{1} \subset C_x$
(see Lemma~\ref{lemma-homogeneous-then-X-cap-g1-subset-Cx}).
Analogously $y \in C_z$, so $y \in C_x \cap C_z$.
\end{prf}
|
\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{rem}{Remark}
\newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\renewcommand {\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand {\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand {\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand {\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand {\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand {\beqs}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand {\eeqs}{\end{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand {\bds}{\begin{displaymath}}
\newcommand {\eds}{\end{displaymath}}
\newcommand {\n}{\nonumber\\}
\newcommand {\nn}{\nonumber}
\newcommand {\sfrac}[2]{{\textstyle \frac{#1}{#2}}}
\newcommand{\no}{\noindent}
\newcommand {\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\eq}[1]{eq.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\eqs}[1]{eqs.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\Eq}[1]{Eq.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\Eqs}[1]{Eqs.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\Label}[1]{\label{#1}}
\newcommand {\eqdef}{\stackrel{\rm def}{=}}
\newcommand{\ns}{\normalsize}
\newcommand {\bebb}{ |
\section{Introduction}
The PLANCK satellite, currently in flight, should give the more
accurate measurement of the anisotropies of the CMB in temperature and
polarization with a sensitivity of $2 \mu K$ and an angular resolution
of 5 arcmin~\cite{bluebook}. In particular its estimation of the
BB-modes should set an upper limit on the tensor-scalar ratio
(expected at 0.1~\cite{efstathiou}). The knowledge of this ratio
should confirm the existence of primordial gravitational waves
generated during the inflation and would set the energy scale of the
inflation~\cite{lyth} and provide constraint on inflationnary models~\cite{baumann}. In order to obtain its optimal sensitivity it is required to estimate the foreground emissions and
the residual contamination due to these foreground emissions on the
CMB signal. Indeed for the full sky these emissions have the same order
of magnitude than the CMB in temperature and dominate by a factor of 10 in
polarization~\cite{bluebook}. The principal polarized Galactic microwave emissions come
from 2 effects : thermal dust emission and synchrotron emission. The
synchrotron has already been measured by the 408 MHz all-sky continuum survey~\cite{haslam}, by Leider between 408 MHz and 1.4 GHz~\cite{wolleben}, by Parkes at 2.4 GHz~\cite{duncan1999}, by the MGLS {\it Medium Galactic Latitude Survey} at
1.4 GHz~\cite{uyaniker} and by the satellite WMAP {\it Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropies Probe} (see e.g.~\cite{hinshaw}). The synchrotron emission is due to ultrarelativist
electrons spiraling in a large-scale magnetic field and is dominant at
low frequencies. The dust thermal
emission which have already been well constrained by IRAS~\cite{schlegel}, COBE-FIRAS~\cite{boulanger} and
Archeops~\cite{macias,benoit} is due to dust grains
which interact with the Galactic magnetic field and emit a polarized
submillimetric radiation~\cite{boulanger} and dominates at high frequencies. The polarization of these
two radiation is orthogonal to the field lines. To obtain a realistic model of
these emissions we propose models based on a 3D modelling of the
Galactic magnetic field and of the matter density in the
Galaxy. The models are optimized using preexisting data and then are used to estimate the bias due to
these emissions on the CMB measurement.
\section{3d modelling of the Galaxy}
\label{sec:model}
\indent A polarized emission is described by the Stokes
parameters I, Q and U~\cite{kosowsky}. For the polarized foreground
emissions integrating along the line of sight we obtain, for synchrotron~\cite{ribicki}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:map_sync}
\centering
I_s &=& I_{\mathrm{Has}} \left(\frac{\nu_s}{0,408}\right)^{\beta_s},\\
Q_s &=& I_{\mathrm{Has}}
\left(\frac{\nu_s}{0,408}\right)^{\beta_s}\frac{\int \cos(2\gamma)p_s n_e\left(B_l^2 + B_t^2 \right)}{\int n_e\left(B_l^2 + B_t^2 \right)} ,\\
U_s &=& I_{\mathrm{Has}}
\left(\frac{\nu_s}{353}\right)^{\beta_s}\frac{\int \sin(2\gamma)p_s n_e\left(B_l^2 + B_t^2 \right)}{\int n_e\left(B_l^2 + B_t^2 \right)},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $B_n$, $B_l$ and $B_t$ are the magnetic field components
along, longitudinal and transverse to the ligne of sight. $p_s$ is the
polarization fraction set to 75\%~\cite{ribicki}. $I_{Has}$ is a
template temperature map obtained from the 408 MHz all-sky continuum survey~\cite{haslam}. The maps are extrapolated to the Planck
frequencies using the spectral index $\beta_s$ which is a free parameter of the model.
For the thermal dust emission : \\
\begin{eqnarray}
\centering
I_d &=& I_{sfd} \left( \frac{\nu_d}{353} \right)^{\beta_d},\\
Q_d &=& I_{sfd} \left( \frac{\nu_d}{353}\right)^{\beta_d} \int n_d\frac{\cos(2 \gamma) \sin^2(\alpha) f_{\mathrm{norm}}p_d}{n_d} ,\\
U_d &=& I_{sfd} \left(\frac{\nu_d}{353}\right)^{\beta_d} \int n_d \frac{\sin(2 \gamma) \sin^2(\alpha) f_{\mathrm{norm}}p_d}{ \int n_d} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where the polarization fraction $p_d$ is set to 10 \%~\cite{ponthieu2005},
$\beta_d$ is the spectral index (set at 2.0) and $f_{norm}$ is an
empiric factor, fit to the Archeops data. The
$I_{sfd}$ map is the model 8 of~\cite{finkbeiner}.\\
\indent The models are based on a exponential distribution of
relativistic electrons on the Galactic disk
following~\cite{drimmel} where the radial scale $h_r$ is a free
parameter. The distribution of dust grains $n_d$ is
also choose exponential~\cite{benoit}. The Galactic magnetic field is composed of two
parts: a regular component and a turbulent component. The regular
component is based on the WMAP team model~\cite{page} which is close to a
logarithmic spiral to reproduce the shape of the spiral
arms~\cite{han2006,sofue}. The pitch angle $p$ between two arms is a free
parameter of the model. The turbulent component is described by
a law of Kolmogorov~\cite{han2006,han2004} spectrum of relative amplitude $A_{turb}$.
\section{Comparison to data}
\label{sec:test}
\indent We computed Galactic profiles in temperature and polarization
for various bands of longitude and latitude and various values of the free
parameters. In order to optimize these 3D models we compare them to
Galactic profiles computed from preexisting data using a $\chi^2$
test. For the synchrotron emission in temperature, we use the 408 MHz all-sky
continuum survey~\cite{haslam} as shown on
Figure~\ref{fig:gal_has}. In polarization we compared to the K-band
WMAP 5 years data. Thermal dust emission model is optimized using the
polarized Archeops data~\cite{benoit} at 353 GHz.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=8cm,width=6cm]{profil_has_Isync_BSS_ref__hr_1_Aturb_0_cresun_quadrafit_nocste_nside32_muKRJ.ps}\caption{Galactic profiles in temperature at 408 MHz built using Haslam data in black and our synchrotron emission model for various values of the pitch angle $p$ {\it (form green to red)}.\label{fig:gal_has}}
\end{figure}
\indent The best fit parameters for the 3D model in polarization
are given in the Table~\ref{tab:param}. The results are consistent for
the 3 sets of data, and in particular we obtain compatible results
for the synchrotron and thermal dust emission models. $A_{turb}$ is
not strongly constrained but its range of best fit value is compatible
with previous results~\cite{sun,dusta,han2004}.
$h_r$ is badly constrained as was already the case in Sun {\it et al}~\cite{sun}. The
best fit value of the pitch angle $p$ is compatible with results
obtained by other study~\cite{sun,page}.
The best fit value for the spectral index of the synchrotron
emission is lower than value found by~\cite{sun,page} but it is
probably due to the choice of normalisation using the 408 MHz template. \\
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Best fit parameters for synchrotron and thermal dust emission models and $3\sigma$ confidence levels for the best fitting model.\label{tab:param}}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
$$ & $ p (deg)$& $A_{turb} $ & $h_r$ & $\beta_s$ & $\chi^2_{min}$ \\\hline
$WMAP$ & $ -30.0^{+40.0}_{-30.0}$ & $< 1.25$ (95.4 \% CL) & $ <20$ (95.4 \%
CL) & $-3.4^{+0.1}_{-0.8}$ & $5.72$ \\\hline
$HASLAM$ & $ -20.0^{+60.0}_{-50.0}$ & $< 1.0$ (95.4 \% CL) & $ 4.0^{+16.0}_{-3.0} $ & $\emptyset$ & $5.81$ \\\hline
$ARCHEOPS$ & $ -20^{+80}_{-50}$ & $ < 2.25 (95.4 \% CL)$ & $\emptyset$ & $\emptyset$ & $ 1.98$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{./cl_wmap_model_galcut5_mukrj_bis.ps}\caption{Clockwise from top left : power spectra $C^{TT}_l$, $C^{EE}_l$, $C^{BB}_l$, $C^{TE}_l$, $C^{TB}_l$, $C^{EB}_l$ at 23 GHz built with the WMAP 5 years data \emph{(black)} and the model of synchrotron emission with BSS magnetic field for the best fit model parameters \emph{(green to red for a spectral index between -3.2 and -3.4)}, applying a Galactic cut $|b|<5^{\circ}$.\label{spec_wmap_gp}}
\end{figure}
\indent Using the best fit parameters obtained for the Galactic
emissions models we computed maps and power spectra in temperature and polarization for synchrotron and dust thermal
emission. We compare them to maps and power spectra built respectively using polarized
WMAP and ARCHEOPS data. Like represented in the Figure~\ref{spec_wmap_gp} the synchrotron emission model is efficient to
reproduce the global feature of the data in polarization. We show on Figure~\ref{spec_dust_gp} the angular power spectra computed from the Archeops data at 353 GHz and the
thermal dust model using the method presented in~\cite{ponthieu2005}. Our model efficient to
reproduce the features of the spectra at all scales.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=90,height=9cm,width=13cm]{./cl_archdata_rmodel_galcut_0_nside32_muKRJ2.ps}\caption{Clockwise from top left : power spectra $C^{TT}_l$, $C^{EE}_l$, $C^{BB}_l$, $C^{TE}_l$, $C^{TB}_l$, $C^{EB}_l$ at 353 GHz computed from Archeops data \emph{(black)} and the model of thermal dust emission with BSS magnetic field for the best fit model parameters \emph{(red)} without applying Galactic cut.\label{spec_dust_gp}}
\end{figure}
\indent From the above best fit parameters we estimate the contamination of the CMB PLANCK data by the
polarized galactic emissions. Figure~\ref{fig:spect_cmb_for}
shows the temperature and polarization power spectra at 143 GHz for
the CMB\footnote{We simulate CMB assuming cosmological parameters for a model $\Lambda$CDM like proposed in~\cite{komatsu} with a ratio tensor-scalar of 0.03.} (red)
and the Galactic foreground emissions applying a Galactic cut of
$|b|<15^{\circ}$. The residual foreground contamination seems to be
weak but for the BB-modes for which an accurate foreground substraction is extremely important for
the detection of the primordial gravitational waves.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=13cm]{cl_planck_dust_ff_sync_cresun_hr_1.00000_CRELo_1_betas_-3.3000000_BSS_Aturb_0.00000_p_-30.000000_galcut_15_nside128_143GHz_mukrj2.ps}
\caption{Clockwise from top left : power spectra $C^{TT}_l$, $C^{EE}_l$, $C^{BB}_l$, $C^{TE}_l$, $C^{TB}_l$, $C^{EB}_l$ at 143 GHz for $|b|<15^{\circ}$ (see text for details).\label{fig:spect_cmb_for}}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\indent We propose in this study consistent models of the main
Galactic polarized emissions based on a 3D modelisation of the
Galaxy. By comparison with preexisting data we are able to give
consistent constraints
on the parameters of the synchrotron and dust thermal emissions models
compatibles with thus appear in the literature. From this we build map
and power spectra enable to reproduce the features of the data at
various frequencies. Using a rough mask we then estimate the residual
contamination due to these foregrounds on the assumed CMB PLANCK data.
|
\section{Introduction}
Contemporary constraint solvers are very complex software systems. Each one of
the many available today has its own characteristics, its own design decisions
that the implementers made, and its own philosophy. The traits of a solver which
will affect the performance for a particular problem class or instance often
cannot be determined easily. Picking a particular solver is therefore a
difficult task which requires specialist knowledge about each solver and is
likely to have a significant impact on performance. On top of that, each solver
has different ways of modelling problems. Not only do users need experience with
a particular solver to model a problem in a way that enables it to be solved
efficiently, but it is also hard to objectively compare solvers.
This paper studies a small selection of constraint solvers and assesses their
performance on problem models which were made as similar as possible.
\section{Background}
The first constraint solvers were implemented as constraint logic programming
environments in logic programming languages such as Prolog in the early 1980s.
The logic programming paradigm lends itself naturally to solving constraint
problems because things like depth-first backtracking search and nondeterminism
are already built into the host language. Related ideas also arose in operations
and artificial intelligence research.
Notable developments of that time include extensions to Prolog and the CHIP
constraint programming system.
Starting in the 1990s, constraint programming found its way to procedural and
object-oriented languages, most notably C++. ILog Solver pioneered this area. It
became apparent that it would be beneficial to separate the solving of
constraint problems into two phases; modelling the problem and programming
search.
Since then, constraint solvers have improved significantly in terms of
performance as well as in terms of ease of use.
For more detailed information on the history and background of each solver, see
e.g.~\cite{cphandbook}.
\section{Surveyed constraint solvers}
The constraint solvers chosen for this paper are Choco~\cite{chocoman}, version
2.0.0.3, ECLiPSe{}~\cite{eclipseman}, version 6.0\_42, Gecode~\cite{gecodeman},
version 2.2.0, and Minion~\cite{minion}\cite{minionman}, version 0.7. The
solvers were chosen because all of them are currently under active development.
Furthermore they are Open Source; implementation details not described in papers
or the manual can be investigated by looking at the source code.
Table~\ref{tab:solvsumm} presents a brief summary of the solvers and their basic
characteristics.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{XXXX}
\hline
\bfseries solver & \bfseries language & \bfseries year
& \bfseries modelling\\\hline
Choco & Java & 1999 & library\\
ECLiPSe{} & C/Prolog & 1990 & library\\
Gecode & C++ & 2005 & library\\
Minion & C++ & 2006 & input file\\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Summary of the characteristics of the investigated solvers.}
\label{tab:solvsumm}
\end{table}
\begin{description}
\item[Choco]
Choco was initially developed in the CLAIRE programming language as a national
effort of French researchers for an open constraint solver for teaching and
research purposes. Since then, it has been reimplemented in the Java programming
language and gone through a series of other changes. Version 2 is a major
refactoring to provide a better separation between modelling and solving a
problem, as well as performance improvements.
\item[ECLiPSe]
ECLiPSe{} is one of the oldest constraint programming environment which is still
used and in active development. It was initially developed at the European
Computer-Industry Research Centre in Munich, and then at IC-Parc, Imperial
College in London until the end of 2005, when it became Open Source. Being
implemented in Prolog, its intrinsic performance is not as high as comparable
systems implemented in other programming languages, but it is easier to specify
problems and implement new algorithms.
\item[Gecode]
``Gecode is an open, free, portable, accessible, and efficient environment for
developing constraint-based systems and applications in research, industry, and
education. Particularly important for its design is simplicity and
accessibility. Simplicity has been the key reason why Gecode is efficient and
successfully exploits today's commodity parallel hardware. Accessibility is due
to its complete reference documentation, growing tutorial documentation, and
academic publications in conferences and journals presenting key design
decisions and techniques.''\footnote{Personal communication with Christian
Schulte.}
\item[Minion]
Minion was implemented to be a solver which only requires an input file to run
and no written code. This way the solver could be made fast by not being
extensible or programmable and fixing the design decisions. It also makes it
easier to use because users do not have to write code.
\end{description}
\section{Surveyed constraint problems}
The classes of constraint problems investigated are the $n$-Queens, Golomb
Ruler, Magic Square, Social Golfers, and Balanced Incomplete Block Design
problems. The characteristics of the problems are~\cite{csplib}:-
\begin{description}
\item[$n$-Queens]
Place $n$ queens on an $n\times n$ chessboard such that no queen is
attacking another queen.
\item[Golomb Ruler] (CSPLib problem 6)\\
A Golomb ruler may be defined as a set of $m$ integers
$0 = a_1 < a_2 < \ldots < a_m$
such that the $\frac{m(m-1)}{2}$ differences
$a_j - a_i, 1 \leq i < j \leq m$ are distinct. Such a ruler is said to
contain $m$ marks and is of length $a_m$. The length is to be minimised.
\item[Magic Square] (CSPLib problem 19)\\
An order $n$ magic square is a $n\times n$ matrix containing the numbers 1
to $n^2$, with each row, column and main diagonal equal the same sum
$\frac{n(n^2+1)}{2}$.
\item[Social Golfers] (CSPLib problem 10)\\
In a golf club where $m$ groups of $n$ golfers play over $p$ weeks, schedule
the groups such that no golfer plays in the same group as any other golfer
twice.
\item[Balanced Incomplete Block Design] (CSPLib problem 28)\\
A Balanced Incomplete Block Design (BIBD) is defined as an arrangement of
$v$ distinct objects into $b$ blocks such that each block contains exactly
$k$ distinct objects, each object occurs in exactly $r$ different blocks,
and every two distinct objects occur together in exactly $\lambda$ blocks.
The parameters $b$ and $r$ can be derived from the other ones.
\end{description}
The choices cover a variety of different constraint problems, such as
optimisation problems and problems usually modelled with integer and Boolean
variable domains. The models involve binary constraints as well as global
constraints.
For each problem class, several different instances were chosen. This choice was
purely based on the CPU time of the models to be able to compare both long and
short runs. The instances selected were:-
\begin{description}
\item[$n$-Queens] $n = \{20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29\}$
\item[Golomb Ruler] $m = \{9,10,11,12,13\}$
\item[Magic Square] $n = \{4,5,6\}$
\item[Social Golfers] $\left<p,m,n\right> =
\{\left<2,4,4\right>,\left<2,5,4\right>,\left<2,6,4\right>,
\left<2,7,4\right>,\left<2,8,4\right>,\\\left<2,9,4\right>,
\left<2,10,4\right>\}$
\item[BIBD] $\left<v,k,\lambda\right> =
\{\left<7,3,10\right>,\left<7,3,20\right>,\left<7,3,30\right>,
\left<7,3,40\right>,\left<7,3,50\right>,\left<7,3,60\right>,\\
\left<7,3,70\right>\}$
\end{description}
There is insufficient space to reproduce the models for all the problems;
instead, a high-level description of the model for each problem class will be
given.
The models were derived from the examples included with the distributions of the
solvers. For some solvers and some problems the example model was simply adapted
to match the models for the other solvers, in other cases the problem was
modelled from scratch.
\begin{description}
\item[$n$-Queens] The problem was modelled with $n$ variables, one for
each queen, and one auxiliary variable for each pair of rows holding the
difference of the column positions of queens in those rows to enforce the
constraint that no two queens can be on the same diagonal. An alldifferent
constraint was enforced over the $n$ decision variables.
\item[Golomb Ruler] The Golomb Ruler model had $m$ variables, one for each tick,
and one auxiliary variable for each pair of ticks to hold the difference between
them. Additional constraints determined the value of the first tick to be 0 and
enforced an increasing monotonic ordering on the ticks. An alldifferent
constraint was enforced over the auxiliary variables holding the differences
between the ticks. The optimisation constraint minimised the value of the last
tick, which is equivalent to the length $a_m$.
\item[Magic Square] There were $n\times n$ variables for the cells of
the magic square. The constraints enforced all those variables to be different
and all rows, columns, and diagonals to sum to the magic sum. Additionally, four
constraints were introduced to break some of the symmetries in the problem; the
number in the top left square has to be less than or equal to the numbers in the
other corners of the square and the top right number has to be less than or
equal to the bottom left number.
\item[Social Golfers] The model of the Social Golfers problem used a $p\times
m\times (n\cdot m)$ matrix of decision variables. The first dimension
represented the weeks, the second one the groups, and the third one the players
by group. The constraints imposed were that each player plays exactly once per
week, the sum of the players in each group is equal to the number of players per
group specified, and each pair of players meets at most once. For the last
constraint, one auxiliary variable for each pair of players by group times weeks
times groups was introduced. Additional ordering constraints were introduced to
break the symmetries among weeks, groups, and players.
\item[Balanced Incomplete Block Design] The BIBD model introduced a matrix of
$v\times b$ decision variables. The rows were constrained to sum to $r$, the
columns to $k$, and the scalar product between each pair of rows was constrained
to equal $\lambda$. For the last constraint, one auxiliary constraint per pair
of rows times $b$ was introduced. To break some of the symmetries, ordering
constraints were put on each pair of rows and each pair of columns.
\end{description}
All models except the BIBD and Social Golfers ones used variables with integer
domains. The models of BIBD and Social Golfers used Boolean variables in the
solvers which provide specialised Boolean variables; Choco, Gecode, and Minion.
For all models, static variable and value ordering heuristics were used. The
solutions the different solvers found for each problem were the same.
Table~\ref{tab:varscons} lists the number of variables, their domains, and
constraints for each problem instance. If the domains of the auxiliary variables
are different from the domains of the main variables, they are given in
parentheses. Minion does not provide a sum equals constraint; it can however be
emulated by combining a sum less than and sum greater than constraint. This
results in a higher number of constraints for Minion; it is given in
parentheses.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\setlength\tymax{.25\textwidth}
\begin{tabulary}{\textwidth}{LLLLL}
\hline
\bfseries problem & \bfseries instance & \bfseries var\-i\-ables &
\bfseries domains & \bfseries constraints\\\hline
$n$-Queens & 20 & 210 & $\{0..19\}$ ($\{-19..19\}$) & 571 (761)\\
& 21 & 231 & $\{0..20\}$ ($\{-20..20\}$) & 631 (841)\\
& 22 & 253 & $\{0..21\}$ ($\{-21..21\}$) & 694 (925)\\
& 23 & 276 & $\{0..22\}$ ($\{-22..22\}$) & 760 (1013)\\
& 24 & 300 & $\{0..23\}$ ($\{-23..23\}$) & 829 (1105)\\
& 25 & 325 & $\{0..24\}$ ($\{-24..24\}$) & 901 (1201)\\
& 26 & 351 & $\{0..25\}$ ($\{-25..25\}$) & 976 (1301)\\
& 27 & 378 & $\{0..26\}$ ($\{-26..26\}$) & 1054 (1405)\\
& 28 & 406 & $\{0..27\}$ ($\{-27..27\}$) & 1135 (1513)\\
& 29 & 435 & $\{0..28\}$ ($\{-28..28\}$) & 1219 (1625)\\\hline
Golomb Ruler & 9 & 45 & $\{0..81\}$ & 46 (82)\\
& 10 & 55 & $\{0..100\}$ & 56 (101)\\
& 11 & 66 & $\{0..121\}$ & 67 (122)\\
& 12 & 78 & $\{0..144\}$ & 79 (145)\\
& 13 & 91 & $\{0..169\}$ & 92 (170)\\\hline
Magic Square & 4 & 16 & $\{1..16\}$ & 15 (25)\\
& 5 & 25 & $\{1..25\}$ & 17 (29)\\
& 6 & 36 & $\{1..36\}$ & 19 (33)\\\hline
Social Golfers & 2,4,4 & 1088 & $\{0..1\}$ & 1133 (1293)\\
& 2,5,4 & 2100 & $\{0..1\}$ & 2161 (2401)\\
& 2,6,4 & 3600 & $\{0..1\}$ & 3679 (4015)\\
& 2,7,4 & 5684 & $\{0..1\}$ & 5783 (6231)\\
& 2,8,4 & 8448 & $\{0..1\}$ & 8569 (9145)\\
& 2,9,4 & 11988 & $\{0..1\}$ & 12133 (12853)\\
& 2,10,4 & 16400 & $\{0..1\}$ & 16571 (17451)\\\hline
BIBD & 7,3,10 & 1960 & $\{0..1\}$ & 1643 (1741)\\
& 7,3,20 & 3920 & $\{0..1\}$ & 3253 (3421)\\
& 7,3,30 & 5880 & $\{0..1\}$ & 4863 (5101)\\
& 7,3,40 & 7840 & $\{0..1\}$ & 6473 (6781)\\
& 7,3,50 & 9800 & $\{0..1\}$ & 8083 (8461)\\
& 7,3,60 & 11760 & $\{0..1\}$ & 9693 (10141)\\
& 7,3,70 & 13720 & $\{0..1\}$ & 11303 (11821)\\\hline
\end{tabulary}
\caption{Number of variables and constraints for the investigated problems.}
\label{tab:varscons}
\end{table}
The purpose of this paper is to compare the solvers on equivalent models to be
able to assess how the design decisions they have made affected their
performance. The models of the problems are in no case the optimal model for the
particular solver or the particular problem. The results cannot be seen as
providing a performance comparison of the solvers in general, as for such a
comparison the models would have to be tailored to each solver to achieve the
best performance. For such a comparison, see~\cite{solvcomp}.
This paper focuses on performance in terms of processor time; other measures
such as wall clock time and memory requirements are not evaluated.
\subsection{Amount of search}
The amount of search each solver does on each problem instance is roughly
the same. This was ensured by comparing the node counts for each instance for
the solvers which provide node counts, visually inspecting the search tree for
solvers which provide visualisation tools, and manually comparing the decisions
made at each node of the search tree for smaller instances.
The node count numbers are not reported here because because they are only
meaningful in the context of also using other means to compare the amount of
search being done.
\section{Results}
The following figures show the performance of the solvers for each problem class
and instance.
All experiments were conducted on an 8-core Intel Xeon 2.66 GHz with 16 GB of
memory running CentOS Linux 5. The CPU time was measured with the \texttt{time}
command-line utility. The numbers reported as CPU time are the sum of user and
system time. The median of five runs was taken. The coefficient of
variation\footnote{The coefficient of variation is the standard deviation
divided by the mean.} was in general less than 10\%. Instances where it was
larger are discussed below.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{results-queens.pdf}
\caption{CPU time comparison for $n$-Queens.}
\label{queens:cpu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{results-golomb.pdf}
\caption{CPU time comparison for Golomb Ruler.}
\label{golomb:cpu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{results-magic.pdf}
\caption{CPU time comparison for Magic Square.}
\label{magic:cpu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{results-golf.pdf}
\caption{CPU time comparison for Social Golfers.}
\label{golf:cpu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{results-bibd.pdf}
\caption{CPU time comparison for Balanced Incomplete Block Design.}
\label{bibd:cpu}
\end{figure}
The figures show that for the Magic Square problem models, Gecode finds the
solution first. For the Golomb Ruler problem model, Gecode and Minion show a
very similar performance. For the other problem models, Minion was fastest.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{nps.pdf}
\caption{Median nodes per second for Minion.}
\label{fig:nps}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:nps} shows the median number of nodes per second Minion did for
each problem class and instance. A high number of nodes per second indicates
that the amount of work done at each node -- i.e.\ propagation of changes -- is
small and more search than propagation is done. For the Social Golfers and the
Balanced Incomplete Block Design problems the number of nodes per second
decreases with increasing problem size after a certain threshold. This indicates
the point where managing backtrack memory at each node becomes so expensive that
instantiating new nodes has a significant cost.
On the instances of the $n$-Queens problem, the Magic Square problem, and the
Golomb Ruler problem more propagation and less search compared to the other
problems is performed. Due to the larger domains and fewer variables, the
solvers spend a larger ratio of the total CPU time propagating changes and
revising domains than instantiating new search nodes in the tree and restoring
backtrack state.
Figure~\ref{queens:cpu} shows that the relative differences in CPU time between
the solvers stays approximately the same across different instances, save for
very small problems where the setup cost dominates the CPU time (cf.\
section~\ref{sec:setup}). The same effect is even stronger for the Golomb Ruler
problem (figure~\ref{golomb:cpu}) where the total CPU times are larger. The
gradients of the lines for the different solvers are strikingly
similar.
Figure~\ref{magic:cpu} suggests a slightly different behaviour for the Magic
Square problem; however, there are not enough data points to draw a definitive
conclusion. This problem was only run up to instances of size 6 because
instances of size 7 took too long.
These results suggest that there is no intrinsic advantage of one implementation
of propagation algorithms and data structures over another except for a constant
overhead caused by the overall implementation. They also suggest that for
problems with large variable domains the cost of propagation at each node
dominates the cost of instantiating new nodes and restoring backtrack state
regardless of the implementation of backtrack memory.
The coefficient of variation between the five runs for the 2,10,4 Social Golfers
instance for Gecode was about 20\%. Even considering the large variation, the
key point -- ECLiPSe{} performs better than Gecode, which is roughly the same as
Choco -- remains valid.
\medskip
It is obvious from all figures that the performance differences between
different solvers can easily be several orders of magnitude. The overall
performance of a solver is affected by a variety of factors. One of them is the
programming language the solver is implemented in; others are the design
decisions made when implementing it. The following sections each look at one
of these design issues and assess its influence qualitatively and
quantitatively. There are design decisions which are not dealt with here;
however we believe that the ones addressed in this paper are the most
influential ones.
\subsection{Specialised variable implementations}
The Choco, Gecode, and Minion solvers provide specialised variable
implementations for Boolean variables. The Social Golfers and BIBD problems have
been modelled with Boolean variables and integer variables with domains
$\{0..1\}$ to assess the impact of the specialised implementation.
ECLiPSe{} provides no variable types and uses floating point arithmetic for
everything, which gives it an inherent disadvantage over the other solvers.
Figure~\ref{fig:boolint} shows the relative CPU time the model with integer
variables takes compared to the model with Boolean variables. The CPU time is
shown in relation with the number of backtracks because the correlation between
the CPU time and the number of backtracks is stronger than the correlation
between the CPU time and the number of variables~\cite{spearman}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{diff-boolint.pdf}
\caption{Relative CPU time of integer model compared to Boolean model.
Shapes denote solvers, crosshairs denote problem classes. Values greater than 1
denote that the Boolean model is faster than the integer model.}
\label{fig:boolint}
\end{figure}
The results were compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test~\cite{wilcox}. The
differences for both problems for Gecode and Minion are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level; however the differences for Choco are not
statistically significant.
As the figure demonstrates, the specialised implementation for Boolean
variables is most effective for Minion, where the improvements over the model
with integer variables are up to more than 7 times. For Gecode the improvements
in terms of CPU time are also up to approximately 100\%. The specialised
implementation in Choco does not achieve any significant performance improvement
at all; the differences are just random noise.
The results also show that for Minion the improvement of the Boolean model over
the integer model increases as the number of backtracks increases whereas for
Gecode there is no such effect. For the smallest number of backtracks for both
the Social Golfers and the Balanced Incomplete Block Design problems, the
improvement for Choco and Gecode is larger than the improvement for Minion.
Minion provides a specialised implementation for the sum constraint, which is
used heavily in the Social Golfers and BIBD problems for variables with Boolean
domains. Gecode provides specialised Boolean implementations for all constraints
used in the models. Choco only provides a more efficient implementation of
the domain for Boolean variables.
The management of backtrack memory in Minion is slightly different for Boolean
and integer variables; for Boolean variables no trailing but only copying is
performed while for integer variables some additional trailing occurs. To assess
the effects of the specialised constraint implementation and introduction of
trailing separately, the Minion source code was modified and trailing switched
off for integer variables for the experiments described above.
The experiments were repeated with the unmodified source code of Minion. The
results showed the same picture; only the improvement of the Boolean model over
the integer model was not as significant as trailing integer variables improves
the performance slightly.
The results show that providing specialised implementations for different
variable types can achieve considerate performance improvements. The performance
improvement can be significant, as shown by Gecode and especially Minion.
It even increases for Minion as more variables are involved in the global
constraints and the size of the search tree increases.
\subsection{Setup costs and scaling}\label{sec:setup}
In all of the experiments except the Golomb Ruler problem, Gecode is the fastest
solver for the problem which takes least CPU time to solve. As the time required
to solve the problem increases, its CPU time increases more in relative terms
than that of the other solvers such that it is not the fastest solver anymore.
Both Choco and ECLiPSe{} run in abstract machines which have to be set up when the
program starts. Minion reads an input file, parses it, and constructs the
problem to solve from that. The overhead incurred because of these issues
accounts for the differences in CPU time compared to Gecode for the small
problems. For the Golomb Ruler problem, the CPU time Gecode takes to solve the
smallest problem is equal to the time Minion takes. This is because the CPU time
required to solve this instance is large compared to the CPU required for the
smallest instances of the other problem classes -- it takes roughly a second
whereas for other problem classes the smallest instance is solved in a fraction
of a second. The overhead Minion incurs by parsing the input file accounts only
for a small fraction of the total CPU time and therefore it is as fast as
Gecode.
Figure~\ref{golf:cpu} shows that for the Social Golfers problem, ECLiPSe{} scales
better than the other solvers with respect to the increase in CPU time with
increasing problem size. From the 2,7,4 instance, it is faster than Choco, and
for the largest instance it is faster than Gecode as well. Extrapolating past
the end of the graph, it is possible that for very large instances ECLiPSe{} could
be faster than Minion.
Figure~\ref{bibd:cpu} on the other hand shows a different picture. Here the
relative increase in CPU time ECLiPSe{} and Gecode require to solve the problem
as it becomes more difficult to solve is significantly larger than that of Choco
and Minion. For the 7,3,60 problem instance, Choco is faster than Gecode despite
being slower before.
Both graphs are strikingly similar when disregarding ECLiPSe{}. For both problems,
the relative distance between the lines for Choco and Minion stays more or less
the same, whereas Gecode is about the same as Minion for the smallest problem
and about the same as Choco for the largest problem.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabulary}{\linewidth}{JJJ}
\hline
\bfseries problem & \bfseries instance & \bfseries backtracks\\\hline
$n$-Queens & 20 & 5960\\
& 21 & 177\\
& 22 & 43783\\
& 23 & 389\\
& 24 & 7337\\
& 25 & 606\\
& 26 & 4922\\
& 27 & 6465\\
& 28 & 39467\\
& 29 & 18687\\\hline
Social Golfers & 2,4,4 & 398\\
& 2,5,4 & 3343\\
& 2,6,4 & 18497\\
& 2,7,4 & 48030\\
& 2,8,4 & 100201\\
& 2,9,4 & 209387\\
& 2,10,4 & 399498\\\hline
BIBD & 7,3,10 & 239\\
& 7,3,20 & 1579\\
& 7,3,30 & 5019\\
& 7,3,40 & 11559\\
& 7,3,50 & 22199\\
& 7,3,60 & 37939\\
& 7,3,70 & 59779\\\hline
\end{tabulary}
\caption{Number of backtracks for ECLiPSe{}.}
\label{tab:backtracks}
\end{table}
Both the Social Golfers and BIBD problem classes have a large number of
variables and constraints. The key difference is that on instances of the Social
Golfers problem, more backtracks are performed (cf.\
table~\ref{tab:backtracks}). This indicates that the implementation of
backtracking and restoration of previous state for problems with many variables
is implemented more efficiently in ECLiPSe{} than in the other solvers.
The following sections look at memory management in more detail.
\subsection{Memory management}
Table~\ref{tab:memory} summarises the memory management approaches taken for
the different solvers.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabulary}{\linewidth}{JJJ}
\hline
\bfseries solver & \bfseries backtracking approach & \bfseries garbage
collection\\\hline
Choco & trailing & yes (Java)\\
ECLiPSe{} & trailing & yes (custom)\\
Gecode & copying/recomputation & no\\
Minion & copying/trailing & no\\\hline
\end{tabulary}
\caption{Summary of memory management approaches.}
\label{tab:memory}
\end{table}
The following sections are mostly concerned with the different ways of
implementing backtrack memory, as this is the most important memory management
decision to be made in a constraint problem solver.
\subsubsection{Recomputation versus copying}
Gecode provides parameters which can be given to the solver executable to tune
the ratio of copying vs.\ recomputation. The $n$-Queens problem, the Social
Golfers problem, and the Balanced Incomplete Block Design problem were rerun
with recomputation distances of 1 (full copying -- the same behaviour as
Minion), 8 (the default), 16, and 32. The adaptive recomputation distance was
left at the default value of 2~\cite{consservices}.
The results were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance
test~\cite{kruskal}. The differences are not statistically significant because
of the large variation among the CPU times for the problem instances; however
when comparing the differences between doing a full copy at each node
(recomputation distance 1) and the other recomputation distances with the
Wilcoxon test the differences were statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{diff-recomp.pdf}
\caption{CPU time of different levels of recomputation and copying over CPU time
of copying. Shapes denote problem classes, crosshairs denote recomputation
distances. Values less than 1 denote that copying and recomputation is faster
than copying at every node.}
\label{fig:copy}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:copy} shows the results for all the problems and recomputation
distances. The CPU times of the runs with a recomputation distance $>1$ are
divided by the CPU times for a recomputation distance of 1. Values larger than 1
mean that doing a full copy at every node performs better than a recomputation
distance of $>1$. Note that the default recomputation distance in Gecode is 8,
i.e.\ the results shown in figures~\ref{queens:cpu}, \ref{golf:cpu},
and~\ref{bibd:cpu} are not the CPU times which the other CPU times are divided
by.
The CPU time is influenced by both the number of backtracks and the number of
variables; however for this comparison the correlation between CPU time and
number of backtracks was stronger than the correlation between CPU time and
number of variables.
For all instances and recomputation distances of the $n$-Queens problem, making
a full copy at every node of the search tree performs better than a
recomputation distance $>1$. This suggests that for problems with only few
variables it is better to always copy. The performance improvement is only up to
about 22\% though.
The Social Golfers and Balanced Incomplete Block Design problems show that for
problems with many variables, it is cheaper not to copy at every node, but to do
some recomputation. The results show that the performance improvement can be up
to about 70\% with recomputation. They also demonstrate that the optimal
recomputation distance increases as the number of backtracks increases. For both
the Social Golfers and the Balanced Incomplete Block Design, the default
recomputation distance of 8 performs best for all but the largest instance of
the respective problem, where the recomputation distance of 16 is better.
Furthermore there appears to be a problem-specific threshold in terms of number
of backtracks which marks a change in the performance improvement for copying at
every node -- before the threshold the improvement increases with increasing
number of backtracks, after the threshold it decreases.
Figure~\ref{golf:cpu} for example shows that Minion performs better than Gecode
despite full copying and no recomputation. This is because Gecode and Minion use
different implementations of copying backtrack memory. Whereas Gecode keeps a
list of pointers to objects to be copied and traverses that list, Minion
allocates everything that needs to be restored when backtracking in a continuous
memory region and simply copies the whole region. The advantage of Gecode's
approach is that a finer-grained control over the used memory is possible, but
Minion's approach wins in terms of overhead when copying at every node.
Choco provides a facility to change the backtrack strategy to both recomputation
and copying as well; however not a combination of the two. Using only
recomputation performed worse than copying by several orders of magnitude and is
therefore not considered here.
\subsubsection{Copying versus trailing}
Choco allows to change the default backtrack strategy of trailing to copying.
The $n$-Queens, the Social Golfers, and the Balanced Incomplete Block Design
problems were rerun with copying instead of trailing for backtrack memory.
The results were compared with the Wilcoxon test. The differences are
statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The CPU times are shown in relation
to the number of backtracks because the correlation between the CPU time and the
number of backtracks is stronger than the correlation between the CPU time and
the number of variables.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{diff-trail.pdf}
\caption{CPU time of trailing over CPU time of copying. Values less than 1
denote that trailing is faster than copying.}
\label{fig:trail}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:trail} shows the results. For all instances of all problems,
trailing performs better than copying. For the $n$-Queens problem the
differences are only up to about 20\% because of the small number of variables
(cf.\ table~\ref{tab:varscons}). The results for the Social Golfers and the
Balanced Incomplete Block Design problems show that the relative difference
between trailing and copying backtrack memory increases as the number of
backtracks increases.
The results suggest that trailing backtrack memory performs better than copying
backtrack memory; especially with increasing number of backtracks and variables.
This is most likely limited to Choco though; Minion for example uses a different
implementation of copying backtrack memory which scales much better with
increasing number of variables and has less overhead -- instead of copying each
variable domain individually, it only copies one contiguous memory region.
In general the results show that for problems with many backtracks trailing
backtrack memory performs better than copying backtrack memory. The following
section investigates this further.
\subsubsection{Sensitivity to number of variables}
To further assess the impact of the backtrack strategy on the overall
performance of the solvers, the $n$-Queens and the Social Golfers problems were
remodelled with more auxiliary Boolean variables. No additional constraints were
imposed on the variables to keep the amount of search the same.
Table~\ref{tab:manyvars} summarises the numbers of variables for the normal and
for the extended model.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabulary}{\linewidth}{JJJJ}
\hline
\bfseries problem & \bfseries instance & \bfseries normal model & \bfseries extended model\\\hline
$n$-Queens & 20 & 210 & 1920\\
& 21 & 231 & 2121\\
& 22 & 253 & 2332\\
& 23 & 276 & 2553\\
& 24 & 300 & 2784\\
& 25 & 325 & 3025\\
& 26 & 351 & 3276\\
& 27 & 378 & 3537\\
& 28 & 406 & 3808\\
& 29 & 435 & 4089\\\hline
Social Golfers & 2,4,4 & 1088 & 9728\\
& 2,5,4 & 2100 & 19200\\
& 2,6,4 & 3600 & 33408\\
& 2,7,4 & 5684 & 53312\\
& 2,8,4 & 8448 & 79872\\
& 2,9,4 & 11988 & 114048\\
& 2,10,4 & 16400 & 156800\\\hline
\end{tabulary}
\caption{Number of variables for normal and extended $n$-Queens and Social
Golfers models.}
\label{tab:manyvars}
\end{table}
The increased number of variables should have no or little impact on performance
for solvers which use trailed memory for backtracking as they only record the
changes to variables and the additional variables are never changed. The impact
for solver which use other types of backtrack strategies should be
considerable. Any effects caused by the different types of backtrack memory
should be much more significant for the Social Golfers problem instances than
for the $n$-Queens problem instances because of the significantly higher number
of backtracks (cf.\ table~\ref{tab:backtracks}).
The purpose of these experiments is twofold. First, to assess the influence the
implementation of backtrack memory when more variables are added, and second,
an estimation of the fraction of total CPU time which is spent managing
backtrack memory. This can be estimated from the influence of the backtrack
strategy on the total CPU time.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{diff-manyvars.pdf}
\caption{CPU time of extended model with more variables over CPU time of normal
model. Shapes denote solvers, crosshairs denote problem classes. Values greater
than 1 denote that the CPU time for the normal model was less than the CPU time
for the extended model.}
\label{fig:manyvars}
\end{figure}
The results for each solver and problem class were compared with the Wilcoxon
test. The differences for the $n$-Queens problem are statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. For the Social Golfers problem the differences for Choco,
ECLiPSe{}, and Minion are significant at the 0.05 level; the differences for Gecode
are not statistically significant.
Figure~\ref{fig:manyvars} shows the CPU time of the extended model over the
CPU time of the normal model. The solver which is affected most by the change is
obviously Minion; followed by Gecode. The differences of up to about 35\% for
Gecode suggest that it is affected, but the variation between individual runs
is too much to make the differences statistically significant. Choco and ECLiPSe{}
are affected to a much lesser extent.
The results correspond exactly to the expectations. Minion takes the biggest hit
in terms of performance because it uses copying for backtrack memory and has to
copy more data. Gecode combines copying with recomputation and is therefore less
affected, as no recomputation has to be performed for the additional variables.
Both Choco and ECLiPSe{} do trailing and are least affected by the addition of more
variables.
Figure~\ref{fig:manyvars} also shows that the CPU time of the model with more
variables increases for Gecode and Minion as the number of backtracks (and
therefore the size of the search tree) increases. For Choco and ECLiPSe{} it stays
approximately the same. Again, this result is expected because while for copying
backtrack memory the amount of work to be done increases at each node, it stays
approximately the same for trailing backtrack memory.
The number of variables and backtracks for the $n$-Queens problem instances are
much less than for the Social Golfers instances (cf.\ tables~\ref{tab:manyvars}
and~\ref{tab:backtracks}) and therefore the expected effects are less
significant. The differences for Minion stand out from the differences for the
other solvers, suggesting that it is the only one which was truly affected by
the changes. The differences are significantly smaller than for the Social
Golfers problem though.
The results show that managing backtrack memory can account for a
significant part of the total CPU time. Adding new variables without any
constraints on them does not increase the work to be done for propagating
changes, but nevertheless the total CPU time can increase significantly.
For the remodelled $n$-Queens problem the differences for Minion are up to about
23\% even though more work is done propagating changes than exploring the search
tree (cf.\ discussion for figure~\ref{fig:nps}). For the Social Golfers problem,
which has many more variables (cf.\ table~\ref{tab:manyvars}), the proportion of
the CPU time spent on managing backtrack memory is even larger; the differences
are up to about 50\% for Minion.
\subsubsection{Garbage collection}
ECLiPSe{} is the only solver which provides garbage collection and a facility to
switch it off. The $n$-Queens, the Social Golfers, and the Balanced Incomplete
Block Design problem classes were rerun with garbage collection turned off.
The results were compared to the results with garbage collection switched on
with the Wilcoxon test. The differences are statistically significant at the
0.01 level.
The results are shown in relation to the number of backtracks because the
correlation between CPU time and the number of backtracks is stronger than the
correlation between CPU time and the number of variables.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics{diff-gc.pdf}
\caption{CPU time of run with garbage collection switched off over CPU time of
run with garbage collection switched on. Values greater than 1 denote that
garbage collection is faster than no garbage collection.}
\label{fig:garbage}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:garbage} shows that the CPU times for the runs with garbage
collection switched off are up to about 35\% higher than those with garbage
collection switched on for the Social Golfers problem. The CPU times for
Balanced Incomplete Block Design are similar, but less pronounced. A possible
reason for that is the lower number of backtracks. The amount of memory that the
$n$-Queens instances use is so small that the differences are not significant.
The results show that the benefits of garbage collection do not only include a
smaller memory footprint, but also increases in performance in terms of CPU
time. These results may not be applicable for other implementations of backtrack
memory though. The second key point which can be concluded from
figure~\ref{fig:garbage} is that while garbage collection can improve
performance up to a certain number of backtracks, the improvements become
smaller as the number of backtracks and the total amount of memory the
problem requires grows. It is conceivable that for much larger problem instances
than investigated here, the CPU time with garbage collection becomes larger than
the CPU time without garbage collection.
\subsection{Order of propagators}
Choco, ECLiPSe{}, and Gecode provide facilities to attach priorities to
propagators, i.e.\ changes will not be propagated in the order they are made in,
but according to a priority value. Minion does not provide such a facility.
For the investigated problems, Choco does not make use of the priorities, i.e.\
the priority is the same for everything.
In ECLiPSe{} some of the global constraints such as alldifferent and element are
processed with a higher priority than constraints of a lower arity. Only the
alldifferent constraint is used in the $n$-Queens, the Golomb Ruler, and the
Magic Square problems.
Gecode orders the propagators according the complexity of the propagation
function, which is defined when the propagator is implemented. Experiments for
some problem instances were conducted with the propagator queue reversed. For
the Balanced Incomplete Block Design problem, no differences at all were
observed, whereas for example for the $n$-Queens problem there were differences
in terms of CPU time. In all cases the maximum difference was only a small
fraction of the total CPU time though.
\subsection{Types of constraints}
Choco, ECLiPSe{}, and Gecode offer basic constraints which can be combined into
more complex ones to a larger extent than Minion. For the particular models used
in this paper the same constraints were used and this did not have any negative
impact in terms of performance; for other applications it simplifies modelling
problems though and is therefore also likely to have an impact on performance.
For example the $n$-Queens problem could be modelled without auxiliary variables
in Choco, ECLiPSe{}, and Gecode and is likely to be perform better than a model of
the same problem in Minion which has to use auxiliary variables.
On the other hand Minion provides an implementation of the sum constraints with
watched literals, which could improve its performance~\cite{watchlits}.
An interesting point is that Minion does not have a sum-equals constraint, but
only sum-greater-or-equal and sum-less-or-equal constraints. The semantics of
the sum-equals constraint can be achieved by combining the two constraints, but
this increases the total number of constraints; in some cases considerably.
Nevertheless there does not seem to be a negative impact on performance, on the
contrary. This indicates that the most obvious way to implement a constraint may
not always be the most efficient one.
\subsection{Optimisation problems}
The investigated solvers implement several different approaches to handling
optimisation problems; Choco and Minion handle the value to be minimised in
specialised implementations of search, ECLiPSe{} adjusts the bounds of the cost
variable while Gecode imposes additional constraints on it.
Figure~\ref{golomb:cpu} suggests that there is no intrinsic advantage of one way
over the other.
\section{Conclusion}
We presented a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of the implementation
design decisions in state-of-the-art constraint problem solvers. The experiments
provide not only a qualitative, but also a quantitative comparison of different
implementation approaches.
The results show that choosing one design decision over another when
implementing a constraint solver does not usually give performance benefits in
general. The exception are specialised variable implementations -- implementing
specialised versions of constraints and propagators for the different variable
types improves performance significantly.
The design decisions associated with memory management, such as backtrack
memory, are much harder to classify. Depending on the problem to solve and the
number of variables and constraints involved, a particular implementation of
memory management will perform better than others. This does not only depend on
the type of problem, but also on the size of the problem though. The results do
show however that memory management can account for a significant part of the
total CPU time required to solve a problem.
The large differences among the CPU times the individual solvers take emphasise
the importance of choosing the right solver for a given task. This decision is
absolutely crucial to performance. In an ideal world, a solver would, given a
particular problem, adapt its design decisions and provide an implementation
specialised for this problem.
The performance of the individual solvers in the experiments should \emph{not}
be taken as a benchmark or as a suggestion which of these solvers to use for a
given problem. The focus of the experiments was to compare the solvers on models
which are as similar as possible. For any other application, the problem model
will be tuned for a particular solver to use its specific strengths which cannot
be compared here. It is entirely possible that with a carefully-tuned model a
solver which performs badly in an experiment reported here becomes much better
than any other solver.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The author is indebted to Ian Miguel and Ian Gent for many helpful comments on
drafts of this paper. Thanks to the ECLiPSe{} and Gecode mailing list participants
for answering questions concerning the implementation of the respective solvers.
Thanks also go to Warwick Harvey for modelling the Social Golfers problem in
ECLiPSe{} and Mikael Lagerkvist for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version of
this paper.
|
\section*{References}
\newcommand{\noopsort}[1]{} \newcommand{\printfirst}[2]{#1}
\newcommand{\singleletter}[1]{#1} \newcommand{\switchargs}[2]{#2#1}
\providecommand{\newblock}{}
|
\section{Introduction}
In \cite{ADH} Andrews, Dyson and Hickerson consider the following two $q$-hypergeometric functions, the first given in Ramanujan's ``Lost'' Notebook and the second, its ``partner'', discovered later
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sigma(q) &:= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{q^{n(n+1)/2}}{(1+q) (1+q^2) \cdots (1+q^n)},\\
\sigma^*(q) &:= 2\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n q^{n^2}}{(1-q) (1-q^3) \cdots (1-q^{2n-1})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In that paper they find several identities for $\sigma$ and $\sigma^*$ which involve indefinite quadratic forms. Using these identities they are able to explain some amazing properties of the coefficients of these functions. Typical examples of identities they find are
\begin{equation}\label{sigma}
\begin{split}
q^{1/24} \sigma(q) &=\Bigl( \underset{n-j\geq 0}{\sum_{n+j\geq 0}} + \underset{n-j<0}{\sum_{n+j<0}}\Bigr) (-1)^{n+j} q^{\frac{3}{2}(n+\frac{1}{6})^2-j^2},\\
q^{-1/24} \sigma^*(q) &=\Bigl( \underset{2j-3n> 0}{\sum_{2j+3n\geq 0}} + \underset{2j-3n\leq 0}{\sum_{2j+3n< 0}}\Bigr) (-1)^{n+j} q^{-\frac{3}{2}(n+\frac{1}{6})^2+j^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
These are equations (1.5) and (5.1) in \cite{ADH}, rewritten for the purpose of this paper. Note that the right hand sides can be viewed as theta functions attached to an indefinite quadratic form, or indefinite theta functions for short. Further note that the right hand side of the first equation closely resembles
\begin{equation*}
\Bigl( \underset{n-j\geq 0}{\sum_{n+j\geq 0}} - \underset{n-j<0}{\sum_{n+j<0}}\Bigr) (-1)^{n+j} q^{\frac{3}{2}(n+\frac{1}{6})^2-j^2},
\end{equation*}
a function which is related to one of Ramanujan's sixth order mock theta functions. In \cite{zwegers} we find a general theory for indefinite theta functions of this second type, that is, sums of the form
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^r} \left\{ \sgn(l_1(\nu))-\sgn(l_2(\nu))\right\} q^{Q(\nu)} e^{2\pi i l_3(\nu)},
\end{equation*}
where $Q$ is a quadratic form of signature $(r-1,1)$ on $\mathbb{R}^r$, $a\in\mathbb{R}^r$ and $l_1$, $l_2$ and $l_3$ are suitable linear functions. For special choices of $Q$, $a$ and $l_i$ this indefinite theta function is a holomorphic modular form of weight $r/2$ (on some subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ with some multiplier system). In general, however, we get a more complicated object, namely the ``holomorphic part'' of a real-analytic modular form.
For $\sigma$ and $\sigma^*$ the relation with automorphic forms is more subtle: in \cite{cohen}, Cohen interprets the identities for $\sigma$ and $\sigma^*$ in terms of the theory of Maass waveforms. For this he defines the coefficients $T(n)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\equiv 1\smod{24}}{\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}} T(n) q^{|n|/24} = q^{1/24} \sigma (q) + q^{-1/24} \sigma^* (q),
\end{equation*}
and uses them to construct
\begin{equation*}
\phi_0(\tau) := y^{1/2} \underset{n\neq 0}{\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}} T(n)\ e^{2\pi inx/24} K_0 (2\pi |n|y/24),
\end{equation*}
where $\tau=x+iy\in\Ha$ and $K_0$ is a modified Bessel function of the second kind. Cohen then shows that $\phi_0$ is a weight 0 Maass form: it transforms as a modular form of weight 0 on $\Gamma_0(2)$, with some (explicit) multiplier, but instead of being holomorphic on $\Ha$ the function satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_0 \phi_0 = \frac{1}{4} \phi_0,
\end{equation*}
where $\Delta_0 = -y^2 \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}\right)=-4y^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau \partial \overline{\tau}}$ is the weight 0 Laplace operator.
The differential equation satisfied by $\phi_0$ follows immediately from the differential equation satisfied by $K_0$, which is $\left(x \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} -x \right) K_0(x)=0$.
The hard part is to show that it also transforms like a modular function. For this he uses the Mellin transform and $L$-series.
The question that we address here is: what if we change the quadratic form and/or the linear restrictions in the right hand sides of equation \eqref{sigma} and do the same construction, will the resulting function still be a Maass waveform? The precise definition of the functions we consider is given in Definition \ref{defphi} below. From the construction it is immediately clear that these functions again are eigenfunctions of $\Delta_0$ with eigenvalue $1/4$, but do they also transform like modular functions? The answer is that in general they do not and we get interesting, more general, objects. In certain special cases we will again get a Maass waveform.
The outline of the paper is as follows: in the next section we will state some definitions and the main results. In section 3 we will give technical details for some of the definitions and in section 4 we will prove the main results. In section 5 we will consider the action of $\operatorname{Aut}^+(Q,\mathbb{Z}^2)$, which will be used in sections 6 and 7 to give some nice examples: in section 6 we consider Cohen's $\phi_0$ function and in section 7 we will obtain a family of cases where our construction gives a Maass waveform.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author wishes to thank Soon-Yi Kang and Ken Ono for suggesting this project.
\section{Definitions and statement of results}
Let $Q$ be a binary quadratic form of signature $(1,1)$. Let $A$ be the symmetric $2\times 2$-matrix such that $Q(\nu)= \frac{1}{2} \nu^t A \nu$. Throughout we assume that $A$ has integer coefficients. Further let $B$ be the associated bilinear form $B(\nu,\mu)=\nu^t A\mu=Q(\nu+\mu)-Q(\nu)-Q(\mu)$.
The set of vectors $c\in\mathbb{R}^2$ with $Q(c)=-1$ has two components. If $B(c_1,c_2)<0$ then $c_1$ and $c_2$ belong to the same component, while if $B(c_1,c_2)>0$ then $c_1$ and $c_2$ belong to opposite components. Let $C_Q$ denote one of the two components. If $c_0$ is in that component, then $C_Q$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
C_Q := \{ c\in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid Q(c)=-1\ \text{and}\ B(c,c_0)<0\}.
\end{equation*}
Since $Q$ is of signature $(1,1)$, it splits over $\mathbb{R}$ as the product of two linear functions, that is, we can write $Q(\nu)=Q_0(P\nu)$ with $P\in \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ and $Q_0(\nu)=\nu_1 \nu_2$. Note that $P$ is such that
\begin{equation*}
A=P^t \begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix} P.
\end{equation*}
Further note that the choice of $P$ is not unique, since we can multiply by
\begin{equation*}
\pm \begin{pmatrix} \exp(r)&0\\0&\exp(-r) \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
on the left. We take the choice of the sign such that $P^{-1} \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1\\ -1\end{smallmatrix} \right)\in C_Q$. Now define for $t\in\mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation*}
c(t) := P^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} \exp(t)\\-\exp(-t) \end{pmatrix} \qquad \text{and}\qquad c^\perp(t) := P^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} \exp(t)\\\exp(-t) \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
We see that $Q(c(t))=-1$, $Q(c^\perp(t))=1$ and $B(c(t),c^\perp (t))=0$. In fact $c$ gives us a parametrization of $C_Q$. If we have $c_i\in C_Q$ then we let $t_i$ be such that
\begin{equation*}
c(t_i) = c_i,
\end{equation*}
and we denote $c^\perp (t_i)$ by $c_i^\perp$. If we make a different choice for $r$, that means that we shift the parameter $t$ by $r$.
The function that we wish to study is given by
\begin{definition}\label{defphi}
Let $c_1,c_2\in C_Q$ and $a,b\in\mathbb{R}^2$. For $\tau=x+iy\in\Ha$ we define
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Phi_{a,b} (\tau) &= \Phi_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} (\tau) \\
&:= \sgn(t_2-t_1)\ y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} \frac{1}{2}\Bigl[1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1)B(\nu,c_2))\Bigr] e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)x} e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)} K_0(2\pi Q(\nu) y)\\
&\ + \sgn(t_2-t_1)\ y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} \frac{1}{2}\Bigl[1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1^\perp)B(\nu,c_2^\perp))\Bigr] e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)x} e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)} K_0(-2\pi Q(\nu) y).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
To see that the function is well defined we have to show convergence of the sums, which will be done in the next section.
\begin{remark}
With a little bit of rewriting we see that for $A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 3&0\\0&-2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, $c_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -2\\3\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, $c_2 =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2\\3\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, $a=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ and $b=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} = \zeta_{12}\ \phi_0,
\end{equation*}
where $\zeta_n$ denotes $e^{2\pi i/n}$ and $\phi_0$ is Cohen's function.
\end{remark}
From the differential equation satisfied by $K_0$ we immediately get
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_0 \Phi_{a,b} = \frac{1}{4} \Phi_{a,b}.
\end{equation*}
However, in general this function does not transform like a modular function. We also consider
\begin{definition}
Let $c_1,c_2\in C_Q$ and $a,b\in\mathbb{R}^2$. For $\tau=x+iy\in\Ha$ we define
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} (\tau) = \widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} (\tau) := y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} q^{Q(\nu)} e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi y B(\nu, c(t))^2} dt,
\end{equation*}
where $q:= e^{2\pi i\tau}$.
\end{definition}
This definition is independent of the choice of $r$. Again convergence of the sum is shown in the next section. From the following theorem we see that this function does transform like a modular function, but in general it is not an eigenfunction of $\Delta_0$ (as we will later see).
\begin{theorem}\label{modtrans}
For $a,b\in\mathbb{R}^2$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a+\lambda,b+\mu} &= e^{2\pi iB(a,\mu)} \widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} \qquad \text{for all}\ \lambda\in\mathbb{Z}^2\ \text{and}\ \mu\in A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2,\\
\widehat{\Phi}_{-a,-b} &= \widehat{\Phi}_{a,b},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and the modular transformation properties
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} (\tau+1) &= e^{-2\pi iQ(a)-\pi iB(A^{-1} A^*,a)}\ \widehat{\Phi}_{a,a+b+\frac{1}{2}A^{-1} A^*}(\tau),\\
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} (-1/\tau) &= \frac{e^{2\pi i B(a,b)}}{\sqrt{-\det A}} \sum_{p\in A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2 \smod{\mathbb{Z}^2}} \widehat{\Phi}_{-b+p,a}(\tau),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $A^*$ is the vector of diagonal elements of $A$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
From these modular transformation properties we get that if $a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^2$ then $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}$ transforms like a modular function on some subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$. For convenience we only consider the case that $A$ has integer coefficients. More generally, if we allow the coefficients of $A$ to be rational, we still get that $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}$ transforms like a modular function on some subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, but we omit the details.
\end{remark}
So far we have introduced the two functions $\Phi_{a,b}$ and $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}$. The first is an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator, but in general not modular. The second is modular, but in general not an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator. We would like to get functions which are both eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator and modular. We will be able to do that in special cases, using the following relation between $\Phi_{a,b}$ and $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{split}
Let $c_1,c_2\in C_Q$, $b\in\mathbb{R}^2$ and let $a\in\mathbb{R}^2$ be such that $Q$ is non-zero on $a+\mathbb{Z}^2$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} = \Phi_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} + \phi_{a,b}^{c_1} - \phi_{a,b}^{c_2},
\end{equation*}
where for $\tau=x+iy\in\Ha$
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{a,b}^{c_0} (\tau) := y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} \alpha_{t_0}(\nu y^{1/2})\ q^{Q(\nu)} e^{2\pi iB(\nu,b)},
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_{t_0}(\nu) := \begin{cases} \int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt & \text{if}\ B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)>0,\\
-\int_{-\infty}^{t_0} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt & \text{if}\ B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)<0,\\
0 & \text{if}\ B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
The main point here is that $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} -\Phi_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$ is the difference of two functions, each of which depends only on one $c$. For certain special choices of $a,b$ and $c_1,c_2$ we can have that $\phi_{a,b}^{c_1} = \phi_{a,b}^{c_2}$ and so $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} = \Phi_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$ is both an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator and modular. This happens in the case of Cohen's $\phi_0$ function, as we will see in section \ref{example}.
As remarked before, $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$ is in general not an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator, but instead
\begin{theorem}\label{diff}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\left(\Delta_0 -\frac{1}{4} \right) \widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} = \frac{\pi}{2} \left(\theta_{a,b}^{c_2} - \theta_{a,b}^{c_1}\right),
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
\theta_{a,b}^c (\tau) : = y^{3/2} \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} B(\nu,c) B(\nu,c^\perp) e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\nu,c^\perp)^2 - \frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\nu,c)^2} e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We see that $\theta_{a,b}^c$ ``almost'' splits as the product of a unary theta function of weight 3/2 with the complex conjugate of a unary theta function of weight 3/2. To make this a bit more precise: if $c$ is such that there is an $l\in\mathbb{R}$ for which $lc\in\mathbb{Z}^2$, then from $B(c,c^\perp)=0$ and the assumption that $A$ has integer coefficients we get that there is an $l^\perp \in \mathbb{R}$ for which $l^\perp c^\perp \in\mathbb{Z}^2$. Let $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ then be the smallest positive number such that $\alpha \left(\begin{matrix} c& c^\perp \end{matrix}\right)^t A$ has integer coefficients. If we now make the change of variables
\begin{equation*}
\lambda = \alpha \begin{pmatrix} B(\nu,c)\\ B(\nu,c^\perp)\end{pmatrix} = \alpha \left(\begin{matrix} c& c^\perp \end{matrix}\right)^t A \nu,
\end{equation*}
we get that
\begin{equation*}
\theta_{a,b}^c \in S_{3/2} \otimes y^{3/2} \overline{S_{3/2}}.
\end{equation*}
We leave the details to the interested reader.
\end{remark}
\section{Convergence for $\Phi$ and $\widehat{\Phi}$}\label{conv}
If $c_1=c_2$ (that is $t_1=t_2$) both $\Phi_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$ and $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$ are zero and so we can assume that $t_1\neq t_2$.
We can easily verify that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
c_1 - \exp(t_1-t_2) c_2&= 2 \exp(-t_2) \sinh (t_1-t_2) P^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} 0\\1\end{pmatrix},\\
c_1 - \exp(t_2-t_1) c_2&= 2 \exp(t_2) \sinh (t_1-t_2) P^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} 1\\0\end{pmatrix},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation}\label{quad}
\begin{split}
&\frac{B(\nu,c_1)^2-2\cosh (t_1-t_2) B(\nu,c_1) B(\nu,c_2) + B(\nu,c_2)^2}{4 \sinh^2(t_1-t_2)} \\
&\qquad \qquad = \frac{\bigl( B(\nu,c_1) - \exp(t_1-t_2) B(\nu,c_2) \bigr) \bigl( B(\nu,c_1) - \exp(t_2-t_1) B(\nu,c_2) \bigr)}{4 \sinh^2(t_1-t_2)}\\
&\qquad \qquad = B\left(\nu , P^{-1}\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right) B\left(\nu , P^{-1}\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right)= Q(\nu),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where in the last step we have used that $A P^{-1} = P^t \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1\\1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $Q(\nu)= (P\nu)_1 (P\nu)_2$.
To get the convergence of the first sum in the definition of $\Phi_{a,b}$, we first observe that $1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1)B(\nu,c_2))$ is only non-zero if $B(\nu,c_1)B(\nu,c_2)\leq 0$, in which case we get from equation \eqref{quad}
\begin{equation*}
Q(\nu) \geq \frac{B(\nu,c_1)^2 + B(\nu,c_2)^2}{4 \sinh^2(t_1-t_2)},
\end{equation*}
and the right hand side is a positive definite quadratic form. Together with
\begin{equation}\label{est}
0 \leq K_0(x) \leq \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2x}} e^{-x}
\end{equation}
this shows that the sum converges absolutely.
Completely analogous to equation \eqref{quad} we can show that
\begin{equation*}
-Q(\nu) = \frac{B(\nu,c_1^\perp)^2-2\cosh (t_1-t_2) B(\nu,c_1^\perp) B(\nu,c_2^\perp) + B(\nu,c_2^\perp)^2}{4 \sinh^2(t_1-t_2)},
\end{equation*}
from which we see that on the support of $1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1^\perp)B(\nu,c_2^\perp))$ we have
\begin{equation*}
-Q(\nu) \geq \frac{B(\nu,c_1^\perp)^2 + B(\nu,c_2^\perp)^2}{4 \sinh^2(t_1-t_2)},
\end{equation*}
which again is positive definite. Using this together with equation \eqref{est} we see that the second sum in the definition of $\Phi_{a,b}$ also
converges absolutely.
From
\begin{equation}\label{Q}
4Q(\nu) = B(\nu,c^\perp(t))^2- B(\nu,c(t))^2,
\end{equation}
which is easy to check, we find
\begin{equation}\label{pos}
Q(\nu) +\frac{1}{2} B(\nu,c(t))^2 = \frac{1}{4} \bigl(B(\nu,c^\perp(t))^2+ B(\nu,c(t))^2\bigr),
\end{equation}
which shows that for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$ the quadratic form $\nu \mapsto Q(\nu) +\frac{1}{2} B(\nu,c(t))^2$ is positive definite, and so
\begin{equation*}
\min_{||\nu||^2 =1} \Bigl(Q(\nu) +\frac{1}{2} B(\nu,c(t))^2 \Bigr)> 0,
\end{equation*}
for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$. If we take $t_1\leq t \leq t_2$ we get that there is an $r\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}$ (which depends on $t_1$ and $t_2$), such that
\begin{alignat*}{2}
Q(\nu) +\frac{1}{2} B(\nu,c(t))^2 & > r, &\qquad\text{for}\ &||\nu||^2 =1,\\
Q(\nu) +\frac{1}{2} B(\nu,c(t))^2 & \geq r ||\nu||^2, &\qquad\text{for}\ &\nu\in\mathbb{R}^2.
\end{alignat*}
So we find that for $t_1 < t_2$
\begin{equation*}
\left| q^{Q(\nu)} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi y B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt\right| = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-2\pi y \left(Q(\nu) +\frac{1}{2} B(\nu,c(t))^2\right)} dt \leq (t_2-t_1) e^{-2\pi ry ||\nu||^2},
\end{equation*}
and similarly for $t_1 > t_2$
\begin{equation*}
\left| q^{Q(\nu)} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi y B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt\right| \leq (t_1-t_2) e^{-2\pi ry ||\nu||^2},
\end{equation*}
which shows the absolute convergence of the sum in the definition of $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}$.
\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{modtrans}, \ref{split} and \ref{diff}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{modtrans}]
The first two equations are completely trivial and for the modular transformation property with respect to $\tau\mapsto \tau+1$ we observe that $y$ doesn't change and so
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} (\tau+1) = y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} e^{2\pi i Q(\nu)} q^{Q(\nu)} e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi y B(\nu, c(t))^2} dt.
\end{equation*}
Using that $A$ has integer coefficients we can easily show that for $\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2$
\begin{equation*}
e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)} = e^{-2\pi i Q(a) -\pi i B(A^{-1} A^* ,a)}\ e^{2\pi iB(\nu,a+\frac{1}{2}A^{-1} A^*)},
\end{equation*}
from which the result follows.
For the modular transformation property with respect to $\tau \mapsto -1/\tau$ we would like to use a theorem by Vign\'eras, found in \cite{vigneras}, which gives a nice general result for indefinite theta functions. However, we can't use the theorem directly, because we need a slightly more general result. The main point is that the function
\begin{equation*}
f_\tau (\nu) = y^{1/2} e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)\tau} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi yB(\nu,c(t))^2}dt
\end{equation*}
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{four}
\ef(f_\tau) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\det A}}\ f_{-1/\tau}
\end{equation}
(shown below), where $\ef(f)$ is the Fourier transform of $f$, given by
\begin{equation*}
\ef(f)(\nu)= \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} f(\alpha) e^{-2\pi iB(\nu,\alpha)} d\alpha.
\end{equation*}
Note that our normalization of the Fourier transform is different from that used by Vign\'eras. We then use the Poisson summation formula
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\nu\in\mathbb{Z}^2} f(\nu) = \sum_{\nu\in A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2} \ef(f)(\nu)
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
f(\nu) = f_\tau (\nu +a) e^{2\pi iB(\nu +a,b)}
\end{equation*}
to get
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} (\tau) = \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} f_\tau(\nu) e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)} = \sum_{\nu\in\mathbb{Z}^2} f(\nu) = \sum_{\nu\in A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2} \ef(f)(\nu).
\end{equation*}
From equation \eqref{four} we then get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ef(f)(\nu) &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} f_\tau (\alpha +a) e^{2\pi i B(\alpha +a,b)-2\pi iB(\nu,\alpha )}d\alpha\\
&= \ef(f_\tau)(\nu -b) e^{2\pi iB(\nu, a)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\det A}} f_{-1/\tau} (\nu -b)\ e^{2\pi iB(\nu,a)},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b} (\tau) = \frac{e^{2\pi i B(a,b)}}{\sqrt{-\det A}} \sum_{\nu\in -b +A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2} f_{-1/\tau}(\nu)\ e^{2\pi iB(\nu,a)}=\frac{e^{2\pi i B(a,b)}}{\sqrt{-\det A}} \sum_{p\in A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2 \smod{\mathbb{Z}^2}} \widehat{\Phi}_{-b+p,a}(-1/\tau).
\end{equation*}
If we replace $\tau$ by $-1/\tau$ we get the desired result. What remains to be shown is that \eqref{four} holds. For this we could use part of the proof of Vign\'eras, by checking that $p(\nu) = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt$ satisfies a certain differential equation. However, it's fairly easy to get the result directly: we consider
\begin{equation*}
g_\tau (\nu) = y^{1/2} e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)\tau} e^{-\pi yB(\nu,c(t))^2}= y^{1/2} e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\nu,c^\perp (t))^2 -\frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\nu,c(t))^2},
\end{equation*}
where the second identity follows from \eqref{Q}. If we make the change of variables
\begin{equation*}
u= \begin{pmatrix} B(\alpha,c^\perp (t))\\ B(\alpha,c(t))\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \exp(-t) & \exp(t)\\ -\exp(-t) & \exp(t)\end{pmatrix} P\alpha,
\end{equation*}
we find
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ef(g_\tau)(\nu)&= y^{1/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\alpha,c^\perp (t))^2 -\frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\alpha,c(t))^2-2\pi i B(\nu,\alpha)}d\alpha\\
&= \frac{y^{1/2}}{2|\det P|}\int_\mathbb{R} e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau u_1^2 -\pi i v_1 u_1} du_1 \int_\mathbb{R} e^{-\frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} u_2^2 -\pi i v_2 u_2} du_2,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
v= \begin{pmatrix} \exp(-t)& \exp(t)\\ \exp(-t) & -\exp(t)\end{pmatrix} P\nu= \begin{pmatrix} B(\nu, c^\perp (t))\\ -B(\nu,c(t)) \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Now using $|\det P|=\sqrt{-\det A}$ and
\begin{equation*}
\int_\mathbb{R} e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau u_1^2 -\pi i v_1 u_1} du_1 =\sqrt{\frac{2}{-i\tau}}\ e^{-\frac{\pi i}{2} v_1^2/\tau},\qquad
\int_\mathbb{R} e^{-\frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} u_2^2 -\pi i v_2 u_2} du_2=\sqrt{\frac{2}{i\overline{\tau}}}\ e^{\frac{\pi i}{2}v_2^2/\overline{\tau}},
\end{equation*}
we get
\begin{equation*}
\ef(g_\tau) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\det A}}\ g_{-1/\tau}.
\end{equation*}
Equation \eqref{four} then follows from $f_\tau = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} g_\tau dt$ by changing the order of integration in the Fourier transform.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{split}]
The proof follows immediately if we use the following lemma with $\nu$ replaced by $\nu y^{1/2}$ and compare the different definitions. Note that each of the sums involved converges absolutely, as seen in section \ref{conv} and the absolute convergence of the sum in the definition of $\phi_{a,b}^{c_0}$ follows from the estimate for $\alpha_{t_0}$ given in the lemma, together with equation \eqref{pos} with $t=t_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem}
If $Q(\nu) \neq 0$ then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} &e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt = \alpha_{t_1}(\nu) -\alpha_{t_2}(\nu)\ +\\
&\sgn(t_2-t_1) \left( \frac{1}{2} [1-\sgn (B(\nu,c_1) B(\nu, c_2))] +\frac{1}{2} [1-\sgn (B(\nu,c_1^\perp) B(\nu, c_2^\perp))]\right) e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} K_0(2\pi \left| Q(\nu)\right|),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\left| \alpha_{t_0}(\nu) \right| \leq \frac{e^{-\pi B(\nu,c_0)^2}}{2\sqrt{B(\nu,c_0)^2+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem}]
Throughout we assume that $Q(\nu) \neq 0$. First we will show that
\begin{equation}\label{int}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt = e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} K_0(2\pi |Q(\nu)|),
\end{equation}
and if $B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)=0$ then
\begin{equation}\label{half}
\int_{t_0}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt = \frac{1}{2} e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} K_0(2\pi |Q(\nu)|).
\end{equation}
For equation \eqref{int} we observe that
\begin{equation*}
B(\nu,c(t)) = \nu^t A P^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} \exp(t)\\-\exp(-t) \end{pmatrix} = (P\nu)^t \begin{pmatrix} -\exp(-t)\\\exp(t) \end{pmatrix}= -(P\nu)_1 \exp(-t) + (P\nu)_2 \exp(t),
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation*}
B(\nu,c(t))= 2\sgn((P\nu)_2)\sqrt{Q(\nu)} \sinh \left(t+\frac{1}{2} \log \frac{(P\nu)_2}{(P\nu)_1}\right)
\end{equation*}
if $Q(\nu) = (P\nu)_1 (P\nu)_2 > 0$ and
\begin{equation*}
B(\nu,c(t))= 2\sgn((P\nu)_2)\sqrt{-Q(\nu)} \cosh \left(t+\frac{1}{2} \log \frac{-(P\nu)_2}{(P\nu)_1}\right)
\end{equation*}
if $Q(\nu) < 0$, which gives
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt = \begin{cases} \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-4\pi Q(\nu) \sinh^2 t}dt &\text{if}\ Q(\nu)>0,\\
\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{4\pi Q(\nu) \cosh^2 t}dt &\text{if}\ Q(\nu)<0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Now using $\sinh^2 t =\frac{1}{2} (-1+\cosh 2t)$ and $\cosh^2 t =\frac{1}{2} (1+\cosh 2t)$ we see that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt = e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-2\pi |Q(\nu)| \cosh 2t} dt= e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} K_0(2\pi |Q(\nu)|),
\end{equation*}
where in the last step we used the integral representation
\begin{equation*}
K_0 (x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-x \cosh 2t} dt,
\end{equation*}
which follows directly from (see formula 9.6.24 in \cite{stegun})
\begin{equation*}
K_0 (x) = \int_0^\infty e^{-x \cosh t} dt.
\end{equation*}
To prove \eqref{half} we first observe that
\begin{equation*}
c(t_0+t) = c_0 \cosh t + c_0^\perp \sinh t,
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation}\label{integral}
\int_{t_0}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t_0+t))^2}dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-\pi (B(\nu,c_0)\cosh t +B(\nu,c_0^\perp)\sinh t)^2}dt.
\end{equation}
If $B(\nu,c_0^\perp) =0$ this equals
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^\infty e^{-\pi B(\nu,c_0)^2 \cosh^2 t}dt = e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0)^2} \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0)^2 \cosh 2t}dt= \frac{1}{2} e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0)^2} K_0\left(\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0)^2\right),
\end{equation*}
and if $B(\nu,c_0) =0$ we get
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^\infty e^{-\pi B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2 \sinh^2 t}dt = e^{\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2} \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2 \cosh 2t}dt= \frac{1}{2} e^{\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2} K_0\left(\frac{\pi}{2} B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2\right).
\end{equation*}
In both cases we obtain \eqref{half} by using equation \eqref{Q} with $t=t_0$.
Let $\alpha_{t_0}$ be as defined in the Theorem \ref{split}. Using equations \eqref{int} and \eqref{half} we rewrite it as
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_{t_0}(\nu) = \int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt - \frac{1}{2}[1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp))]\ e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} K_0 (2\pi |Q(\nu)|),
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{t_1}(\nu)-\alpha_{t_2}(\nu) &= \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt\ +\\
& + \frac{1}{2} [\sgn(B(\nu,c_1)B(\nu,c_1^\perp))-\sgn(B(\nu,c_2)B(\nu,c_2^\perp))]\ e^{2\pi Q(\nu)} K_0 (2\pi |Q(\nu)|).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
If we can show that for $\nu \neq 0$ (note that $Q(\nu)\neq 0$)
\begin{equation}\label{signs}
\begin{split}
-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1)&B(\nu,c_1^\perp))+\sgn(B(\nu,c_2)B(\nu,c_2^\perp))\\
&= \sgn(t_2-t_1) \bigl\{[1-\sgn (B(\nu,c_1) B(\nu, c_2))] + [1-\sgn (B(\nu,c_1^\perp) B(\nu, c_2^\perp))]\bigr\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
then the result follows. We will prove \eqref{signs} for $t_1<t_2$. The result for $t_1>t_2$ then follows if we interchange $c_1$ and $c_2$. We observe that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
c_2 &= \cosh (t_2-t_1) c_1 + \sinh (t_2-t_1) c_1^\perp,\\
c_2^\perp &= \sinh (t_2-t_1) c_1 + \cosh (t_2-t_1) c_1^\perp,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation}\label{rel}
\begin{pmatrix} B(\nu,c_2)\\ B(\nu,c_2^\perp)\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh(t_2-t_1) & \sinh(t_2-t_1)\\ \sinh (t_2-t_1) & \cosh (t_2-t_1) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} B(\nu,c_1)\\B(\nu,c_1^\perp)\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
If $\nu\neq 0$ then $B(\nu, c_1)$ and $B(\nu,c_1^\perp)$ are not both zero, and since both sides in equation \eqref{signs} are even, it suffices to check it for the case that $B(\nu,c_1),B(\nu,c_1^\perp) \geq 0$ (not both with equality) and the case that $B(\nu,c_1)>0$ and $B(\nu,c_1^\perp)<0$. In the first case we get from equation \eqref{rel} and $t_1<t_2$ that $B(\nu,c_2),B(\nu,c_2^\perp)>0$ and we can verify that equation \eqref{signs} holds. In the second case we get from
\begin{equation*}
\begin{pmatrix} B(\nu,c_1)\\ B(\nu,c_1^\perp)\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh(t_2-t_1) & -\sinh(t_2-t_1)\\ -\sinh (t_2-t_1) & \cosh (t_2-t_1) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} B(\nu,c_2)\\B(\nu,c_2^\perp)\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
that we can't have both $B(\nu,c_2)\leq0$ and $B(\nu,c_2^\perp)\geq 0$, since that would mean that $B(\nu,c_1)\leq 0$, and so we have that $B(\nu,c_2)>0$ or $B(\nu,c_2^\perp)<0$. If both cases we can verify that equation \eqref{signs} holds.
To finish the proof we establish the estimate for $\alpha_{t_0}$: assuming $B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)\geq 0$ and $t\geq 0$ we have $\sinh t \geq t$ and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
(B(\nu,c_0)\cosh t &+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)\sinh t)^2\\&= B(\nu,c_0)^2 +\left( B(\nu,c_0)^2+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2\right)\sinh^2 t + B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)\sinh 2t\\
&\geq B(\nu,c_0)^2 +\left( B(\nu,c_0)^2+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2\right) t^2
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and so we get from equation \eqref{integral}
\begin{equation*}
\int_{t_0}^{\infty} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt \leq e^{-\pi B(\nu,c_0)^2} \int_0^\infty e^{-\pi (B(\nu,c_0)^2+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2)t^2} dt= \frac{e^{-\pi B(\nu,c_0)^2}}{2\sqrt{B(\nu,c_0)^2+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2}}.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, we find that if $B(\nu,c_0)B(\nu,c_0^\perp)\leq 0$ then
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-\infty}^{t_0} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2}dt \leq \frac{e^{-\pi B(\nu,c_0)^2}}{2\sqrt{B(\nu,c_0)^2+B(\nu,c_0^\perp)^2}},
\end{equation*}
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{diff}]
Using equation \eqref{Q} and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} c(t) = c^\perp (t), \qquad
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} c^\perp(t) = c(t),
\end{equation*}
it is straightforward to check that
\begin{equation*}
\left( \Delta_0 -\frac{1}{4} \right) \left\{ y^{1/2} e^{2\pi i Q(\nu)\tau - \pi y B(\nu,c(t))^2} \right\}= \frac{\pi}{2} y^{3/2} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left\{B(\nu,c(t)) B(\nu,c^\perp(t)) e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\nu,c^\perp(t))^2 - \frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\nu,c(t))^2}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
If we use this in the definition of $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$ we find
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\left( \Delta_0 -\frac{1}{4} \right) \widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2} (\tau)= \frac{\pi}{2} y^{3/2} \cdot\\
&\cdot \sum_{\nu\in a+\mathbb{Z}^2} \left\{ B(\nu,c_2) B(\nu,c_2^\perp) e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\nu,c_2^\perp)^2 - \frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\nu,c_2)^2} - B(\nu,c_1) B(\nu,c_1^\perp) e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\nu,c_1^\perp)^2 - \frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\nu,c_1)^2}\right\} e^{2\pi i B(\nu,b)}\\
&\qquad \qquad = \frac{\pi}{2} \left(\theta_{a,b}^{c_2} (\tau)- \theta_{a,b}^{c_1}(\tau)\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where in the last step we split the sum into two parts, which is justified, because each part converges individually. This follows from
\begin{equation*}
\left| e^{\frac{\pi i}{2} \tau B(\nu,c^\perp)^2 - \frac{\pi i}{2} \overline{\tau} B(\nu,c)^2}\right|= e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} y (B(\nu,c)^2+B(\nu,c^\perp)^2)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of $\phi_{a,b}^c$ and the action of $\operatorname{Aut}^+ (Q,\mathbb{Z}^2)$}
We consider the group of matrices that leave both the quadratic form and the lattice $\mathbb{Z}^2$ invariant, that is
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{Aut} (Q,\mathbb{Z}^2) =\left\{ \gamma \in \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{R}) \left|\ \gamma^t A \gamma = A,\ \gamma \mathbb{Z}^2=\mathbb{Z}^2\right.\right\}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\gamma$ be an element of this group and let $c\in C_Q$, then $Q(\gamma c) =Q(c)$, so $\gamma C_Q$ is either $C_Q$ or $-C_Q$. Similarly, $\gamma$ can send one of the components of the set of vectors $c\in\mathbb{R}^2$ with $Q(c)=1$ either to itself or the opposite component. We consider only matrices $\gamma$ that leave $C_Q$ invariant, i.e.\ $B(\gamma c,c)<0$ for all $c\in C_Q$, and have determinant 1, so that they also fix the components of $\{c\in\mathbb{R}^2 \mid Q(c)=1\}$. The group of such matrices we denote by $\operatorname{Aut}^+ (Q,\mathbb{Z}^2)$, that is
\begin{equation*}
\operatorname{Aut}^+ (Q,\mathbb{Z}^2):= \left\{ \gamma \in \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{R}) \left|\ Q \circ \gamma = Q,\ \gamma \mathbb{Z}^2=\mathbb{Z}^2,\ \gamma C_Q=C_Q\ \text{and}\ \det(\gamma)=1 \right.\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{lemma}\label{phi}
Let $\phi_{a,b}^c$ be as defined in Theorem \ref{split}. For $c\in C_Q$ and $a,b\in \mathbb{R}^2$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\phi_{a+\lambda,b+\mu}^c &=e^{2\pi iB(a,\mu)} \phi_{a,b}^c \qquad \text{for all}\ \lambda\in\mathbb{Z}^2\ \text{and}\ \mu\in A^{-1} \mathbb{Z}^2,\\
\phi_{-a,-b}^c &= \phi_{a,b}^c,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\gamma a,\gamma b}^{\gamma c} = \phi_{a,b}^c \qquad \text{for all}\ \gamma\in\operatorname{Aut}^+ (Q,\mathbb{Z}^2).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of the lemma]
The relations given in the first two equations are completely analogous to those given in Theorem \ref{modtrans} and are again trivial. The last part follows directly if we replace $\nu$ by $\gamma\nu$ in the definition of $\phi_{a,b}^c$ and use that
\begin{equation}\label{transalpha}
\alpha_{\gamma t_0} (\gamma \nu) = \alpha_{t_0}(\nu),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma t_0$ denotes the value of the parameter $t$ such that $c(\gamma t_0) = \gamma c(t_0)$. To prove \eqref{transalpha} we note that $c^\perp (\gamma t_0) =\gamma c_0^\perp$ and so $B(\nu,c_0) B(\nu,c_0^\perp)$ doesn't change if we replace both $\nu$ by $\gamma\nu$ and $t_0$ by $\gamma t_0$. Therefore it suffices to show
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_{\gamma t_0}^\infty e^{-\pi B(\gamma \nu,c(t))^2} dt &= \int_{t_0}^\infty e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2} dt,\\
\int_{-\infty}^{\gamma t_0} e^{-\pi B(\gamma \nu,c(t))^2} dt &= \int_{-\infty}^{t_0} e^{-\pi B(\nu,c(t))^2} dt.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The first follows directly if we use \eqref{integral} on both sides and the proof of the second is similar.
\end{proof}
\section{An example: $\sigma$ revisited}\label{example}
As an example we take $A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 3&0\\0&-2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $c_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -2\\3\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, $c_2 =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2\\3\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, and consider
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi} := \begin{pmatrix} \widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)}\\ \sqrt{2}\ \widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)} \\ \sqrt{2}\ \widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)}\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Using Theorem \ref{modtrans} we can determine the modular transformation properties of $\widehat{\Phi}$, to find
\begin{equation}\label{mod}
\widehat{\Phi} (\tau +1) = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} \zeta_{24} & 0 & 0\\0&0&\zeta_{48}^5\\0&\zeta_{48}^{-7}&0\end{smallmatrix}\right) \widehat{\Phi}(\tau) \qquad \text{and}\qquad \widehat{\Phi} (-1/\tau) = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1&0\\1&0&0\\0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right) \widehat{\Phi}(\tau),
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_n:= e^{2\pi i/n}$. Note that if we use the theorem for the transformation $\tau \mapsto -1/\tau$, we get the sum of 6 terms (because $A$ has determinant $-6$), but using the relations given in the theorem, together with the extra relation (which we will prove below)
\begin{equation}\label{extra}
\widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}-a_1\\a_2\end{smallmatrix}\bigr),\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}-b_1\\b_2\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)} = \widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}a_1\\a_2\end{smallmatrix}\bigr),\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}b_1\\b_2\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)}
\end{equation}
we can see that some of those terms are zero and that the others are multiples of each other.
We can take
\begin{equation*}
c(t) = \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \sinh t\\ \cosh t\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation*}
which gives $t_1=-t_2$. We then get equation \eqref{extra} by replacing both $\nu_1$ by $-\nu_1$ and $t$ by $-t$ in the definition of $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}^{c_1,c_2}$.
From equation \eqref{mod} we see that $\widehat{\Phi}$ transforms like a vector-valued modular function on the full modular group. Using that $\Gamma_0(2)$ is generated by $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&1\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\2&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)=- \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-2\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ we can easily verify that for the first component of $\widehat{\Phi}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{mt}
\widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)} \left( \frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right) = v(\gamma)\ \widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)} (\tau)\qquad \text{for all}\ \gamma=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\right) \in \Gamma_0(2),
\end{equation}
where $v$ is a multiplier system defined uniquely by
\begin{equation*}
v\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&1\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right) = v\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\2&1\end{smallmatrix}\right) = \zeta_{24}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\gamma = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 5&4\\6&5\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Then $\gamma \in \operatorname{Aut}^+(Q,\mathbb{Z}^2)$, $c_2=\gamma c_1$ and we can easily verify using Lemma \ref{phi} that
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)}^{c_1} = \phi_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)}^{c_2},
\end{equation*}
and so we get from Theorem \ref{split}
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)} = \Phi_{\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1/6\\1/4\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)}=\zeta_{12}\ \phi_0,
\end{equation*}
where $\phi_0$ is Cohen's function. Hence we have reshown that $\phi_0$ is a Maass waveform, with the modular transformation properties explicitly given in \eqref{mt}.
In for example \cite{kane,corson,lovejoy} we find more examples where functions like $\sigma$ and $\sigma^*$ show up. We could consider the corresponding function $\widehat{\Phi}_{a,b}$ and determine its modular transformation behaviour explicitly, like we did here for $\sigma$ and $\sigma^*$. We leave the details to the reader.
\section{A family of Maass waveforms}
We now construct a family of examples were we get Maass waveforms. To get a nice formulation we consider a slightly different version of $\Phi$. For this we consider periodic functions on $\mathbb{Z}^2$, that is, functions $m$ for which there is an $L\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
m(\nu+\mu) =m(\nu)\qquad \text{for all}\ \nu\in\mathbb{Z}^2\ \text{and}\ \mu\in L\mathbb{Z}^2.
\end{equation*}
\begin{definition}
Let $c_1,c_2\in C_Q$ and let $m$ be a periodic function on $\mathbb{Z}^2$. For $\tau=x+iy\in\Ha$ we define
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Phi_m^{c_1,c_2} (\tau) &:= \sgn(t_2-t_1)\ y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in \mathbb{Z}^2} \frac{1}{2}\Bigl[1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1)B(\nu,c_2))\Bigr] m(\nu) e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)x} K_0(2\pi Q(\nu) y)\\
&\ + \sgn(t_2-t_1)\ y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in\mathbb{Z}^2} \frac{1}{2}\Bigl[1-\sgn(B(\nu,c_1^\perp)B(\nu,c_2^\perp))\Bigr] m(\nu) e^{2\pi iQ(\nu)x} K_0(-2\pi Q(\nu) y).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
Then we have
\begin{theorem}
Let $c\in C_Q$ and suppose we have a finite collection $\{ (m_j,\gamma_j)\}$, where $m_j$ is a periodic function on $\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $Q$ is non-zero on its support, and $\gamma_j\in \operatorname{Aut}^+ (Q,\mathbb{Z}^2)$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j} (m_j -m_j\circ \gamma_j) =0,
\end{equation*}
then $\sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c}$ is a weight 0 Maass form (on some subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, with some multiplier system), with eigenvalue 1/4 of the Laplace operator $\Delta_0$. Further $\sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c}$ is independent of $c$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}That it's an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator follows from the differential equation for $K_0$. To show that it transforms like a modular function we need
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\widehat{\Phi}_m^{c_1,c_2} (\tau) &:= y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in \mathbb{Z}^2} m(\nu)\ q^{Q(\nu)} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} e^{-\pi y B(\nu, c(t))^2} dt,\\
\phi_m^{c_0} (\tau) &:= y^{1/2} \sum_{\nu\in\mathbb{Z}^2} m(\nu)\ \alpha_{t_0}(\nu y^{1/2})\ q^{Q(\nu)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
As in Theorem \ref{split} we have
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\Phi}_m^{c_1,c_2} = \Phi_m^{c_1,c_2} +\phi_m^{c_1} -\phi_m^{c_2},
\end{equation*}
and as in Lemma \ref{phi}
\begin{equation}\label{inte}
\phi_{m\circ \gamma^{-1}}^{\gamma c} = \phi_m^c,
\end{equation}
and so
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_j \widehat{\Phi}_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c} &= \sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c} + \sum_j \left\{ \phi_{m_j}^c - \phi_{m_j}^{\gamma_j c}\right\}= \sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c} + \sum_j \left\{ \phi_{m_j}^c - \phi_{m_j \circ \gamma_j}^{c}\right\}\\
&= \sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c} + \phi_{\sum_j (m_j-m_j\circ \gamma_j)}^c= \sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we used that $m\mapsto \phi_m^c$ is linear. We can write each $m_j$ as a finite linear combination $\sum_l d_{j,l}\ e^{2\pi iB(\nu,b_{j,l})}$ and so we get $\widehat{\Phi}_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c}$ as a finite linear combination $\sum_l d_{j,l} \widehat{\Phi}_{0,b_{j,l}}^{c,\gamma_j c}$. Using Theorem \ref{modtrans} we then see that $\sum_j \widehat{\Phi}_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c}=\sum_i \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c}$ transforms like a modular function on some subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$.
Similar to \eqref{inte} we have
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{m\circ \gamma^{-1}}^{\gamma c_1,\gamma c_2} = \Phi_{m}^{c_1,c_2},
\end{equation*}
for all $\gamma\in\operatorname{Aut}^+(Q,\mathbb{Z}^2)$, and so
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c} - \Phi_{m_j}^{\overline{c},\gamma_j \overline{c}} = \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\overline{c}} - \Phi_{m_j}^{\gamma_j c,\gamma_j \overline{c}} =\Phi_{m_j}^{c,\overline{c}} - \Phi_{m_j\circ \gamma_j}^{ c,\overline{c}}= \Phi_{m_j-m_j\circ \gamma_j}^{c,\overline{c}},
\end{equation*}
where in the first step we used that $\Phi_m^{c_1,c_2}+\Phi_m^{c_2,c_3} = \Phi_m^{c_1,c_3}$, which follows from \eqref{signs}. If we now sum over all $j$ we get
\begin{equation*}
\sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{c,\gamma_j c}=\sum_j \Phi_{m_j}^{\overline{c},\gamma_j \overline{c}},
\end{equation*}
which shows the last part of the theorem.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Extremal Black Holes}
The problem of constructing stationary solutions of a theory in
$d+1$ dimensions can be reduced to the problem of constructing
solutions of a Euclidean theory in $d$ dimensions \cite{NKaBMG, Stelle}.
If all relevant
fields fit into a scalar sigma model, one is essentially left with
solving the second order field equations for the scalars.
This method is very powerful
and allows the construction of, for example, multi-centered extremal black
hole solutions in a very simple and systematic way, provided that the
scalar manifold satisfies certain integrability conditions. In \cite{MohWai}
this approach was applied to a class of five-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar
type theories, which can be thought of as a natural generalization
of (the bosonic sector of) five-dimensional vector supermultiplets.
In this article we review the construction of the solutions and some
of their properties.
\subsection{Dimensional Reduction}
Our starting part is a five-dimensional action of the following
form:
\[
S = \int d^5 x \sqrt{g_5} \left( \frac{1}{2} R_5 - \frac{3}{4}
a_{IJ}(\sigma) \partial_\mu h^I \partial^\mu h^J - \frac{1}{4}
a_{IJ}(h) F^I_{\mu \nu} F^{J|\mu \nu} + \cdots \right)_{\hat{\cal V}(h)=1} \;.
\]
Besides gravity this theory contains $n$ gauge
fields $A^I_{\mu}$, with field strength $F^I_{\mu \nu}$, where
$I=1, \ldots, n$, and $n-1$ scalars. The scalars are assumed to take values on
a smooth hypersurface of an $n$-dimensional manifold, which is given
by the equation $\hat{\cal V}(h) = 1$, where $h^I$ are coordinates
on the manifold, and
where $\hat{\cal V}(h^I)$ is a homogeneous function of degree $p$.
The metric on the $n$-dimensional space is of the
form
\[
a_{IJ}(h) = - \frac{1}{p} \frac{\partial^2 \log \hat{\cal V}(h)}{
\partial h^I \partial h^J}
\;.
\]
In the above action it is understood that the $n$ fields $h^I$ are
subject to the hypersurface constraint $\hat{\cal V}(h)=1$. We could
solve this constraint in terms of $n-1$ independent fields, but this
would turn out to be inconvenient. If $\hat{\cal V}(h)$ is a homogeneous
polynomial of degree $p=3$, the above terms are part
of the action of five-dimensional supergravity with
$n$ vector multiplets \cite{GST}.
The bosonic part of the supergravity action also contains
a Chern-Simons term, but as we are only interested in stationary solutions
carrying electric, but no magnetic charge, then the above
truncation is consistent. We will allow that $p\not=3$ and thus
consider a class of non-supersymmetric theories which have a similar
structure, and which in particular are completeley determined by the
choice of a prepotential $\hat{\cal V}(h)$.
We reduce the five-dimensional theory with respect
to time, using the following decomposition of the metric
\[
ds_5^2 = - e^{2 \tilde{\sigma}}(dt + {\cal A}_m dx^m)^2 + e^{-\tilde{\sigma}}
ds_4^2 \;,
\]
and obtain the following four-dimensional Euclidean action:
\[
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{g_4} \left( \frac{1}{2} R_4 - \frac{1}{2}
N_{IJ}(\sigma) (\partial_m \sigma^I \partial^m \sigma^J
- \partial_m b^I \partial^m b^J) + \cdots \right)\;.
\]
We have omitted the gauge fields because they correspond to magnetic
degrees of freedom of the five-dimensional theory. The $n$ scalars $b^I$
descend from the five-dimensional electro-static potentials $A_0^I$ and
have axionic shift symmetries $b^I \rightarrow b^I + C^I$, where $C^I$
are constant. The Kaluza Klein scalar $\tilde{\sigma}$ has been
absorbed by rescaling the five-dimensional scalars. The resulting
four-dimensional
scalars $\sigma^I = e^{\tilde{\sigma}} h^I$ are therefore $n$ independent
fields. The scalar metric $N_{IJ}(\sigma)$ is given by
\[
N_{IJ} (\sigma) = - \frac{3}{2p} \frac{\partial^2 \log \hat{\cal V}(\sigma)}
{\partial \sigma^I \partial \sigma^J} \;.
\]
To solve the four-dimensional Euclidean equations of motion
we will assume that the metric is flat,
$g^{(4)}_{mn} = \delta_{mn}$. This implies that the five-dimensional
line element has a form which is known to occur for
five-dimensional extremal black holes. To solve the four-dimensional
Einstein equations, we need to
impose that the energy-momentum tensor of the scalars vanishes identically.
This condition is easily seen to be equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{Constraint}
N_{IJ}(\sigma) \left( \partial_m \sigma^I \partial_n \sigma^J -
\partial_m b^I \partial_n b^J \right) = 0 \;.
\end{equation}
The remaining scalar equations of motion take the form
\[
\partial^m ( N_{IJ} \partial_m \sigma^J) - \frac{1}{2} \partial_I N_{JK}
(\partial_m \sigma^I \partial^m \sigma^J - \partial_m b^I \partial^m b^J)
= 0 \;,\;\;\
\partial^m (N_{IJ} \partial_m b^J ) = 0 \;.
\]
The equations of motion of $b^I$ are the current conservation equations
corresponding to the shift symmetries $b^I \rightarrow b^I + C^I$,
which are remnants of the five-dimensional gauge symmetries.
We observe that the ansatz
$\partial_m \sigma^I = \pm \partial_m b^I$
solves the constraint (\ref{Constraint}) and reduces the equations of
motion to
\[
\partial^m ( N_{IJ} \partial_m \sigma^J ) =0 \;.
\]
It follows that if there exists dual fields $\sigma_I$, such that
$\partial_m \sigma_I = N_{IJ} \partial_m \sigma^J$, then the equations
of motion take the form of harmonic equations $\Delta \sigma_I =0$,
and the solution can be expressed in terms of $n$ harmonic functions
$H_I (x)$. The existence of dual fields $\sigma_I$ requires that the
integrability condition $\partial_{[m} (N_{IJ} \partial_{n]} \sigma^J)=0$
is satisfied. This has two obvious classes of solutions: i) the
solution only depends one coordinate. This leads, for spherical symmetry,
to single-centered black holes solutions, or, for translational symmetry,
to domain-wall type solutions. ii) The scalar metric satisfies
$\partial_{[I} N_{J]K}=0$, which is the integrability condition for the
existence of a Hesse potential ${\cal V}$ for the metric
$N_{IJ} = {\cal V}_{IJ} := \partial^2_{I,J} {\cal V}$.
In this case no condition needs
to be imposed on the space-time geometry. By construction, the
scalar metric considered here have the Hesse potential: ${\cal V} =
- \frac{3}{2p} \log \hat{\cal V}$. The dual scalars
are given by the first derivatives of the Hesse potential:
\[
\sigma_I = {\cal V}_I \simeq \frac{\hat{\cal V}_I}{\hat{\cal V}} \;.
\]
Thus, given the Hesse potential, the dual fields can always be found
explicitly. However, it is not guaranteed that we can express
the original sclars $\sigma^I$ in closed form
in terms of the dual scalars $\sigma_I$, and, hence in terms of the
harmonic functions.
If we assume that the scalar fields
approach constant values at infinity, the simplest type of solution
is given by multi-centered harmonic functions
\[
\sigma_I (x) = H_I(x) = h_I + \sum_{a=1}^N \frac{q_{aI}}{(x-x_{(a)})^2} \;.
\]
Whereas $h_I$ encode the values of the scalars at infinity, the
coefficients $q_{aI}$ measure the charges (with respect to the
shift symmetries) located at centers $x_{(a)}$. The total charges
$Q_I$ are obtained by summing over the centers. Note that the
charges associated with the shift symmetries can be written as
surface integrals:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_I &:=& \int d^4 x \partial^m ( N_{IJ} \partial_m b^J) =
\pm \oint d^3 \Sigma^m N_{IJ} \partial_m \sigma^J \nonumber \\
&=&
\pm \oint d^3 \Sigma^m \partial_m \sigma_I =
\pm 2 \pi^2 \sum_{a=1}^N (-2) q_{aI} \;. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Dimensional Lifting}
We now lift the solution of the four-dimensional Euclidean
theory to five dimensions. The resulting line element is
\[
ds_5^2 = - e^{2\tilde{\sigma}(x)} dt^2 + e^{-\tilde{\sigma}}
\delta_{mn} dx^m dx^n \;,
\]
where $\tilde{\sigma}$ is given in terms of the four-dimensional
scalars by $e^{\tilde{\sigma}} = \hat{\cal V}(\sigma)^{1/p}$.
Rewriting $\sigma_I(x) = {\cal V}_I = H_I (x)$ in terms of
the five-dimensional scalars $h^I = e^{-\tilde{\sigma}} \sigma^I$, we obtain
by
\[
e^{-\tilde{\sigma}} \frac{\partial \hat{\cal V}}{\partial h^I } =
H_I \;,
\]
which are, in the supersymmetric case, precisely the so-called generalized
stabilization equations \cite{ChaSab}.
If we approach the center at $x_{(a)}$, the
asymptotic behaviour of the harmonic functions is
$H_I \approx\frac{q_{aI}}{r^2}$,
where $r = x - x_{(a)}$.
In the limit $r\rightarrow 0$ we obtain
the five-dimensional stabilization or attractor equations \cite{ChaSab}
\[
Z_{a} \left. \frac{\partial \hat{\cal V}}{\partial h^I}
\right|_{x=x_{(a)}} = q_{aI} \;,
\]
where $Z_{a} = \lim_{(x-x_{(a)}) \rightarrow 0} (r^2 e^{-\tilde{\sigma}})$.
Thus the asymptotic solution is completely determined by the charges at the
center, which is a manifestation of the black hole attractor
mechanism \cite{Attractor}. Note that the near center
limit is (generically) finite, because $\sigma_I \sim r^{-2}$
implies, by homogeneity of $\hat{\cal V}$, that $e^{-\tilde{\sigma}} \sim
r^{-2}$. Homogeneity can be used to solve for $Z_a$,
\[
Z_a = \frac{1}{d} q_{aI}h^I_{x=x_{(a)}}
\]
The asymptotic value of $\tilde{\sigma}$ is given by
$e^{-\tilde{\sigma}} \approx \frac{Z_a}{r^2}$, and the resulting
asympototic
metric at the center is $AdS^2 \times S^3$:
\[
ds^2 = - \frac{r^4}{Z_a^2} dt^2 + \frac{Z_a}{r^2} dr^2 + Z_a d \Omega_3^2
\]
This shows that we obtain, if all $Z_a$ are positive,
a static configuration of
extremal black holes with charges $q_{aI}$ and entropies
\[
S_a = \frac{1}{4}A_a = \frac{\pi^2}{2} Z_a^{3/2} \;.
\]
Positivity of the $Z_a$ imposes inequalities on the parameters
$q_{aI}$, which are, up to normalization and overall sign, the
electric charges carried by the centers. This is clear because
the five-dimensional electric charges are proportional to the
charges associated to the four-dimensional shift symmetry.
The charges determine the asymptotic values of the scalars, and positive
$Z_a$ guarantee that the fixed point values approached by the
scalars at the center $x_{(a)}$ correspond to a
regular point of the scalar manifold. Vanishing
$Z_a$ can be arranged by non-generic choices of the charges, for example
by putting sufficiently many charges to zero. This corresponds to
a degenerate black hole horizon with vanishing area, and to scalar
fields running off to infinity on the scalar manifold.
For negative $Z_a$ this running off already occurs before
the center is reached, resulting in a singularity of the space-time
metric.
The mass of the multi-centered black hole solution can be computed
by the ADM formula, with the result
\[
M_{ADM}
= |h^I_\infty Q_I| \;,
\]
where $h^I_\infty$ are the values of the scalars at infinity, and
where $Q_I$ are the total charges obtained by summing over the centers .
\subsection{Discussion and concluding remarks}
We have seen that using dimensional reduction over time,
it becomes surprisingly simple to construct
multi-centered extremal black hole solutions and to obtain
the attractor equations which govern the near horizon fixed
point behaviour. Our method does not require supersymmetry,
or the reduction of the field equations to first order equations,
but uses an integrability condition imposed on the scalar metric
in order to manipulate the second order field equations until
they have been reduced to harmonic equations. Note that the integrability
condition, while satisfied in supersymmetric theories, does not
require that the underlying theory is supersymmetric, but applies
to a larger class. A deeper understanding why the method, which we
presented in a simple, pedestrian fashion in this article, works
so surprisingly well, can be obtained by a detailed analysis of
the geometry of the scalar sigma models occuring in the construction.
For this the reader is referred to \cite{EucIII,MohWai},
which contains a more comprehensive list of literature, which
puts this work into the context of other recent work on
black holes, and which discusses the four-dimensional
Euclidean solutions in their own right.
{\bf Acknowledgement:}
T.M. would like to thank G. Zoupanos and all the other organizers
of the Corfu 2009 School and Workshop for the organization of a
stimulating meeting and the opportunity to present
this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper we work in the $C^\infty$-category:
any manifold, function, diffeomorphism, form, vector field e.t.c.\
are to be of class $C^\infty$.
Let $X$ be a nonsingular vector field on a closed manifold $M$
that defines a flow $\varphi^t$.
\begin{definition} \label{def1}
\rm The flow $\varphi^t$
is called {\em parameter rigid}
if for any function $f$ on $M$, there are a function $g$ and a constant
$c$ such that $f=X(g)+c$ holds.
\end{definition}
It is well known and easy to show
that the parameter rigidity is equivalent to the following
property: if $\psi^t$ be another nonsingular flow
defined
by a vector field $fX$, where $f$ is a nowhere vanishing function,
then there are an orbit preserving diffeomorphism $F$ of $M$ and a nonzero
constant $c$ such that
$$
\psi^t(F(x))=F(\varphi^{ct}(x)).
$$
The only known examples of parameter rigid flows are Kronecker flows on tori with
badly approximable (sometimes called Diophantine or non-Liouville) slope, and A. Katok has conjectured that in fact they are the all
(\cite{K}).
In this paper we show a partial result supporting this conjecture.
\begin{theorem} \label{t1}
A parameter rigid flow on a closed orientable 3-manifold
is smoothly conjugate to
a linear flow on the 3-torus with badly approximable slope.
\end{theorem}
At Paulfest, A. Kocsard has announced the same result (\cite{Ko}).
The method of this paper cannot be applied to the nonorientable
3-manifolds. The difficulty lies in showing that the lift of
a parameter rigid flow to the orientable double cover is
again parameter rigid.
Thanks are due to the unanimous referee, whose valuable comments
are helpful for the shorter and clearer arguments.
\section{General properties of parameter rigid flows}
Here we collect some basic facts needed in
the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}.
Let $\varphi^t$ be a parameter rigid flow on a closed
$(n+1)$-dimensional manifold, defined by a nonsingular
vector field $X$.
\\[2mm]
(1) {\em The flow $\varphi^t$ is uniquely ergodic, leaves a
volume form $\Omega$ invariant, and hence is minimal.}
\smallskip
Indeed the Birkhoff average of any smooth function tends to
a constant, which is enough for the unique ergodicity, since
the smooth functions are dense in the space of continuous
functions. For the second statement, let $\Omega_0$ be
an arbitrary volume form and define a function $f$
by ${\mathcal L}_X\Omega_0=f\Omega_0$. Then $\Omega=e^{-g}\Omega_0$
is the desired form, where $g$ is the function obtained
by Definition \ref{def1}.
\\[2mm]
(2) {\em The function $g$ in Definition \ref{def1} is unique up
to a constant sum, and the constant $c$ is given by}
$c=\int_Mf\Omega$.
\smallskip
In fact if $X(h)$ is constant, then it should be 0,
and the minimality of the flow implies that $h$ is constant.
\\[2mm]
(3) {\em The vector space $\Lambda^n(X)$ consisting
of $n$-forms $\omega$ such that
$i_X\omega=i_Xd\omega=0$ is one dimensional, spanned by
$i_X\Omega$.}
\smallskip
Indeed $i_X\Omega$ belongs to $\Lambda^n(X)$ and any $n$-form
in $\Lambda^n(X)$ is a function multiple of $i_X\Omega$.
Taking the Lie derivative, one can show the function is
constant.
\smallskip
A 1-form $\alpha$ is called {\em normal} if $\alpha(X)$ is constant.
The {\em normalization} $\alpha$ of any 1-form $\alpha'$ is defined
to be $\alpha=\alpha'-dg$, where $g$ is a function (unique
up to constant sum) such that
$\alpha'(X)=X(g)+c$.
\\[2mm]
(4) {\em A closed normal 1-form $\alpha$ is invariant
by the flow
i.\ e.\ ${\mathcal L}_X\alpha=0$.
By the minimality of the flow, it is either identically zero or nonsingular.}
\smallskip
Let $\Lambda^1(X)$ be the space of closed normal 1-forms and let
$\epsilon:\Lambda^1(X)\to H^1(M;{\mathbb R})$ be the map assigning the
cohomology class to each form.
\\[2mm]
(5){\em The homomorphism $\epsilon$ is an isomorphism.}
\smallskip
Indeed the normalization of each closed form belongs to $\Lambda^1(X)$,
showing the surjectivity of $\epsilon$. On the other hand an
exact normal form
$dg$ is identically zero, since if $X(g)$ is a constant, then
$g$ is a constant.
\section{Proof of the main theorem}
Let $\varphi^t$ be a parameter rigid flow
defined by a vector field $X$ on a closed orientable
3-manifold $M$. We shall prove Theorem \ref{t1}
dividing into cases.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Case 1}. $H^1(M;{\mathbb R})\neq 0$.
\smallskip
Let $\alpha\in\Lambda^1(X)$ be a closed normal 1-form representing
an integral class. Then the equation $\alpha=0$ defines a fibration of $M$
over the circle. The constant $\alpha(X)$ cannot be 0, since
the flow is minimal. Thus the flow has
a global cross section,
say $\Sigma$. The first return map of $\Sigma$ must be minimal,
and especially it does not admit any periodic point.
Then by a theorem of Jiang \cite{J}, one can show
that $\Sigma$ is diffeomorphic to the 2-torus.
Now the first return map is cohomologically rigid
in the sense of \cite{LS} and is shown in that paper
to be conjugate to a translation by a badly approximable vector.
We have done with this case.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Case 2}. $H^1(M;{\mathbb R})=0$.
\smallskip
Let $\Omega$ be the volume form which is left invariant by $X$.
Then since
$$
{\mathcal L}_X\Omega=d\iota_X\Omega=0,
$$
there is a 1-form $u$ such that
$
\iota_X\Omega=du
$. Taking the normalization of the previous section, one may assume
that $u$ is normal, i.\ e.\
$u(X)=c_1$ is a constant. Then since $\iota_X(u\wedge du)=c_1du=\iota_X(c_1\Omega)$,
we have $u\wedge du=c_1\Omega$.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Case 2.1}. $c_1\neq 0$.
\smallskip
In this case the vector field $c_1^{-1}X$ generates the Reeb flow of a contact form $u$. The solution of the Weinstein conjecture
in \cite{T} shows that the flow admits a closed orbit, contrary to
the minimality.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Case 2.2}. $c_1=0$.
\smallskip
We have $\iota_X\Omega=du$ and $u(X)=0$.
First of all notice that $u$ is nonsingular. Indeed we have
$\mathcal L_Xu=0$, that is, $u$ is invariant by the flow $\varphi^t$.
By the minimality of the flow $\varphi^t$, vanishing of $u$ at some point
would imply that $u$ is identically zero, which is not the case since
$du$ is nonsingular. As noted before, we have $u\wedge du=0$,
that is, the 1-form $u$ is integrable,
and $du=\eta'\wedge u$ for some 1-form $\eta'$.
Notice that $\eta'(X)=0$.
We get
$$
0=d(\iota_Xdu)=\mathcal L_Xdu=\mathcal L_X\eta'\wedge u+\eta'\wedge
\mathcal L_Xu.
$$
Since $\mathcal L_Xu=0$, we have $\mathcal L_X\eta'\wedge u=0$. That is,
$\mathcal L_X\eta'=f_2u$ for some function $f_2$. Write $f_2
=X(g_2)+c_2$ and let $\eta=\eta'-g_2u$. Then we have
$$
du=\eta\wedge u , \ \ \ \eta(X)=0 \ \ \ {\rm and} \ \ \ \mathcal L_X\eta=c_2u.
$$
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Case 2.2.1}. $c_2=0$.
\smallskip
In this case we have $d\eta\in \Lambda^2(X)$, and thus by (3) of
the previous section, $d\eta=r\iota_X\Omega$ for some constant $r$.
Since $\eta\wedge u=du=\iota_X\Omega$ is nonvanishing, $ru-\eta$ is a nonzero element of $\Lambda^1(X)\cong H^1(M;{\mathbb R})$,
contrary to the assumption of Case 2.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Case 2.2.2}. $c_2\neq 0$.
\smallskip
Changing $X$ and $u$ by a scalar multiple at the same time one may assume that $\mathcal L_X\eta= -2u$ and
still $du=\iota_X\Omega$.
In summary, there are two 1-forms $u$ and $\eta$ such that
$$
du=\eta\wedge u=\iota_X\Omega, \ \ u(X)=\eta(X)=0, \ \ \iota_Xd\eta=-2u.
$$
Since $\eta\wedge u$ is nonvanishing, that is, $\eta$ and
$u$ are linearly independent everywhere, there is a 1-form
$\sigma'$ such that $\Omega=\eta\wedge u\wedge\sigma'$.
Then the triplet $\langle \eta,u,\sigma'\rangle$ is a
basis of the space of 1-forms as a module over the ring of
functions, and
likewise $\langle\eta\wedge u,u\wedge\sigma',\sigma'\wedge\eta\rangle
$ is a basis of the space of 2-forms.
Note that $\sigma'(X)=1$
since $\iota_X\Omega=du$.
Now we have:
$$
0=\mathcal L_X\Omega=\mathcal L_X(du\wedge\sigma')=\mathcal L_Xdu\wedge \sigma'+du\wedge\mathcal L_X\sigma'.
$$
But $\mathcal L_Xdu=0$, and thus we have $du\wedge\mathcal L_X\sigma'=0$.
Thus one can write
$$
\mathcal L_X\sigma'=f_3\eta+f_4u.
$$
Then there are functions $g_3$ and $g_4$ such that
$$
f_3=X(g_3)+c_3, \ \ \ f_4+2g_3=X(g_4).
$$
(In the last expression, we do not need a constant, since we can alter $g_3$
by a constant summand.)
Now computation shows that for $\sigma=\sigma'-g_3\eta-g_4u$, we have
$\mathcal L_X\sigma=c_3\eta$. Summing up, we have obtained
$$
\Omega=\eta\wedge u\wedge\sigma, \ \ \ \sigma(X)=1, \ \ \
\mathcal L_X\sigma=c_3\eta.
$$
We prepare a useful lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{l1}
If $\mathcal L_Xw=a\Omega$ for some 3-form $w$ and a constant $a$,
then $a=0$ and the form $w$ is invariant by $X$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
\begin{proof}
The proof is immediate by taking the integral over $M$.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
We are going to show that in fact the manifold $M$ is
a quotient of a 3-dimensional Lie group. For this we need to compute
$d\eta$ and $d\sigma$. First of all let
$$
d\eta=f_5\eta\wedge u+f_6\eta\wedge\sigma+f_7u\wedge\sigma.
$$
Then since $\iota_Xd\eta=-f_6\eta-f_7u=-2u$, we have $f_6=0$ and $f_7=2$,
that is, $d\eta=f_5\eta\wedge u +2u\wedge \sigma$.
Now
\begin{align*}
\mathcal L_X(\sigma\wedge d\eta)
&=c_3\eta\wedge d\eta+\sigma\wedge \mathcal L_Xd\eta\\
&=c_3\eta\wedge d\eta+\sigma\wedge d(\iota_Xd\eta)\\
&=c_3\eta\wedge d\eta+\sigma\wedge (-2du)\\
&=2c_3\eta\wedge u\wedge \sigma -2\sigma\wedge \eta\wedge u\\
&=2(c_3-1)\eta\wedge u\wedge\sigma.
\end{align*}
By lemma \ref{l1}, we have
$$
c_3=1 \ \ \ {\rm and} \ \ \ \mathcal L_X(\sigma\wedge d\eta)=0.
$$
On the other hand, we have
$$
\mathcal L_X(\sigma\wedge d\eta)=\mathcal L_X(f_5\sigma\wedge \eta\wedge u)=\mathcal L_X(f_5\Omega)
=X(f_5)\Omega.
$$
Thus by Lemma \ref{l1}, we have $X(f_5)=0$, that is, $f_5$ is a constant, say $c_5$.
In summary we obtained:
$$
\mathcal L_X\sigma=\eta, \ \ \ d\eta=c_5 \eta\wedge u +2 u\wedge \sigma.
$$
\bigskip
An unknown constant $c_5$ will be shown to be zero in the way of
computing $d\sigma$. Let
$$
d\sigma=f_8\eta\wedge u+ f_9\eta\wedge\sigma +f_{10}
u\wedge\sigma.
$$
Since $\eta=\iota_Xd\sigma=-f_9\eta-f_{10}u$, we have $f_9=-1$ and $f_{10}=0$.
That is, $d\sigma=f_8\eta\wedge u- \eta\wedge\sigma$.
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal L_X(\sigma\wedge d\sigma)
&=\eta\wedge d\sigma +\sigma\wedge \mathcal L_Xd\sigma=
0+\sigma\wedge d\eta\\
&=\sigma\wedge(c_5\eta\wedge u+2u\wedge\sigma)
=c_5\sigma\wedge \eta\wedge u=c_5\Omega.
\end{align*}
Again by Lemma \ref{l1} we conclude that $c_5=0$.
On the other hand,
$$
\mathcal L_X(\sigma\wedge d\sigma)=\mathcal L_X(f_8\sigma\wedge \eta\wedge u)=\mathcal L_X(f_8\Omega)
=X(f_8)\Omega.
$$
This implies $X(f_8)=0$. That is, $f_8$ is a constant $c_8$.
Summing up, one gets
$$
du=\eta\wedge u, \ \ d\eta=2u\wedge\sigma, \ \ d\sigma=c_8\eta\wedge u -\eta
\wedge \sigma.
$$
Letting $\hat\sigma=\sigma-c_8u$, we obtain a final conclusion.
\begin{lemma} \label{l2}
On the manifold $M$, there are three 1-forms $\eta$, $u$ and
$\hat\sigma$ such that
\begin{align*}
& \Omega=\eta\wedge u\wedge\hat\sigma, \\
& d\eta=2u\wedge\hat\sigma, \ \ \ du=\eta\wedge u, \ \ \
d\hat\sigma=-\eta\wedge\hat\sigma, \\
& \eta(X)=0, \ \ \ u(X)=0, \ \ \ \hat\sigma(X)=1.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
This lemma says that the manifold $M$ is the quotient space
of the universal cover of the Lie group ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb R})$
by a cocompact lattice, and the vector field $X$ generates the horocycle flow.
But the horocycle flow is shown not to be
parameter rigid by \cite{FF}. So this case also leads to a contradiction, and we have done with the proof of Theorem \ref{t1}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Realizations of the $AdS/CFT$ duality
\cite{Maldacena:1997re,Gubser:1998bc,Witten:1998qj}
exist in several different dimensions.
Recently,
great progress has been made on understanding the gauge theory side of the $AdS_4/CFT_3$ version of this duality.
The original upsurge in interest was
generated by the work by Bagger, Lambert and Gustavsson \cite{Bagger:2006sk,Bagger:2007jr,Bagger:2007vi,Gustavsson:2007vu}, now known as the BLG theory. The search for a description of the field theory side of the duality, i.e. a world-volume theory on M2-branes has a long history, and various obstacles had to be overcome.
For example, Schwarz had shown that it was impossible to preserve the right symmetries in Chern-Simons theories based on $U(N)$ gauge groups
\cite{Schwarz:2004yj}.
However, Bagger and Lambert managed to write down a Lagrangian with all the right symmetries: superconformal symmetry $OSp(8|4)$ and parity invariance. In the original formulation, it was a Chern-Simons theory based on an algebraic construct known as a ``3-algebra'', later reformulated as an ordinary quiver gauge theory by van Raamsdonk \cite{VanRaamsdonk:2008ft} (a possibility which was already discussed by Bandres et al. \cite{Bandres:2008vf}). However, this theory, impressive as it was, turned out not to describe more than (at most) two M2-branes\cite{Lambert:2008et,Distler:2008mk}.
In response, various attempts were made to generalize the BLG theory \cite{Gran:2008vi,Gomis:2008uv,Benvenuti:2008bt,Ho:2008ei,Bandres:2008kj,Gomis:2008be}.
This background set the stage for the breakthrough paper \cite{Aharony:2008ug}, which successfully generalized the set-up to an arbitrary number of M2-branes. This theory, now known as the ABJM model, is an $\mathcal{N}=6$ superconformal Chern-Simons field theory. It builds on previous work on superconformal Chern-Simons-matter models \cite{Gaiotto:2007qi,Gaiotto:2008sd,Hosomichi:2008jd}, but with enlarged supersymmetry.
Crucially, the superpotential in this formulation, while reducing to the BLG superpotential for gauge groups of rank 2, did not suffer from the same obstructions as the one used to define the BLG model. In particular, the ABJM model allows arbitrary ranks $N$ of the gauge group, circumventing the severe gauge group restrictions that unitarity placed on the BLG model
\cite{Gauntlett:2008uf,Papadopoulos:2008sk}
. The paper \cite{Aharony:2008ug} includes an analysis of the moduli space for
$U(N) \times U(N)$ gauge groups, showing that
$N$ M2-branes sitting on a space with a $\mathbb{Z}_k$ singularity
is in fact a consistent dual interpretation of the theory.
Various checks of this interpretation have been carried out. The conjectured $\mathcal{N}=6$ supersymmetry of the model was promptly confirmed
\cite{Benna:2008zy,Bandres:2008ry}.
Progress has been made on understanding the role of monopole operators and their relation to the expected supersymmetry enhancement to $\mathcal{N}=8$ for Chern-Simons levels $k=1,2$ \cite{Berenstein:2008dc,Klebanov:2008vq,Park:2008bk,Imamura:2009ur,Gaiotto:2009tk,SheikhJabbari:2009kr,Benna:2009xd,Gustavsson:2009pm,Berenstein:2009sa,Kwon:2009ar,Kim:2009ia,Imamura:2009hc,Kwon:2010ev}.
Calculations of the superconformal index
match between the strong and weak coupling regions
\cite{Bhattacharya:2008bja,Kim:2009wb}.
Relations back to the original BLG theory have been established in some cases \cite{Lambert:2010ji}.
There is even mounting evidence that the ABJM model is integrable
in the planar limit
\cite{Nishioka:2008gz,Minahan:2008hf,Gaiotto:2008cg,Grignani:2008is,Gromov:2008bz,Gromov:2008qe,Ahn:2008aa,Bak:2008cp,McLoughlin:2008he,Kristjansen:2008ib,Minahan:2009te,Berenstein:2009qd,Bak:2009mq,Bak:2009tq,Minahan:2009aq,Minahan:2009wg}.
Chern-Simons theories often arise in condensed matter systems, and possible applications include recent studies of the integer and fractional quantum Hall effect and Hall transitions
\cite{KeskiVakkuri:2008eb,Davis:2008nv,Fujita:2009kw,Hikida:2009tp,Alanen:2009cn}
and superconducting M2-branes
\cite{Gomis:2008vc,Gauntlett:2009zw,Denef:2009tp,Gauntlett:2009dn,Gauntlett:2009bh,Bak:2010yd}.
In this note we will study the ABJM model on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^1$ at weak coupling and finite temperature. Hence, we begin by introducing the ABJM model at finite temperatature in section
\ref{sec_abjm}.
In the dual picture, finite temperature corresponds to a black hole geometry
\cite{Witten:1998zw}.
Thermodynamic properties of the theory are most succinctly captured by the free energy.
This object has been extensively studied in the
$d=4$, $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills setting, both at weak
\cite{Fotopoulos:1998es}
and strong \cite{Gubser:1996de,Klebanov:1996un}
coupling, including corrections in inverse powers of the coupling
\cite{Gubser:1998nz}.
At weak coupling, the next to leading order correction
is due to
thermal screening
of gauge fields and scalars
\cite{VazquezMozo:1999ic,Kim:1999sg,Nieto:1999kc}.
One interesting question that we aim to study is
whether the ABJM theory also exhibits thermal screening.
In the ABJM case, the strong coupling answer was calculated by Klebanov and Tseytlin \cite{Klebanov:1996un}, and a discussion of corrections
can be found in \cite{Garousi:2008ik}.
On the gauge side, the free field theory result was obtained in \cite{Aharony:2008ug}.
Comparing the results at strong and weak coupling, there are intriguing differences between the
$\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory and the ABJM theory.
In the ABJM case the gravity result is proportional to $N^{3/2}$, which is an artifact of M2-branes, while the field theory side has $N^2$ degrees of freedom.
Moreover, the entropy goes to a constant in the strong coupling limit in the $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills case, which is in stark contrast to the $\lambda^{-1/2}$ behaviour of the ABJM case.
One motivation for us is to
make progress on understanding how these behaviours come about in ABJM theory.
Correspondingly, we compute the free energy, including the first non-vanishing quantum correction, in section
\ref{sec_perturbative}. In section \ref{sec_naive}, we show that a naive perturbation expansion does not work, which is closely related to the fact that the first non-vanishing quantum correction is indeed due to thermal screening of scalars, as we discuss in section \ref{sec_thermal_screening}. Instead, we need to use a method based on resummation of ring diagrams, as explained in section \ref{sec_reorganized}.
We then combine our results to write down the full free energy, including the leading correction, in section \ref{sec_coupling}. Our results are consistent with
a free energy which interpolates smoothly to the $N^{3/2}$ behaviour at strong coupling.
We discuss this and other issues in section
\ref{sec_conclusions}, which also contains a short summary of our results.
This note contains three appendices. In appendix \ref{app_prop}, we list propagators and Feynman rules, and explain our notation. Appendix \ref{app_thermal} contains the details of the calculation of the thermal mass for the scalars. This calculation is a crucial part of this note, but has been moved to the appendix due to its lengthy and technical nature. The main gauge used throughout this note is Coulomb gauge, which is often very convenient for thermal calculations. Appendix \ref{app_gluons} illustrates some of the difficulties with Lorentz gauge, in particular the apparent non-existence of an IR regulating mass for the gluons, which are propagating in Lorentz gauge.
\section{ABJM at finite temperature}\label{sec_abjm}
The ABJM model is a three-dimensional Chern-Simons-matter theory with gauge groups
$U(N) \times U(N)$ and $SU(N) \times SU(N)$, with $\mathcal{N}=6$ superconformal symmetry\footnote{An introduction to the ABJM model is given in \cite{Klebanov:2009sg}.}.
Other choices of gauge groups exist, most notably those which are dual to orientifolded geometries \cite{Aharony:2008gk}.
At large N, the $U(N) \times U(N)$ theory is believed to be dual to M-theory on $AdS_4 \times S^7 / \mathbb{Z}_k$.
Henceforth, we will restrict attention to the $U(N) \times U(N)$ theory. In this section, we will also define the ABJM model at finite temperature.
The ABJM model is defined by the following action\footnote{
For a discussion on pure spinor superfield
formulations, see \cite{Cederwall:2008xu,Cederwall:2008vd}.}.
\be\label{eq_action}
S \eq \frac{k}{2\pi} \int d^3x\: \Bigsbrk{
\levi^{i j k} \tr \bigbrk{
-\frac{i}{2} A_i \partial_j A_k + \tfrac{1}{3} A_i A_j A_k
+\frac{i}{2} \hat{A}_i \partial_j \hat{A}_k - \tfrac{1}{3} \hat{A}_i \hat{A}_j \hat{A}_k
}
\nl \hspace{20mm}
+ \tr (\deriD_i Y_A)^\dagger \deriD^i Y^A
+ i \tr \psi^{\dagger A} \slashed{\deriD} \psi_A
+ V^{\mathrm{bos}} + V^{\mathrm{ferm}}
}.
\ee
We are using the notation of \cite{Benna:2008zy},
but we have rescaled all matter fields by
$Y^A \rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{k}{2\pi}} Y^A$ and
$\psi_A \rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{k}{2\pi}}\psi_A$,
to be able to factor out the Chern-Simons level $k$ as an overall normalization of the action.
In addition, we have performed a Wick rotation to Euclidean space.
The Dirac matrices are
$\left( \gamma^i \right)_\alpha^{\hspace{2mm}\beta} =\left( -\sigma^2, \sigma^1, \sigma^3 \right)$,
where $\sigma^i$ are the Pauli spin matrices.
The action (\ref{eq_action}) exhibits an $\mathcal{N}=6$ supersymmetry enhancement, owing to an underlying $SU(4)$ R-symmetry which acts on the matter fields $Y^A$ and $\psi_A$ ($A=1,2,3,4$).
As shown in \cite{Aharony:2008ug,Benna:2008zy},
this symmetry can be made manifest in the bosonic and fermionic potentials by writing them on the form
\be
V^{\text{bos}} \eq - \frac{1}{3} \tr \Bigsbrk{
Y^A Y_A^\dagger Y^B Y_B^\dagger Y^C Y_C^\dagger
+ Y_A^\dagger Y^A Y_B^\dagger Y^B Y_C^\dagger Y^C
\nl\hspace{11mm}
+ 4 Y^A Y_B^\dagger Y^C Y_A^\dagger Y^B Y_C^\dagger
- 6 Y^A Y_B^\dagger Y^B Y_A^\dagger Y^C Y_C^\dagger
} \; , \\
V^{\text{ferm}} \eq i \tr \Bigsbrk{
Y_A^\dagger Y^A \psi^{\dagger B} \psi_B
- Y^A Y_A^\dagger \psi_B \psi^{\dagger B}
+ 2 Y^A Y_B^\dagger \psi_A \psi^{\dagger B}
- 2 Y_A^\dagger Y^B \psi^{\dagger A} \psi_B
\nl\hspace{10mm}
- \levi^{ABCD} Y_A^\dagger \psi_B Y_C^\dagger \psi_D
+ \levi_{ABCD} Y^A \psi^{\dagger B} Y^C \psi^{\dagger D}
} \; .
\ee
The matter transforms in the bifundamental representation of the gauge group. Hence, the covariant derivative is
$
\deriD_i Y^A = \partial_i Y^A + i A_i Y^A -i Y^A \hat{A}_i.
$
The gauge fields (henceforth referred to as gluons) $A_i$ and $\hat{A}_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are in the adjoint of the left and right $U(N)$, respectively. The field content of the ABJM model is summarized in figure \ref{fig_fieldcontent}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{picture}(0,0)
{\Large
\put(55, 50){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$U(N)$}}
\put(189, 50){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$U(N)$}}
\put(-20, 50){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$A_i$}}
\put(285, 50){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$\hat{A}_i$}}
\put(115, 107){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$Y^A,\psi_A$}}
\put(115, -2){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$Y^{\dagger}_A,\psi^{\dagger A}$}}
}
\end{picture}
\includegraphics{fieldcontent}
\caption{The ABJM model.}\label{fig_fieldcontent}
\end{figure}
The action (\ref{eq_action}) has a $U(N) \times U(N)$ gauge-invariance, and needs to be gauge-fixed.
We gauge-fix by adding
\be\label{eq_ghost}
S_{\text{g}} \eq \frac{k}{2\pi} \int d^3x\:
\left[
\tr \left( \frac{1}{2\xi}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2 + \frac{1}{2\hat{\xi}}(\partial_\mu \hat{A}^\mu)^2 \right)
- \tr \left( \bar{c} \; \partial_\mu \deriD^\mu \; c +
\bar{\hat{c}} \; \partial_\mu \deriD^\mu \; \hat{c} \right) \right]
\ee
to the action, $S \rightarrow S+S_{\text{g}}$.
Two possible gauge choices are Lorentz gauge ($\mu=1,2,3$)
and Coulomb gauge ($\mu=1,2$). We typically use Coulomb gauge in the main text, and comment on the use of Lorentz gauge in footnotes.
$\xi$ and $\hat{\xi}$ are dimension one gauge-fixing parameters for $A$ and $\hat{A}$, and $c$ and $\hat{c}$ are the corresponding ghosts.
Hence, the covariant derivatives are $\deriD_\mu c = \partial_\mu c + i A_\mu c -i c A_\mu$,
and
$\deriD_\mu \hat{c} = \partial_\mu \hat{c} + i \hat{A}_\mu \hat{c} -i \hat{c} \hat{A}_\mu$.
To study the thermal theory, we compactify the time direction on a circle of length $L=1/T$, where $T$ is the temperature.
The action (\ref{eq_action}) and (\ref{eq_ghost}) then defines the theory on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^1$.
Finite temperature breaks both supersymmetry and conformal invariance.
A generic field $\phi$ has boundary condition
$\phi(x^1,x^2,x^3+L)=(-1)^{2\nu}\phi(x^1,x^2,x^3)$ along the compactified
direction.
In particular, the scalars, gluons and ghosts have periodic boundary conditions
($\nu=0$),
and the fermions are antiperiodic ($\nu=1/2$),
i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq_bc}
\begin{split}
Y^A(x^1, x^2, x^3+L) & = + Y^A(x^1, x^2, x^3), \\
\psi_A(x^1, x^2, x^3+L) & = - \psi_A(x^1, x^2, x^3), \\
A_i(x^1, x^2, x^3+L) & = + A_i(x^1, x^2, x^3), \\
c(x^1, x^2, x^3+L) & = +c(x^1, x^2, x^3).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Propagators and vertices can
be derived from the action (\ref{eq_action}) and (\ref{eq_ghost}).
These Feynman rules are collected in appendix \ref{app_prop}. This appendix also contains an explanation of some of our notation.
\section{Perturbative free energy}\label{sec_perturbative}
We now want to compute the free energy, including the leading correction, and analyze its coupling dependence. We will show that to obtain a finite answer, we will need to reorganize perturbation theory, taking thermal screening of the scalars into account.
\subsection{Naive perturbation expansion}\label{sec_naive}
In this section, we will compute the free energy in a
naive perturbation expansion.
We will show that perturbation theory breaks down
between two and three loops.
Assuming that the free energy is analytic
in the 't Hooft coupling $\lambda = \frac{N}{k}$,
we write
\begin{equation}\label{eq_perturbativeF}
\tilde{F}(\lambda)=\tilde{F}_1 + \lambda \tilde{F}_2 + \lambda^2 \tilde{F}_3 + \cdots.
\end{equation}
We begin at one-loop order, using Coulomb gauge.
The free energy receives contributions from scalars and fermions
(see figure \ref{fig_F1loop}), which sum up to
\begin{equation}\label{eq_Fabjm}
\tilde{F}_1 = N^2 \left(8 \frac{1}{2}A_0-8\frac{1}{2}A_{1/2}\right) =
-N^2 T^3 \frac{7 \zeta({3})}{\pi}.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq_A}
\begin{split}
A_{\nu} & = \int \frac{d^2 p}{(2\pi)^2} T \sum_{n= \in \mathbb{Z}+\nu} \log ( \vec{p}^2+\omega_n^2 ), \\
A_{0} & =-T^3 \frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi}, \\
A_{1/2} & =T^3 \frac{3\zeta(3)}{4 \pi},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
corresponding to contributions from fields with
periodic ($\nu=0$) or antiperiodic ($\nu=1/2$)
boundary conditions.
Notice in (\ref{eq_Fabjm}) that the
matter fields each have eight real degrees of freedom.
Relative signs arise for the anticommuting fermions.
To verify that gluons and ghosts do not contribute, note that
\begin{equation}
{\det}^{1/2}(\pm \levi^{ijk} \partial_k + \frac{1}{2\xi}\vec{\partial}_i \vec{\partial}_j)
= \frac{\vec{\partial}^2}{\sqrt{2\xi}}.
\end{equation}
An arrow denotes that the object only has components along the $1,2$ directions, i.e. no dependence on $p_3$. Thus, this contribution vanishes in zeta function regularization. It is the Chern-Simons terms which make it possible to find a gauge in which gluons and ghosts are non-propagating\footnote{
In Lorentz gauge, there will also be contributions from gluons and ghosts, since
\begin{equation}
{\det}^{1/2}(\pm \levi^{ijk} \partial_k + \frac{1}{2\xi}\partial_i \partial_j)
= \frac{\partial^2}{\sqrt{2\xi}},
\end{equation}
so (\ref{eq_Fabjm}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\tilde{F}_1 = N^2 \left(8 \frac{1}{2}A_0-8\frac{1}{2}A_{1/2}+2A_0-2A_0\right) =
-N^2 T^3 \frac{7 \zeta({3})}{\pi}.
\end{equation}
Notice that the two types of gluons and ghosts (which are anticommuting, hence the relative sign) now do not vanish individually (as in Coulomb gauge), but instead cancel each other. In neither gauge is there a net contribution to the free energy from gluons and ghosts.
}.
In the zero-temperature limit $T \rightarrow 0$, the free energy goes to zero (independently of gauge choice).
At zero temperature (i.e. without compactifying the time direction), contributions from bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom cancel automatically, as is required by supersymmetry.
The result (\ref{eq_Fabjm}) was already derived in \cite{Aharony:2008ug}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF1loop}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfi{plain}{fullcircle scaled 1.2w shifted (-2.5w,.5h)}
\fmfi{dashes}{fullcircle scaled 1.2w shifted (-.5w,.5h)}
\fmfi{wiggly}{fullcircle scaled 1.2w shifted (1.5w,.5h)}
\fmfi{dots}{fullcircle scaled 1.2w shifted (3.5w,.5h)}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}
\end{equation}
\put(-155, -2){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(a)$}}
\put(-55, -2){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(b)$}}
\put(45, -2){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(c)$}}
\put(145, -2){\makebox(0,0)[l]{$(d)$}}
\caption{One-loop contributions to the free energy arise from (a) scalars and (b) fermions (and in Lorentz gauge, also from (c) gluons and (d) ghosts).}\label{fig_F1loop}
\end{figure}
Using the interactions (\ref{eq_interactions}) and propagators (\ref{eq_propagators}), we can now try to find the perturbative corrections to the free energy.
At two-loop order, the free energy receives contributions from the connected and one-particle-irreducible diagrams shown in figure \ref{fig_F2loop}. All the diagrams vanish individually, due to combinatorics. This is true both at zero temperature and finite temperature, and for both Coulomb and Lorentz gauge. Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_F2}
\tilde{F}_2=0.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
F_2=\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF2loop1}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfleft{i}
\fmfright{o}
\fmf{phantom}{i,v}
\fmf{phantom}{v,o}
\fmf{dashes,tension=0.65}{v,v}
\fmf{plain,left=90, tension=0.65}{v,v}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}+
&
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF2loop2}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfleft{i}
\fmfright{o}
\fmf{phantom}{i,v,v,o}
\fmf{wiggly,tension=0.65}{v,v}
\fmf{plain,left=90, tension=0.65}{v,v}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}+
&
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF2loop3}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfleft{i}
\fmfright{o}
\fmf{phantom}{i,v1}
\fmf{phantom}{v2,o}
\fmf{wiggly,left,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{wiggly,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{wiggly,right,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}+
\\ \nonumber
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF2loop4}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfleft{i}
\fmfright{o}
\fmf{phantom}{i,v1}
\fmf{phantom}{v2,o}
\fmf{wiggly,left,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{plain,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{plain,right,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}+
&
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF2loop5}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfleft{i}
\fmfright{o}
\fmf{phantom}{i,v1}
\fmf{phantom}{v2,o}
\fmf{wiggly,left,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{dashes,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{dashes,right,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}+
&
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagF2loop6}
\begin{fmfgraph}(50,50)
\fmfleft{i}
\fmfright{o}
\fmf{phantom}{i,v1}
\fmf{phantom}{v2,o}
\fmf{wiggly,left,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{dots,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\fmf{dots,right,tension=0}{v1,v2}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}
\end{eqnarray}
\caption{Two-loop contributions to the free energy.}\label{fig_F2loop}
\end{figure}
In view of (\ref{eq_F2}),
we might think that
the first non-vanishing correction terms
to the free energy are of order
$\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)$.
However, this conclusion assumes that
the perturbation expansion (\ref{eq_perturbativeF}) is well-defined
around $\lambda=0$, and this is not true.
The obstruction consists of
infrared divergences, appearing
at three-loop order.
For example, the diagram shown in figure
\ref{fig_flower} is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\left( \int \frac{d^2 p}{(2\pi)^2} T \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}
\frac{1}{\vec{p}^2+\omega_n^2} \right)^3.
\end{equation}
The infrared divergences do not cancel.
One possible way to regularize the theory is to go to finite volume. However, we are expressly interested in the non-compact theory, where the divergences should instead be cured by summing over ring diagrams. We will explain how this works in the following sections.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\raisebox{-8mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagflower}
\begin{fmfgraph}(150,150)
\fmfleft{i1,i2,i3}
\fmfright{o1,o2,o3}
\fmf{phantom}{i1,v,o3}
\fmf{phantom}{i2,v,o2}
\fmf{phantom}{i3,v,o1}
\fmf{plain,right=90}{v,v}
\fmf{plain,left=150}{v,v}
\fmf{plain,left}{v,v}
\fmfdot{v}
\end{fmfgraph}
\end{fmffile}}
\caption{A three-loop contribution to the free energy.}\label{fig_flower}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Thermal screening}\label{sec_thermal_screening}
In section \ref{sec_naive},
we found that perturbation theory breaks down between two and three loops.
A similar phenomenon has been analyzed previously
in QCD
\cite{Arnold:1994ps,Arnold:1994eb,Kapusta:1979fh,Gross:1980br}
and in super Yang-Mills
\cite{VazquezMozo:1999ic,Kim:1999sg,Nieto:1999kc},
where scalars and gluons are screened by
quantum effects.
The ABJM theory exhibits a similar behaviour.
To proceed, we must reorganize perturbation theory
in a way which regularizes the infrared divergences
in the propagators
\cite{Arnold:1994ps,Arnold:1994eb}.
In momentum space, the quadratic
part of the action
(\ref{eq_action}) and (\ref{eq_ghost})
is
\begin{equation}\label{eq_S2}
\begin{split}
S_{\text{2}} & = \frac{k}{2\pi} \int
\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi)^2} \; T \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \tr \text{{\Huge [}}
\levi^{i j k}
\left(
\frac{1}{2} A_i(p) p_j A_k(-p)
-\frac{1}{2} \hat{A}_i(p) p_j \hat{A}_k(-p)
\right)
\\
& +
\frac{1}{2\xi} A_i(p) p^2 A_i(-p)
+\frac{1}{2\hat{\xi}} \hat{A}_i(p) p^2 \hat{A}_i(-p)
+
\bar{c}(p) p_{\mu}p^{\mu} c(-p) +
\bar{\hat{c}}(p) p_{\mu}p^{\mu} \hat{c}(-p)
\\
& + Y^\dagger_A(p) p^2 Y^A(-p)
\text{{\Huge ]}}
-
\frac{k}{2\pi} \int
\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi)^2} \; T \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z} + \frac{1}{2}} \tr \text{{\Huge [}}
\psi^{\dagger A}(p) \; \slashed{p} \; \psi_A(-p)
\text{{\Huge ]}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We now write the action as
$S = \left( S + \delta S_2 \right) - \delta S_2$,
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq_deltaS2}
\begin{split}
\delta S_{\text{2}} = \frac{k}{2\pi} \int
\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi)^2} \; T \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \tr \text{{\Huge [}}
& \frac{1}{2}
Y^\dagger_A(p) m^2_{Y} Y^A(-p) \text{{\Huge ]}} .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We henceforth treat $- \delta S_2$
as a perturbation to $\left( S + \delta S_2 \right)$.
Effectively, this means that
infrared divergences are regularized by the generation of a thermal mass $m_Y^2$ in the propagator for the scalars\footnote{
In other gauges, thermal masses may be generated for all fields with bosonic boundary conditions.
}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_newYY}
\vev{Y_n(\vec{p}) \; Y^\dagger_{-n}(-\vec{p})}
= \frac{2\pi}{k T} \, \frac{1}{\vec{p}^2+\omega_n^2+m_Y^2} \; .
\end{equation}
The generation of thermal masses is similar to the renormalization of the electric charge
in QED, where virtual electron-positron pairs are created and
cause a dielectric screening effect from the vacuum.
A thermal mass $m$
corresponds to generation of a finite static screening length $r=\frac{1}{m}$
\cite{Gross:1980br}.
Technically, the scalar thermal mass is obtained by computing the
one-particle-irreducible contributions to the self-energy
in the static limit (the limit of no external momentum).
The details of the calculation (in Coulomb gauge) are collected in appendix \ref{app_thermal}.
The final result is given by equations
(\ref{eq_scalar_selfenergy}) and
(\ref{eq_scalar_thermal_mass}),
quoted here for convenience:
\begin{equation}\label{eq_scalar_summary}
\begin{split}
m_Y^2(\lambda) & = (2\pi T)^2\mu^2(\lambda), \\
\mu^2(\lambda)
& = \frac{118}{3 (2\pi)^2}
\lambda^2 \log(\mu)^2
+
\mathcal{O}(\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
A few comments are in order.
Since the first non-vanishing corrections (i.e. at two loops) to the thermal mass
are themselves infrared divergent,
the thermal mass must be computed self-consistently
by requiring that successive higher order perturbative corrections
do not shift the pole in the propagator (cf. D'Hoker's original calculation for $\text{QCD}_3$ \cite{D'Hoker:1981us}).
Thus, the diagrams will themselves depend on the regulator that we are trying to compute. Notice that the right-hand side of equation (\ref{eq_scalar_summary}) depends on $\mu^2(\lambda)$. However, to a good approximation (for very small $\lambda$), we can replace $\log(\mu)$ by $\log(\lambda)$. Notice that $m_Y^2$ is then approximately of order
$\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^2$, rather than just $\lambda^2$.
In principle, it would have been useful to verify that we are indeed expanding around the correct vacuum of the finite temperature theory\footnote{
I thank E. Witten for drawing my attention to this issue.
}. Here, we will be content with the observation that the mass squared $m_Y^2$ is manifestly positive.
It would also have been useful to verify our results by an analogous treatment in Lorentz gauge.
In Lorentz gauge, gluons are propagating, and would apparently need a regulator to yield a finite answer. However, no such IR regulating mass exists for the gluons up to two-loop order, as we show in appendix \ref{app_gluons}.
\subsection{Reorganized perturbation expansion}\label{sec_reorganized}
We have concluded that finding the leading correction to the free energy requires reorganizing perturbation theory.
Thus, we need to replace (\ref{eq_perturbativeF}) by
\begin{equation}\label{eq_Ftotal}
F(\lambda)=F_1(\lambda) + \lambda F_2(\lambda) + \lambda^2 F_3(\lambda) \cdots,
\end{equation}
where $F_1(\lambda)$, $F_2(\lambda)$, $F_3(\lambda)$, $\ldots$
are now computed using the renormalized scalar propagator
(\ref{eq_newYY}).
There is a $\lambda$
dependence in $F_1(\lambda)$, $F_2(\lambda)$,
$F_3(\lambda)$, $\ldots$.
The reason is that there is a $\lambda$ dependence in the thermal mass (\ref{eq_scalar_summary}).
In fact, it is this $\lambda$ dependence which gives rise to the first non-vanishing (and non-analytic) correction to the free energy, as we will now show.
\begin{figure}[t]
{\LARGE $\sum_{N}$}
\centering
\raisebox{-25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{diagring}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(150,150)
\fmfleft{i1,i2}
\fmfright{o1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=empty}{v1}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=empty}{v2}
\fmfv{decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=empty}{v3}
\fmflabel{$1$ \hspace{0mm}}{v1}
\fmflabel{$2$ \hspace{0mm}}{v2}
\fmflabel{\hspace{0mm} $N$}{v3}
\fmf{phantom}{i1,v1}
\fmf{phantom}{i2,v2}
\fmf{phantom}{o1,v3}
\fmf{plain,tension=0.2,left=0.6}{v1,v2}
\fmf{dots,tension=0.2,left=0.6}{v2,v3}
\fmf{plain,tension=0.2,left=0.6}{v3,v1}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}}
\caption{Free energy ring diagrams.}
\label{fig_ring}
\end{figure}
We begin with
the resummed one-loop contribution $F_1(\lambda)$
(see figure \ref{fig_ring}).
Still working in Coulomb gauge, we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq_F1resummed}
F_1(\lambda) = N^2 \left(8 \frac{1}{2}A_0(m_Y^2)-8\frac{1}{2}A_{1/2}(m_{\Psi}^2)\right),
\end{equation}
which generalizes the free field theory result (\ref{eq_Fabjm}) to the case of non-zero masses.
Fields with periodic boundary conditions ($\nu=0$) and mass $m$
contribute
\begin{align}\label{eq_Aperiodic}
A_0(m^2) & = T \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \int \frac{\text{d}^2 p}{(2 \pi)^2} \log{\left( \vec{p}^2+ \left(2\pi T n\right)^2+m^2\right)} = \\ \nonumber
& =\frac{T^3}{4\pi} \left[ -4 \zeta(3) - m^2 T^{-2} \log{(m^2T^{-2})}
+m^2T^{-2}
+\mathcal{O}\left(m^4T^{-4}\right)
\right],
\end{align}
and fields with antiperiodic boundary conditions ($\nu=1/2$)
contribute
\begin{align}\label{eq_Aantiperiodic}
A_{1/2}(m^2)&=T \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}+\frac{1}{2}} \int \frac{\text{d}^2 p}{(2 \pi)^2} \log{\left( \vec{p}^2 + \left( 2\pi T n \right)^2 + m^2\right)} = \\ \nonumber
& =\frac{T^3}{4\pi} \left[3 \zeta(3)
-m^2T^{-2}\log(4)
+\mathcal{O}\left(m^4T^{-4}\right)
\right].
\end{align}
In the free field theory limit $\lambda \rightarrow 0$,
we recover the leading order results (\ref{eq_Fabjm}) and (\ref{eq_A}),
i.e. $\lim_{m\rightarrow0}A_{0}(m)=A_0$ and $\lim_{m\rightarrow0}A_{1/2}(m)=A_{1/2}$.
Note also that there is no zero mode for fields with antiperiodic boundary conditions, so no thermal mass will be generated for them. The dependence on $m^2$ in (\ref{eq_Aantiperiodic}) is analytic. Moreover, it follows from (\ref{eq_Aperiodic}) and (\ref{eq_Aantiperiodic}) that the leading order correction will anyway come from fields with periodic boundary conditions (i.e. the scalars).
The leading correction to
the free energy is fully
contained in $F_1(\lambda)$.
Neither $F_2(\lambda)$ nor $F_3(\lambda)$
contributes, for the following reasons. $F_2(\lambda)$ still receives contributions from
the same diagrams as before, shown in
figure \ref{fig_F2loop}. Hence, it still vanishes for combinatorical reasons.
On the other hand, $F_3(\lambda)$ is not expected to vanish.
However, all contributions to the leading correction are already included in $F_1(\lambda)$, due to the definition of the thermal mass.
Notice that we obtain 3-loop diagrams by closing the scalar propagators in the diagrams in figures
\ref{fig_644}, \ref{fig_433} and \ref{fig_433vanishing}.
Any such prospective additional contributions to $F_3(\lambda)$ will be cancelled by counterterms. Equivalently, D'Hoker's self-consistent treatment requires that the pole in the scalar propagator is not shifted by higher order corrections \cite{D'Hoker:1981us}.
\subsection{Dependence on the coupling}\label{sec_coupling}
We have argued
that the leading correction to the free energy is non-analytic
in the coupling, due to thermal screening of scalars.
We now combine these results to
analyze the coupling dependence of the free energy.
The free energy density, including the leading
correction, is
\begin{equation}\label{eq_free_final}
F=-N^2 T^3 f(\lambda),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq_f}
f(\lambda)=\left[
\frac{7 \zeta(3)}{\pi}
+ \frac{m_Y^2(\lambda)}{\pi T^{2}}
\log\left(\frac{m_Y^2(\lambda)}{ T^{2}} \right)
+ \mathcal{O}(\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^2)
\right],
\end{equation}
as follows from combining equations
(\ref{eq_Ftotal}),
(\ref{eq_F1resummed}),
(\ref{eq_Aperiodic})
and
(\ref{eq_Aantiperiodic}),
and with the scalar thermal mass $m_Y^2(\lambda)$ defined by
equation (\ref{eq_scalar_summary}).
Using the approximation $\log(\mu) \approx \log(\lambda)$,
we get the convenient closed form answer
\begin{equation}\label{eq_fapprox}
f_{\text{approx}}(\lambda)=\left[
\frac{7 \zeta(3)}{\pi}
+ \frac{236}{3 \pi} \lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^3
+ \mathcal{O}(\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^2)
\right].
\end{equation}
We observe that the leading order
correction to the free energy is (approximately) of order
$\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^3$.
Such a behaviour has also been observed
in other three-dimensional Chern-Simons-matter theories with lower supersymmetry
\cite{Gaiotto:2007qi}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Free energy.]{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{free.eps}\label{fig_free}}
\qquad
\subfigure[Scalar thermal mass.]{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{scalar.eps}\label{fig_scalar}}
\caption{Free energy and scalar thermal mass.}\label{fig_fs}
\end{figure}
Not using the approximation $\log(\mu) \approx \log(\lambda)$,
equation (\ref{eq_scalar_summary}) can be solved numerically.
The numerical solution, and the resulting free energy, are shown in table \ref{tab_fs} and plotted in figure \ref{fig_fs}.
The solutions are not plotted
beyond $\lambda = \exp(-7) \approx 0.001 $,
since the next to leading order correction will
be negligible only so long as $\log(\lambda)$ is sufficiently large.
The free field theory result for the free energy
is $f(0) \approx 2.6784$.
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\lambda$ & $f(\lambda)$ & $10^4 \mu^2(\lambda)$ \\
\hline
\hline
0.0000 & 2.67839 & 0 \\
0.0001 & 2.67832 & 0.00521 \\
0.0002 & 2.67818 & 0.01751 \\
0.0003 & 2.67799 & 0.03533 \\
0.0004 & 2.67778 & 0.05795 \\
0.0005 & 2.67753 & 0.08490 \\
0.0006 & 2.67727 & 0.11584 \\
0.0007 & 2.67698 & 0.15049 \\
0.0008 & 2.67668 & 0.18864 \\
0.0009 & 2.67636 & 0.23011 \\
0.0010 & 2.67603 & 0.27473 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Free energy and scalar thermal mass.}\label{tab_fs}
\end{table}
We see that our results indicate that
the free energy is a monotonic function in $\lambda$ which interpolates smoothly to the
$N^{3/2}$
behaviour at strong coupling, where the free energy is given by\footnote{
For comparison, in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM the analogous results in the weak and strong coupling regions are \cite{Fotopoulos:1998es,Gubser:1998nz}
\begin{equation}\nonumber
F_{\text{SYM}}(\lambda) = -\frac{\pi^2}{6} N^2 V_3 T^4 g(\lambda),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
g_{\text{\text{weak}}}(\lambda) & = \left[ 1-\frac{3}{2\pi^2} \lambda + \cdots \right], \\
g_{\text{\text{strong}}}(\lambda) & = \left[ \frac{3}{4} + \frac{45}{32} \zeta(3)\frac{1}{\lambda^{3/2}} + \cdots \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
}
\cite{Klebanov:1996un}
\begin{equation}
f_{\text{s}}(\lambda) = \left[ \frac{2^{7/2}}{9} \pi^2 \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} + \cdots \right].
\end{equation}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec_conclusions}
In this note, we have computed the free energy in ABJM theory on $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^1$, given in equations
(\ref{eq_free_final}) and (\ref{eq_f}). The free energy is expressed in terms of the scalar thermal mass (\ref{eq_scalar_summary}), whose generation is due to screening effects. The numerical solution is shown in table \ref{tab_fs} and plotted in figure \ref{fig_fs}. Our answer for the free energy includes the first non-vanishing quantum correction, which is approximately of order $\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^3$ (see equation (\ref{eq_fapprox})). The reason for the non-analytical dependence on the coupling is that the IR divergences had to be cured by using a technique based on resummation of ring diagrams.
Interesting differences appear compared to the calculation in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super-Yang Mills theory (SYM) \cite{Fotopoulos:1998es,VazquezMozo:1999ic,Kim:1999sg,Nieto:1999kc}. One important difference is that in SYM, the first non-vanishing correction is analytic in the coupling, and only after that do the non-analytic contributions appear. Another difference is that the self-consistent treatment is not necessary, since the 1-loop diagrams which define the thermal mass are regular. For us, already the first non-vanishing correction is non-analytic in the coupling, and the self-consistent treatment is required (note that the right-hand side of
(\ref{eq_scalar_summary}) explicitly depends on the mass itself).
It would be interesting to compute higher order corrections to the free energy. However, even in the reorganized theory, the perturbation
expansion is eventually expected to break down (at finite temperature)
\cite{Kapusta:1989bd}.
A related observation is that there are some indications
\cite{Gross:1980br,Linde:1980ts} that even
the self-consistent treatment proposed by D'Hoker
\cite{D'Hoker:1981us}, which we follow,
does not always eliminate all infrared divergences,
due to differences between electric and magnetic masses.
Our calculation of the free energy shows explicitly that the reorganized theory furnishes a finite answer to order $\lambda^2 \log(\lambda)^3$, but there is no guarantee that this finiteness persists to higher orders.
Another interesting question is the issue of phase transitions.
In SYM, there were some initial signs that the system may go through a phase transition between strong and weak coupling \cite{Li:1998kd,Gao:1998ww,Burgess:1999vb}. However, the present understanding is that the free energy is a smooth and monotonic function for all values of $\lambda$ \cite{Aharony:1999ti}, and more recent evidence also exists \cite{Blaizot:2006tk}.
However, even if the phase diagram on flat space is trivial in SYM, there are examples of three-dimensional field theories with possibly different behaviour, e.g. $\text{QCD}_3$ \cite{D'Hoker:1981us}. Nevertheless, we would expect ABJM to behave similarly to SYM in this respect.
Our results for the free energy and the scalar thermal mass are only valid so long as $\log(\lambda)$ is sufficiently large, but they still allow us to conjecture that $f(\lambda)$ is indeed smooth and monotonically decreasing between the weak and strong coupling regions also in ABJM theory.
A non-trivial phase space behaviour is expected on compact spaces. In the gravitational black hole description, the existence of a deconfinement (Hagedorn) transition has been established
\cite{Witten:1998zw}.
SYM theory on a compact space was analyzed at zero 't Hooft coupling by Sundborg
by counting gauge-invariant states on a 3-sphere using P{\'o}lya theory \cite{Sundborg:1999ue}.
These results were verified and extended by
Aharony et al. \cite{Aharony:2003sx}, and later complemented by one-loop corrections \cite{Spradlin:2004pp}.
Similarly, using P{\'o}lya counting,
Nishioka and Takayanagi found a deconfinement transition in ABJM theory compactified on a 2-sphere \cite{Nishioka:2008gz}, and further study of such questions in ABJM would also be interesting.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I thank Lisa Freyhult, Joseph Minahan, Olof Ohlsson Sax, Diego Rodriguez-Gomez, Edward Witten, Amos Yarom and in particular Igor Klebanov, Thomas Klose and Juan Maldacena for several very useful discussions. I thank Igor Klebanov and Thomas Klose for initial collaboration.
Most of this work was carried out while I was affiliated with and present at Princeton University.
This research was supported by
a Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowship, contract No. MOIF-CT-2006-040369, within the 6th European Community Framework Programme.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the situation of very strong electron-phonon coupling,
non-adiabatic effects of electron-ion system will be so important that
the electrons are dressed heavily by lattice vibrations and the
conventional strong-coupling
theory\cite{Eliashberg1,Nambu1,Scalapino1,Allen1,McMillan1} need be
generalized to include the non-adiabatic effects or the vertex
corrects beyond Migdal's theorem. The strong-coupling theory including
vertex correction has been widely studied by using perturbation
theory~\cite{Kostur1,Grimaldi1,Mierzejewski1,Cappelluti1,Fan1} and
shown the existences of crossovers when electron-phonon interaction
evolving from weak-coupling region to strong coupling
region~\cite{Paci1,Capone1}. The problem of electron-phonon
interaction had been solved numerically using Quantum Monte Carlo
method (QMC)~\cite{Freericks1} and dynamic mean-field theory
(DMFT)~\cite{Freericks2,Hague1}. The crossover behavior was exhibited
in the calculation of Holstein-Hubbard model using QMC
method~\cite{Freericks1}. The crossover from electron behavior to
polaron behavior with increasing electron-phonon coupling had also
emerged from the path-integral calculations in theory of
polaron~\cite{Nasu1}, which had been used to explain the
superconductivity of copper-oxides high-temperature superconductors by
forming pairs of polarons~\cite{Alexandrov1,Alexandrov2,Nasu1}.
The standard strong-coupling theory has no bound on T$_{c}$. Recently,
the Eliashberg functions $\alpha^{2}F(\omega)$ extracted from the
measurements of optical spectroscopy for the iron based superconductor
Ba$_{0.55}$K$_{0.45}$Fe$_{2}$As$_{2}$~\cite{Yang1} and the
measurements of infrared optical conductivity for copper-oxides
superconductors~\cite{Heumen1} predicted very strong electron-phonon
interaction and very high T$_{c}$ over the experimental
values~\cite{Heumen1}. Additionally, the new found rich-hydrogen
superconductor silane (SiH$_{4}$)~\cite{Eremets1} is the realization
of the predicted high-temperature superconductor of metal hydrogen by
pre-compressed mechanism~\cite{Ashcroft1}. However, the T$_{c}$ of
silane is far lower than the predictions of standard string-coupling
theory~\cite{Chen_Wang}. What is the underlying reason of so high
T$_{c}$ in the predictions of the standard strong-coupling theory?.
In this paper, the T$_{c}$ maps including the influences of vertex
corrections are studied. Complex crossover are found on these T$_{c}$
maps when the parameter $\lambda$ of electron-phonon coupling
increases from weak-coupling region to strong-coupling region. These
crossovers are very close to the well known $\lambda$=2 at which the
value of T$_{c}$ reaches its maximum~\cite{McMillan1}. We also find
that T$_{c}$ does not monotonously increase with phonon frequency
$\Omega_{P}$. T$_{c}$ decreases with $\Omega_{P}$ when $\Omega_{P}$
higher than a threshold value. This means that high phonon-frequency
is unfavorable to superconductivity if vertex correction is strong. In
section~\ref{Discussion}, we will show that the vertex correction will
significantly suppress the predicted T$_{c}$ for
Ba$_{0.55}$K$_{0.45}$Fe$_{2}$As$_{2}$~\cite{Yang1}, the copper-oxides
superconductors~\cite{Heumen1} and superconducting
silane~\cite{Eremets1}. In section~\ref{Result} main numerical
results will be presented. The basic theory used in this paper will be
introduced in section~\ref{Theory}.
\section{\label{Theory} Theoretical formulas}
The equation of energy gap in reference~\cite{Kostur1} had been
generalized by including the Coulomb interaction~\cite{Fan1}. The
electron-phonon interaction in Nambu's scheme is expressed as
\begin{equation}
H_{ep}=\sum_{kq\nu}\Psi^{+}_{k}\tau^{3}J_{k,q-k\nu}\Psi_{q-k}
(a^{+}_{-q\nu}+a_{q\nu}).
\end{equation}
\noindent where the index $\nu$ of phonon mode will be omitted if we
only consider a single phonon mode. We employ the isotropic
approximation and the coupling constant of electron-phonon interaction
is written as $J_{k,k'\nu}=J$. The calculations of vertex corrections
are greatly simplified under isotropic approximation because the
electron-phonon interactions are included in the vertex corrections
only by the functions of electron-phonon interaction $\lambda_{n}$
defined as
$\lambda_{n}=2\int^{\infty}_{0}d\omega\alpha^{2}F(\omega)\omega/(\omega^{2}+\omega_{n}^{2})$.
The energy-gap equation is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{GapEQ0}
Z_{n}&=&1+\frac{\pi}{|\omega_{n}|\beta}\sum_{n'}\lambda_{n-n'}A_{nn'}s_{n}s_{n'}a_{n'}
\\ \nonumber
Z_{n}\Delta_{n}&=&\frac{\pi}{\beta}\sum_{n'}[\lambda_{n-n'}B_{nn'}-\mu^{*}+C_{nn'}]
\frac{a_{n'}\Delta_{n'}}{|\omega_{n'}|}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent with the renormalized function $Z_{n}\sim
Z_{k}(i\omega_{n})$, the energy-gap function
$\Delta_{n}\sim\phi_{k}(i\omega_{n})/Z_{k}(i\omega_{n})$ and the
parameters $A_{nn'}=1-V^{A}_{nn'}$, $B_{nn'}=1-V^{B}_{nn'}$,
$s_{n}=\omega_{n}/|\omega_{n}|$ and
$a_{n}=(2/\pi)\arctan(E_{B}/Z_{n}|\omega_{n}|)$. The three parameters
of vertex correction $V^{A}_{nn'}$, $V^{B}_{nn'}$ and $C_{nn'}$ can be
found in Ref.\cite{Fan1}. The Coulomb pseudo-potential is defined as
$\mu^{*}=\mu_{0}/(1+\mu_{0}\ln(E_{B}/\omega_{0}))$, where
$\mu_{0}=N(0)U$, U the Coulomb interaction between electrons and
$\omega_{0}$ characteristic energy of typical phonon correlated to
superconductivity.
If considering that $\Delta_{n}\rightarrow 0$ when temperature is very
close to T$_{c}$, the terms proportional to $\Delta_{n}^{2}$ are
ignored. The energy-gap equation is simplified to
$\sum_{n'=-\infty}^{+\infty}K_{nn'}(\Delta_{n'}/|\omega_{n'}|)=0$. The
kernel matrix is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{GapKN}
K_{nn'}&=&[\lambda_{n-n'}B_{nn'}-\mu^{*}+C_{nn'}]a_{n'}-\delta_{nn'}H_{n'},
\\ \nonumber
H_{n'}&=&\sum_{n''=-\infty}^{+\infty}[
\frac{\delta_{n'n''}|\omega_{n''}|}{\pi
k_{B}T}+\lambda_{n'-n''}A_{n'n''}s_{n'}s_{n''}a_{n''}].
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent If the vertex corrections are ignored, three parameters
$V^{A}_{nn'}$, $V^{B}_{nn'}$ and $C_{nn'}$ are all equal to zero and
the kernel Eq.(\ref{GapKN}) of energy-gap equation reduces to the
general form without vertex correction~\cite{Allen1} after some
symmetrizations and simplifications. In the calculation of $a_{n}$,
$Z_{n}\sim$1 is the value of normal state. It's convenient that the
$K_{nn'}$ matrix is symmetrized as in Ref.\cite{Allen1}. The T$_{c}$
is defined as the temperature when the maximum of eigenvalues
E$^{max}$ of kernel matrix $K_{nn'}$ crosses zero and changes its
sign. About $N$=200 Matsubara's energies are used to solve above
equation. Only 20-30 iterations are enough to search T$_{c}$ from -600
K to 600 K with accuracy 0.0001 K by using the bisection method.
In calculations of $\alpha^{2}F(\omega)$, the function
$\alpha^{2}(\omega)$ is approximately a constant around the peak of
phonon mode and the density of state of phonon is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{AFEQ}
F(\omega)=\left\{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
$\frac{c}{(\omega-\Omega_{P})^{2}+(\omega_{2})^{2}}
-\frac{c}{(\omega_{3})^{2}+(\omega_{2})^{2}}$, &
$|\omega-\Omega_{P}|<\omega_{3}$ \\
0 & others,
\end{tabular}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\Omega_{P}$ is the energy of phonon mode,
$\omega_{2}$ the half-width of peak of phonon mode and
$\omega_{3}=2\omega_{2}$. The parameter of electron-phonon interaction
is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{lam}
\lambda=\lambda_{0}=2\int_{0}^{\infty}d\omega\alpha^{2}F(\omega)/\omega
.
\end{equation}
\noindent The well known value $\lambda=2$ given by McMillan measures
the instability of superconductivity induced by lattice instability
and plays very important role in this paper.
Experimental phonon spectrum and the phonon spectrum from
linear-response calculation~\cite{Savrasov1} are multi-peak structures
with broad energy distributions. To make the approximation of single
peak model to be more reliable approximation, the effective phonon
frequency or energy should be used. A good choice is the
$\langle\omega\rangle_{ln}=\exp(2/\lambda\int
d\omega\ln(\omega)\alpha^{2}F(\omega)/\omega)$ defined in
Ref.~\cite{Allen1}. The $\langle\omega\rangle_{ln}$ is calculated from
Eliashberg function that can be obtained from linear-response theory
or extracted from the experimental measurements of phonon properties.
\section{\label{small} Small parameter for perturbing calculation}
It's important to known the small parameter for perturbing
calculations in the theory of electron-phonon interaction. The matrix
element of electron-phonon interaction is given by
$J_{k,k'\nu}=(\hbar/2M\omega_{k-k'})^{1/2}\Pi_{\nu}(k,k')$
($\hbar=1$). The forms of $\Pi_{\nu}(k,k')$ are dependent on the kinds
of electron-phonon: deformation potential or polar
coupling~\cite{Mahan1}. Under isotropic approximation, the expression
of electron-phonon coupling constant is given by
\begin{equation}\label{EPCJ}
J=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2}\frac{\Omega_{P}}{N(0)}}
\end{equation}
if the well-known relation
$M\lambda\langle\omega^{2}\rangle=N(0)\langle \Pi^{2}\rangle_{FM}$ and
the Einstein spectrum of phonon are used, where $\Omega_{P}$ is phonon
energy, $N(0)$ is density of state at Fermi energy,
$\langle\rangle_{FM}$ is the averages of Fermi surface and
$\langle\rangle$ is the average weighted by
$(2/\lambda)\alpha^{2}F(\omega)/\omega$. The Eliashberg function with
Einstein spectrum is expressed as
$\alpha^{2}F(\omega)=(\lambda/2)\omega\delta(\omega-\Omega_{P})$. The
small parameter for perturbing calculation is
\begin{equation}\label{small_SC}
J/E_{B}=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2h}\frac{\Omega_{P}}{E_{B}}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent where dimensionless parameter $h=N(0)E_{B}$. The standard
strong-coupling theory is correct only $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}\ll 1$ (
Migdal's theorem ). We can see that $\lambda\ge 2$ is equivalent to
$J^{2}>\Omega_{P}E_{B}/h$. The small parameters $J/E_{B}$$<$0.3 and
$\Omega_{P}/E_{B}\simeq 0.30-0.50$ for the fullerides such as
Rb$_{3}$C$_{60}$ are estimated by using Eq.(\ref{small_SC}) with the
parameters $N(0)$$\sim$8 (states/eV), $E_{B}$$\sim$0.5 eV,
$\lambda$$\sim$0.5-1.0 and $\Omega_{P}$$\sim$65-100 meV. Thus
strong-coupling theory plus vertex correct is suitable for fullerides.
As a comparison, the effective interaction of electrons in BCS
theory~\cite{Bardeen1} can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{BCSV1}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{kq}(v_{q}+
\frac{2\omega_{q}|J_{k,k+q}|^{2}}{(E_{k+q}-E_{k})^{2}-\omega_{q}^{2}})
c^{\dagger}_{k+q,\sigma}c^{\dagger}_{-k-q,-\sigma}c_{-k,-\sigma}c_{k,\sigma}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Under isotropic approximation, by using
$\omega_{q}\sim\Omega_{P}$, $E_{k+q}\sim E_{k}\sim E_{F}$, $v_{q}=U$
and Eq.(\ref{EPCJ}), the above equation can be simplified as
\begin{equation}\label{BCSV2}
-V_{BCS}\sum_{kq}
c^{\dagger}_{k+q,\sigma}c^{\dagger}_{-k-q,-\sigma}c_{-k,-\sigma}c_{k,\sigma}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $V_{BCS}=(\lambda-\mu^{*})/2N(0)$. The small parameter
for BCS theory is
\begin{equation}\label{small_BCS}
V_{BCS}/E_{B}=\frac{\lambda-\mu^{*}}{2h}.
\end{equation}
\noindent The perturbation theory is correct only
$(\lambda-\mu^{*})/2h<1$ or $\lambda<2h+\mu^{*}$, however
$\lambda>\mu^{*}$ to keep superconducting state stable. If
$\lambda>2h+\mu^{*}$, the strongly coupling electron-pairs will
significantly modify the electronic structure of superconductors and
lead to structural instability.
\section{\label{Result} The general results of vertex corrections}
The three-dimensional T$_{c}$ maps had been calculated in the previous
paper~\cite{Fan1}. In this section, three-dimensional T$_{c}$ maps in
$\lambda$-$\Omega_{P}$-$\mu^{*}$ phase space including vertex
corrections are calculated by using the simple phonon spectrum with
the form of Eq.(\ref{AFEQ}). From electron point of view, the vertex
correction or non-adiabatic effect can be controlled by the effective
width E$_{B}$, on the other hand, from ion point of view, it can be
controlled by the cutoff of phonon energy $\omega_{0}$. In this work,
the vertex corrections are controlled by the effective band-width
E$_{B}$ with the range from 0.5 eV to 5 eV. The situation
E$_{B}=\infty$ is equivalent to no vertex correction.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig1}The evolution of T$_{c}$ map on
$\lambda$-$\Omega_{P}$ plane with increasing strengths of vertex
corrections (decreasing effective band-width E$_{B}$) with (a)
E$_{B}=\infty$, (b) E$_{B}$=1.7 eV and (c) E$_{B}$=1 eV. The Coulomb
pseudo-potential $\mu^{*}$=0.1. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig2}(a) The T$_{c}$ change along two arrows shown in
Fig.\ref{fig1}(c) with fixed phonon energies $\Omega_{P}$=80 meV and
95 meV respectively. (b) The T$_{c}$ change along two arrows shown in
Fig.\ref{fig3}(c) with fixed Coulomb pseudo-potentials $\mu^{*}$=0.10
and 0.25 respectively.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{\label{fig3}The evolutions of T$_{c}$ map on
$\mu^{*}$-$\lambda$ plane ($\Omega_{P}$=69 meV) with decreasing
effective band-width (a) E$_{B}=\infty$, (b) E$_{B}$=1.7 eV and (c)
E$_{B}$=1.0 eV.}
\end{figure}
The Fig.\ref{fig1}(a,b,c) illustrate the evolution of T$_{c}$ map with
decreasing E$_{B}$. The Fig.\ref{fig1}(a) is the T$_{c}$ map having
been obtained in the previous work without considering vertex
corrections~\cite{Fan1}. The large deformation with strong vertex
correction starts at E$_{B}$=1.7 eV in Fig.\ref{fig1}(b) near the well
known $\lambda$=2.0 and high phonon energy. With E$_{B}$ decreasing to
1 eV further, the region with strong vertex correction rapidly expands
and occupies large part of parameter space with $\Omega_{P}$$>$80 meV
in Fig.\ref{fig1}(c). In the region with $\Omega_{P}$$<$80 meV, the
T$_{c}$ is strongly suppressed however there are no discontinuous
changes of T$_{c}$ or breaking of contour lines. An important result
from the Fig.\ref{fig1} is that T$_{c}$ does not change with $\lambda$
monotonously if phonon energy $\Omega_{P}$ is high enough. The
Fig.\ref{fig2}(a) shows the changes of T$_{c}$ with $\lambda$ along
two arrows (A,B) shown in Fig.\ref{fig1}(c). If $\Omega_{P}$=80 meV,
the T$_{c}$ monotonously increases with $\lambda$. However for
$\Omega_{P}$=90 meV, the T$_{c}$ first increases with $\lambda$,
reaches the maximum at $\lambda\sim 1.5-1.7$ and then quickly
decreases with increasing $\lambda$. Further increasing $\lambda$$>$2,
T$_{c}$ will be very low due to strong vertex corrections. The
non-monotonous $\lambda$-dependent T$_{c}$ in Fig.\ref{fig2}(a) had
been found in the non-adiabatic theory of
superconductivity~\cite{Paci1}. Some crossover behaviors from weak
coupling to strong coupling region had been predicted in
Holstein-Hubbard model solved numerically by quantum Monte Carlo
method~\cite{Freericks1} and in polaron theory~\cite{Nasu1}. It's very
reasonable that the non-monotonous $\lambda$-dependent T$_{c}$ is
equivalent to the crossovers found in QMC
calculation~\cite{Freericks1} and polaron theory~\cite{Nasu1}. So only
the leading vertex correction can describe qualitatively very well the
electron-phonon interaction in strong coupling region.
In the previous paper, the Coulomb pseudo-potential $\mu^{*}$ had
small effects when $\mu^{*}$$>$0.2 in the calculations without vertex
corrections~\cite{Fan1}. The Fig.\ref{fig3}(a) is the normal T$_{c}$
map on $\mu^{*}$-$\lambda$ plane without vertex
correction~\cite{Fan1}. The figure shows that when $\mu^{*}$$>$0.2,
T$_{c}$ is insensitive to the change of $\mu^{*}$. The breaking
contour line with T$_{c}$=0 K are because of the inaccurate
calculations when T$_{c}$$<$0.1 K if only $N$=200 Matsubara energies
are used. The contour lines with T$_{c}$$>$0.1 K is accurate enough.
If the Coulomb pseudo-potential and vertex correction work together,
the situation will change drastically and some new interesting results
will appear. The large deformations are found in Fig.\ref{fig3}(c) if
E$_{B}$ decreases to 1.0 eV. In the region with $\lambda$$<$2.0, the
contour lines with higher T$_{c}$ are moved out but the contour lines
with lower T$_{c}$ fill in this region. As expected, the large
deformations and discontinuous changes of contour lines appear on the
T$_{c}$ map when $\mu^{*}$$>$0.20. The contour lines with iso-values
from T$_{c}$=20 K to 200 K are packed together within the region
0.20$<$$\mu^{*}$$<$0.25 and $\lambda$$>$2. The figure clearly shows
that if the Coulomb pseudo-potential $\mu^{*}$ is larger enough, the
T$_{c}$ will change with $\lambda$ non-monotonously. The changes of
T$_{c}$ along two arrows with $\mu^{*}$=0.1 and 0.25 are plotted in
Fig.\ref{fig2}(b). For $\mu^{*}$=0.25, T$_{c}$ first increases with
$\lambda$ until reaches the maximum at $\lambda$=2.2 and then sharply
decreases to smaller value at $\lambda$=2.5. The crossover behavior is
enhanced by strong Coulomb interaction.
There are three methods that can control vertex correction: (1) only
$\omega_{0}$ changes and E$_{B}$ keeps unchanged, (2) $E_{B}$ changes
and $\omega_{0}$ keeps unchanged , (3) both $E_{B}$ and $\omega_{0}$
change. It's possible that three methods provide qualitatively
different results. In this paper, we use narrow peak approximation so
that $\omega_{0}\sim\Omega_{P}$. The T$_{c}$ map on
$\Omega_{P}$-$E_{B}$ plane is plotted in Fig.\ref{fig4}(b). The
Fig.\ref{fig4}(a) shows how T$_{c}$ changes with $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$
along the direction of arrow $A$ in Fig.\ref{fig4}(b) with E$_{B}$=1
eV. It's found that at first T$_{c}$ increases with $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$
and then decreases with it. The arrow $A$ in Fig.\ref{fig4}(b) is
corresponding to the horizontal arrow $C$ in Fig.\ref{fig1}(c). The
behavior of T$_{c}$ with $\omega_{0}/E_{F}$ had been found in a series
of references~\cite{Grimaldi1,Cappelluti1,Paci1} in that coupling
constant of electron-phonon interaction $g_{k,k+q}$ ( or $J_{k,k+q}$
in this paper) is dependent on a cutoff $q_{c}$ for wave-vector $q$.
From Fig.\ref{fig1}(c) and Fig.\ref{fig4}(b), the increasing T$_{c}$
at small $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$ isn't the effect of vertex correction and
is the standard result of strong-coupling theory. The real effects of
vertex corrections are that T$_{c}$ decreases with $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$
at large $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$. Certainly, the vertex correction is
enhanced if $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$ increases by decreasing E$_{B}$ with
fixed $\Omega_{B}$, illustrated by the horizontal arrow $B$ in
Fig.\ref{fig4}(b).
Finally, T$_{c}$ map on E$_{B}$-$\lambda$ plane is presented in
Fig.\ref{fig5} with $\Omega_{P}$=72 meV. If E$_{B}$ increases but
$\lambda$ keeps unchanged, the T$_{c}$ monotonously increases with
E$_{B}$ until to the limit of non-vertex correction. More
interestingly, on this map, the T$_{c}$ is non-monotonous dependent on
E$_{B}$ along strait line from $P1$ to $P2$ companying by the decrease
of $\lambda$ from 3.0 to 0.2. The non-monotonous dependence of T$_{c}$
on effective band-width E$_{B}$ is similar to the band-filling effects
of T$_{c}$ in the non-adiabatic theory of
superconductivity~\cite{Cappelluti1}. Our results show that, if
$\Omega_{P}>$80 meV, the suppression of T$_{C}$ will be more
prominently.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{\label{fig4} (b) T$_{c}$ map on $E_{B}$-$\Omega_{P}$ plane
with $\mu^{*}$=0.1 and $\lambda$=1.0. (a) T$_{c}$ changes
non-monotonously with increasing $\Omega_{P}/E_{B}$ along direction of
arrow $A$ with increasing $\Omega_{P}$ and fixed E$_{B}$=1.0 eV.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{\label{fig5}(a) The T$_{c}$ map on $E_{B}$-$\lambda$ plane
with $\mu^{*}$=0.25 and $\Omega_{P}$=72 meV. (b) The open circle line
is the evolution of T$_{c}$ from $P1$ to $P2$ in (a). The solid line
T$_{c}^{*}$ is the standard results in strong coupling theory without
vertex correction. (c) The $\delta$-$\lambda$ relation is adopted in
Ref.\cite{Heumen1}}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{Discussion} Discussion}
As mentioned in the introduction, the values of T$_{c}$ obtained from
standard strong-coupling theory are generally higher than those
measured in experiments. The copper-oxides superconductors
Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{8+\delta}$ and
Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$Cu$_{2}$O$_{6+\delta}$ studied in Ref~\cite{Heumen1}
have very strong electron-phonon interactions $\lambda$$\sim$2.36-2.85
and overestimated T$_{c}$ in underdoped samples. With increasing
doping $\delta$, the values of $\lambda$ decrease to about 0.35-1.42.
The effective band-widths E$_{B}$ of conducting electrons for these
cuprates are distributed from 1 eV to 3 eV. The effective phonon
energies are distributed from 50 meV to 80 meV. The Coulomb
interactions are strong in cuprate superconductors $\mu^{*}$=0.25. We
can clearly see from Fig.\ref{fig2}(b) and Fig.\ref{fig3}(c) that in
underdoped samples, T$_{c}$ can be reduced to very small values in
strong electron-phonon interaction region ($\lambda$$>$2.5) due to the
interplay interaction between vertex correction and strong Coulomb
interaction. As shown in Fig.\ref{fig5}(b), the values of T$_{c}$ for
all samples are reduced from around 200 K to lower than 150 K and
close to experimental values~\cite{Heumen1}. Our results are provided
an explanation to pseudo-gap in underdoped region shown in
Fig.\ref{fig5}(b). The cooper-pairs pre-form at the mean field value
T$_{c}^{*}$ of transition temperature in standard strong-coupling
theory. However strong non-adiabatic effects induce the instability of
cooper-pairs and suppress real T$_{c}$ to lower values. The
T$^{*}_{c}$ degenerates with T$_{c}$ in overdoped region is similar to
the example (1) of Fig.9 in Ref.\cite{Norman1}.
For the iron-based superconductors
Ba$_{0.55}$K$_{0.45}$Fe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ studied in Ref.\cite{Yang1}, the
parameters of boson-phonon interaction decrease from 3.42 to 0.78 with
increasing temperature. The contributions of electron-phonon
interactions have energies lower than 40 meV in Eliashberg functions
$\alpha^{2}F(\omega)$. At 28 K close to T$_{c}$, the roughly estimated
value of $\lambda$ contributed by energies lower than 40 meV is about
2.0 close to the values at temperature 86 K. This is too strong to
account to experimental T$_{c}$=28 K. Because the effective phonon
energy is about 20-40 meV, the reduced T$_{c}$ from the vertex
corrections are also small (Fig.\ref{fig1}) although the effective
band-widths of conducting electrons are small from 1 eV to 2 eV. The
key problem is that how we can extract the more accurate value of
$\lambda$ of electron-phonon interaction from total $\lambda$. If we
use the $\lambda$=1.44 obtained at temperature 151 K and the effective
phonon energy $\Omega_{P}$=20 meV, the obtained T$_{c}$=29 K is close
to experimental T$_{c}$=28 K. The reasonable value for iron-based
superconductor is about $\lambda$=1.0. This is indicative that the
contribution of electron-phonon interaction to Eliashberg function
$\alpha^{2}F(\omega)$ dominates over other interactions at high
temperature.
From Fig.\ref{fig4}, we can see that if effective band-width E$_{B}$
is small, the T$_{c}$ will decrease with increasing phonon frequency
if $\Omega_{P}$ is higher enough. This means that we can not increase
T$_{c}$ infinitely by decreasing mass of atom or increasing phonon
frequency. The strong vertex corrections in high phonon-energy region
suppress T$_{c}$ to smaller values than those of predicted by standard
strong-coupling theory. This is a reasonable explanation for the lower
T$_{c}$ in the experiment of silane superconductor~\cite{Eremets1}
than that in the strong-coupling theory~\cite{Chen_Wang}.
The superconductivity of fullerides can be described using
Cooper-pairs glued by virtual phonon excitation. However there are
some very important problems are unsolved~\cite{Gunnarsson1}. The
fullerides have very large number of phonon modes from low frequency
to high frequency. What phonon modes are most important to their
superconductivity?. There are two groups of phonon modes of
fullerides: (a) inter-molecular molecular modes with energies lower
than 150cm$^{-1}$ (or 18 meV) and (b) intra-molecular phonon modes
with energies higher than 250 cm$^{-1}$ (or 31 meV). The
inter-molecular modes have small contributions to T$_{c}$ due to their
lower energies and not too strong electron-phonon interaction. Most
importantly, our results shown in Fig.\ref{fig1}(c) and Fig.\ref{fig4}
prove that the `tangential' intra-molecular modes with energy higher
than 1000 cm$^{-1}$ (or 124 meV) have small contributions to T$_{c}$
because of strong vertex corrections. So the intra-molecular `radial'
modes from 250cm$^{-1}$ to 1000cm$^{-1}$ of group (b) should
contribute main parts of superconductivity. In fact effective phonon
frequency $\langle\omega\rangle_{ln}$ is located in this energy range.
The empty t$_{1u}$ orbits will form narrow energy bands with width
about 500 meV in C$_{60}$ solid and strongly couple with
intra-molecular H$_{g}$ phonons. In Rb$_{3}$C$_{60}$ solid, the width
of t$_{1u}$ bands increase to about 1 eV and is half filled with
electrons. Based on our calculations using density functional theory
with plane-wave pseudo-potential methods, the effective band-width
E$_{B}$ is higher than 500 meV and lower than 1 eV. If we choose the
intra-molecular radial mode $\Omega_{P}$=525 cm$^{-1}$ (or 65 meV) and
the half-width E$_{B}$=500 meV, T$_{c}$ will be lower than
experimental value due to vertex-correction effects shown in
Fig.\ref{fig5}(a). If we slightly increase E$_{B}$ and use the
averaged value E$_{B}$=750 meV, both T$_{c}$=29.5 K and isotope
coefficient $\alpha\sim0.30$~\cite{Chen1} are close to the values in
experiments if $\lambda$=1.04 and $\mu^{*}$=0.1. The required
parameter $\lambda$ is different from our previous work value
0.66~\cite{Fan2} in the calculation without vertex correction, however
still close to the reasonable range from 0.5 to
1.0~\cite{Gunnarsson1}. The accurate calculations of $\lambda$ and
$\mu^{*}$ are important to understand the role of vertex correction.
\section{Conclusion}
In summary, the strong-coupling Eliashberg theory including vertex
correction is systemically studied in this paper. The T$_{c}$ maps in
parameter-space $\lambda$-$\Omega$-$\mu^{*}$ for different E$_{B}$
contain the completed information on strong-coupling theory and the
vertex corrections. Especially, the combined interaction of vertex
correction and Coulomb interaction can significantly depress T$_{c}$
to small value. The non-monotonous changes of T$_{c}$ with increasing
$\lambda$ show the crossover behaviors near $\lambda$=2 when $\lambda$
evolving from weak-coupling region to strong-coupling region. The
crossovers can explain the doping-dependent T$_{c}$ of cuprate
superconductors if the Coulomb interactions are strong. The crossover
behavior in $\Omega_{P}$-dependent T$_{c}$ indicates that
high-frequency phonon is unfavorable to high T$_{c}$. Thus the strong
non-adiabatic effect makes it hard to find high T$_{c}$
superconductors in compounds containing light elements. Finally the
T$_{c}$ maps in the previous paper~\cite{Fan1} and the maps with
vertex corrections in this paper provide very comprehensive
understanding of superconductivity of superconductors.
\section{Acknowledgement}
The author thanks Prof. E. Cappelluti for very helpful discussions.
This work is supported by Director Grants of Hefei Institutes of
Physical Sciences, Knowledge Innovation Program of Chinese Academy of
Sciences and National Science Foundation of China.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we consider an online regression task.
A sequence of outcomes is predicted step by step.
In the beginning of each step
we are given a signal related to an outcome.
After we make our prediction,
the true outcome is announced.
We are interested to match a relationship between signals and their outcomes.
In a simple case each signal is an input vector of some variables
and this relationship is assumed to be linear;
linear regression minimising the expected loss is studied in statistics.
We assess the quality of predictions
by means of the loss accumulated over several trials.
This loss is compared against the loss of predictors from some benchmark class.
In this paper we prove the upper bounds for the cumulative losses of our algorithms in the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generalbound}
L_T \le L_T(\theta) + R(T,\theta)
\end{equation}
where the $T$ is the number of prediction step,
$L_T$ is the cumulative loss of an algorithm over $T$ steps,
$L_T(\theta)$ is the loss of any predictor $\theta$ from a chosen benchmark class over $T$ steps,
and $R(T,\theta)$ is an additional term called a regret term.
We say that our algorithm \emph{competes} with any function from a chosen benchmark class
if the order of $R(T,\theta)$ by $T$ is sublinear.
The case when the signal is an input vector of some variables is well studied in computer learning.
Many algorithms \citep[see][Chapter 10]{CesaBianchi2006}
compete with the benchmark class of linear functions of input vectors $\R^n \to \R$.
Some of them can be generalized to compete with
the benchmark class of all functions from a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert spaces \citep{Gammerman2004,VovkRKHS,Kivinen2004}.
The novelty of this paper
is in the expansion of the class of signals
to the signals from abstract normed vector spaces.
In this paper we consider Banach lattices,
they are Banach spaces with some additional structural assumptions.
The performance of our algorithm
is compared with the performance of any vector from a dual lattice
(so with a linear predictor on the signal).
We show that this framework can be useful when signals are digital images or sounds.
From one side,
by example of AAR \citep{VovkCOS} we show that algorithms developed to compete
with linear functions of a vector input can be slightly modified to work in our framework.
On the other side,
this surprising result comes with the assumption that all the input signals are known in advance.
We call it semi-online setting. We show that in some applications of online regression a semi-online algorithm does not appear as a drawback.
We modify our algorithm
to be able to work with finite-dimensional input vectors from a domain of $\R^m$
and the benchmark class of functions belonging to a Sobolev space.
This may give a wide spectrum of applications,
for example prediction of Brownian motion
(which almost surely can be said to belong to a Sobolev space, see \citealp{VovkCWPR}).
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:CWDF}
we give proofs of the theoretical bounds
for the performance of an algorithm taking finite-dimensional input vectors.
The benchmark class of predictors
is a class of linear functions of input vectors having non-euclidian norms.
Section~\ref{sec:TB} describes
the proof of the main theoretical bounds
for an algorithm working with Banach lattices.
In Section~\ref{sec:applications}
we describe several applications of our algorithms.
Section~\ref{sec:Discussion}
discusses some open problems
We include
some complicated proofs and algorithms in the Appendix.
\section{Competing with different norms}\label{sec:CWDF}
A game of prediction contains three components:
a space of outcomes $\Omega$,
a decision space $\Gamma$,
and a loss function $\lambda:\Omega\times\Gamma\to \mathbb{R}$.
We are interested in the square-loss game
with $\Omega = [-Y,Y], Y > 0$, $\Gamma = \mathbb{R}$,
and the loss function $\lambda(y,\gamma) = (y-\gamma)^2, y \in \Omega, \gamma \in \Gamma$.
The game of prediction is being played repeatedly by a learner
receiving some signals $x_t$ from a linear space $S$,
and follows the prediction protocol:
\begin{protocol}[H]
\caption{Online regression}
\label{prot:onlregr}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $L_0:=0$.
\FOR{$t=1,2,\dots$}
\STATE Reality announces a signal $x_t \in S$.
\STATE Learner announces $\gamma_t\in\Gamma$.
\STATE Reality announces $y_t\in\Omega$.
\STATE $L_t:=L_{t-1}+\lambda(y_t,\gamma_t)$.
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{protocol}
Here $L_t$ is the cumulative loss of the learner.
We are interested in obtaining upper bounds
on the loss of the learner in the form~\eqref{eq:generalbound} for any $\theta \in S^*$.
The quality of the work of the learner
can be measured by the order of growth of the regret term in $T$.
We use the prediction method called Aggregating Algorithm for Regression (AAR)
developed initially \citep{VovkCOS} for the case $S = \R^n$.
It takes a parameter $a>0$
and gives its prediction of an outcome at a step $T$ by formula
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_T = \sum_{i=1}^{T-1} y_t x_t' \left(aI + \sum_{t=1}^T x_t x_t'\right)^{-1} x_T.
\end{equation*}
Here $I$ is $n \times n$ identity matrix.
It performs as well as any linear predictor $\theta$
(given an input $x$ (column vector),
a predictor $\theta$ predicts $\theta' x$).
It is known that
\begin{theorem*}[\citealp{VovkCOS}]
For all $a>0$,
all positive integers $T$,
all input vectors $x_1,x_2,\ldots x_T \in \R^n$ such that $||x_t||_\infty \le X, t=1,2,\ldots,T$,
and all $\theta \in \R^n$,
the loss of AAR satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AAR}
L_T(\text{AAR}) \le L_T(\theta) + a||\theta||^2_2 + nY^2 \ln
\left(\frac{TX^2}{a} + 1\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem*}
The regret term in this bound has a logarithmic order of growth in $T$
but it is linear in $n$. Therefore it is applicable for the case of
small dimension $n$ and large $T$. We shall now prove an upper bound
that grows slowly in $n$ and depends on non-euclidian norms in $\R^n$.
We use the constants of the norms equivalence.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:eqcon}
Let $a \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $1 \le p \le 2$, and $1/p+1/q=1$. Then
\begin{gather*}
\|a\|_2 \le \|a\|_p, \\
\|a\|_2 \le n^{1/2-1/q}\|a\|_q.
\end{gather*}
\end{lemma}
\BP
The first inequality follows from the fact that the function $f(p) =
\|a\|_p$ is decreasing in $p$. Indeed, for $p \ne 0$
\begin{equation*}
f'_p = \frac{-1}{p^2}\sum_{i=1}^n|a_i|^{p-1} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n|a_i|^p
\right)^{1/p-1}\le 0.
\end{equation*}
To prove the second inequality we consider the Holder
inequality for $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $b \ge 1$ \citep[see][p.21]{Beckenbach1961}:
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^n |x_iy_i| \le \left( \sum_{i=1}^n |x_i|^b\right)^{1/b}
\left( \sum_{i=1}^n |y_i|^c\right)^{1/c}
\end{equation*}
for $1/b+1/c=1$.
This implies
\begin{equation*}
\|a\|_2^2 = \sum_{i=1}^n |a_i|^2 \le \left( \sum_{i=1}^n (|a_i|^2)^{q/2}\right)^{2/q} \left( \sum_{i=1}^n
|1|^{\frac{q}{q-2}}\right)^{\frac{q-2}{q}},
\end{equation*}
for $b = q / 2 \ge 1$ and $c = \frac{q}{q-2}$. Therefore $\|a\|_2 \le
n^{1/2-1/q}\|a\|_q$.
\EP
We denote the space of $n$-dimensional real vectors $x =
(x^1,\ldots,x^n)$ equipped with the $q$-norm $\|x\|_q =
\left(\sum_{i=1}^n(|x^i|)^{q}\right)^{1/q}$ by $\ell_q^n$, $q \ge 1$. Let $p$ be such that $1/p+1/q=1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:AARp}
For each positive integer $T$
and any real positive $Y,X$
there is a constant $a>0$
such that for any sequence $(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_T,y_T)$ such that $||x_t||_q \le X, |y_t| < Y, t=1,2,\ldots,T$
and all $\theta \in \ell_p^n$
the loss of AAR with the parameter $a$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AARp}
L_T(\mathrm{AAR}) \le L_T(\theta) + (Y^2X^2 + \|\theta\|_p^2) T^{1/2}n^{1/2-1/\max(q,p)}\Theta.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\BP
Following \citep[Theorem 3]{VovkRKHS} we get
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{AAR}) \le L_T(\theta) + a\|\theta\|_2^2 + Y^2 T \frac{\max_{t=1,\ldots,T} \|x_t\|_2^2}{a}.
\end{equation*}
If $q \ge 2$,
then by Lemma~\ref{lem:eqcon} $\|x_t\|_2^2 \le n^{1-2/q} \|x_t\|_q^2$
and $\|\theta\|_2^2 \le \|\theta\|_p^2$.
This leads to the regret term $a\|\theta\|_p^2 + \frac{Y^2 T n^{1-2/q} X^2}{a}$.
By choosing $a = \sqrt{Tn^{1-2/q}}$
we obtain the regret term $(Y^2X^2 + \|\theta\|_p^2) T^{1/2}n^{1/2-1/q}$.
If $1 \le q \le 2$,
then by Lemma~\ref{lem:eqcon} $\|x_t\|_2^2 \le \|x_t\|_q^2$
and $\|\theta\|_2^2 \le n^{1-2/p}\|\theta\|_p^2$.
This leads to the regret term $an^{1-2/p}\|\theta\|_p^2 + \frac{Y^2 T X^2}{a}$.
For the same $a = \sqrt{Tn^{1-2/q}} = \sqrt{Tn^{2/p-1}}$
we obtain the regret term $(Y^2X^2 + \|\theta\|_p^2) T^{1/2}n^{1/2-1/p}$.
\EP
\begin{remark} We can deduce another bound from~\eqref{eq:AAR}. We have $\|x\|_\infty \le \|x\|_q$ for any $q \ge 1$. Since $\|\theta\|_2 \le \|\theta\|_p$ if $p \le 2$
the upper bound becomes
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{AAR}) \le L_T(\theta) + a\|\theta\|_p^2
+ Y^2 n \ln \left(\frac{TX^2}{a}+1\right)
\end{equation*}
for $q \ge 2$.
Since $\|\theta\|_2 \le n^{1/2-1/p}\|\theta\|_p$ if $p \ge 2$
the upper bound becomes
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{AAR}) \le L_T(\theta) + an^{1/2-1/p}\|\theta\|_p^2
+ Y^2 n \ln \left(\frac{TX^2}{a}+1\right)
\end{equation*}
for $1 \le q < 2$.
The last bound is better in~$T$ but worse in~$n$ than~\eqref{eq:AARp}.
In our main theorem we consider spaces of infinite dimension. The role of~$n$ is played there by the dimension of the span of the inputs so far, which is generally~$T$, and only the bound similar to~\eqref{eq:AARp} remains nontrivial.
\end{remark}
Many researchers in machine learning consider kernel methods.
Some algorithms which use kernels
are able to compete with functions from a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert space.
Our abstract framework allows us
to formulate the upper bound on the loss of an algorithm
working in an abstract Hilbert space $S = H$.
We denote the scalar product in $H$ by $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$.
The algorithm which we use is called KAAR (Kernelized AAR).
It takes a parameter $a>0$ and gives its prediction of an outcome at a step $T$ by formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:KAARformula}
\gamma_T = (y_1,\ldots,y_{T-1},0) \left(aI + \widetilde{K}\right)^{-1} \widetilde{k}(x_T).
\end{equation}
Here $I$ is $T \times T$ identity matrix,
$\widetilde{K}$ is a matrix of mutual scalar products $\langle x_i, x_j \rangle, x_i \in H, i,j=1,\ldots,T$,
and $\widetilde{k}(x_T)$ is the last column of $\widetilde{K}$.
It performs as well as any linear predictor $h \in H$
(given an input $x$,
a predictor $h$ predicts $\langle h, x \rangle$).
The following theoretical bound for KAAR follows from Theorem 3 in \citet{VovkRKHS}.
\begin{theorem*}[KAAR theoretical bound]
For any $a>0$,
every positive integer $T$,
any sequence $(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_T,y_T), x_t \in H, |y_t| < Y, t=1,\ldots,T$,
and all $h \in H$,
the loss of KAAR satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:KAARbound}
L_T(\text{KAAR}) \le L_T(h) + a||h||_H^2 + Y^2 \ln \det\left(I +
\frac{1}{a}\widetilde{K}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem*}
\section{Theoretical bound for the algorithm competing with Banach lattices}\label{sec:TB}
In this section we need to consider a different protocol than Protocol~\ref{prot:onlregr}. The learner plays the game following semi-online Protocol~\ref{prot:theorem1}.
\begin{protocol}[h]
\caption{Semi-online abstract regression}
\label{prot:theorem1}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $L_0:=0$.
\STATE Reality announces number of steps $T$ and signals $x_1,\ldots,x_T \in S$.
\FOR{$t=1,2,\dots,T$}
\STATE Learner announces $\gamma_t\in \R$.
\STATE Reality announces $y_t\in [-Y,Y]$.
\STATE $L_t:=L_{t-1}+(y_t-\gamma_t)^2$.
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{protocol}
He competes with all the functions from the dual space $S^*$. His algorithm BLAAR (Banach Lattices-competing AAR) working in $L_p(\mu), p \ge 1$ spaces is described as Algorithm~\ref{alg:lattices} and derived in the Appendix. Recall, that $L_p(\mu)$ is the space of all $\mu$-equivalent classes of $p$-integrable $\mu$-measurable functions on a $\mu$-measurable space $\mathbf{X}$:
$$\|f\|_{L_p(\mu)} = \left(\int_\mathbf{X} |f|^p d\mu\right)^{1/p}< \infty.$$
We use the notation $L_p = L_p(\mu)$.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{BLAAR for $L_p$.}
\label{alg:lattices}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Reality announces number of steps $T$ and signals $x_1,\ldots,x_T \in L_p$.
\STATE \textbf{Step 1.} Find the linearly independent subset of $x_1,\ldots,x_T$ with the maximum number of vectors: $x_{r_1},\ldots,x_{r_n}$.
\STATE \textbf{Step 2.} Solve the following optimization problem. Maximize the absolute value of the determinant of a matrix $C = \{c_{ij}\}_{ij}$ of sizes $n \times n$: $|\det C| \to \max$ with a restriction
\begin{equation*}
\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n |\gamma_i|^2}\right\|_{L_p} \le 1, \text{ where }\gamma_i = \sum_{j=1}^n c_{ij} x_{r_j}.
\end{equation*}
Let the matrix $D$ be the inversion of the matrix $C$: $D= C^{-1}$.
\STATE \textbf{Step 3.} Take $a=\sqrt{T n^{-|1/2-1/p|}}$. Use it as a parameter for KAAR.
\FOR{$t=1,2,\dots,T$}
\STATE Let $x_s = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_{si} x_{r_i}$ for $s = 1,\ldots,T$. Apply KAAR for prediction at each step by formula \eqref{eq:KAARformula}. In the matrix of scalar products use
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scaltheta}
\widetilde{K}_{sl} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} \alpha_{si}\alpha_{lj} \sum_{k=1}^n d_{ik} d_{jk},\qquad s,l = 1,\ldots,T.
\end{equation}
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We prove the following upper bound for the cumulative loss of BLAAR.
It performs as well as any linear predictor $f \in (L_p)^*$
(given a signal $x$,
a predictor $f$ predicts $f(x)$).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:BLAARLp}
Suppose we are given $p > 1$
and $x_1,\ldots,x_T \in L_p$
for any positive integer $T$.
Assume also that $\|x_t\| \le X$
and $|y_t| \le Y$
for all $t=1,\ldots,T$.
Then there exists $a > 0$ such that
for all $f \in (L_p)^*$
and any sequence $y_1,\ldots,y_T$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BoundBLAARLp}
L_T(\mathrm{BLAAR(a)}) \le L_T(f) + (Y^2X^2 + \|f\|^2)T^{1/2 + |1/2-1/p|}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem is given in the Appendix.
The main argument is based on Corollary 5 in~\citet{Lewis1978}.
Note that if in Lemma~\ref{lem:AARp} we take $n=T$,
then AAR gives the regret term of the same order $T^{1-1/p}$ for $\ell_p^n, p \ge 2$.
It is possible to generalize the result for Banach lattices of more general type.
The algorithm becomes rather tricky
because it is based on the complex interpolation method,
and we do not discuss it here.
We formulate the theorem for the theoretical bound of this algorithm.
First we give the definition of a Banach lattice \citep[see]{Lindenstrauss1979}.
\begin{definition}{
\rm \emph{A Banach-lattice} is a partially ordered Banach space $B$ over the reals provided
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $x \le y$ implies $x+z \le y+z$, for every $x,y,z \in B$,
\item $ax \le 0$ for every $x \le 0$ in $B$ and every nonnegative real $a$,
\item for all $x,y \in B$ there exists a least upper bound $x \vee y$ and a greatest lower bound $x \wedge y$,
\item $\|x\| \le \|y\|$ whenever $|x|\le|y|$, where the absolute value of $|x|$ of $x \in B$ is defined by $|x|=x \vee (-x)$.
\end{enumerate}
}\end{definition}
The lattices are a well-studied wide class of Banach spaces.
For example, any $L_p(\mu)$ is a lattice
(consequently, $\ell_p$ is a lattice).
Other examples of Banach lattices are Orlicz spaces.
Another more intuitive definition of a Banach lattice is given in~\citet{Tomczak1989}:
\begin{definition}{
\rm If $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ is a measure space then
a Banach space $B$ is called \emph{a Banach-lattice on $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$}
if $B$ consists of equivalence classes of $\mu$-measurable real functions on $\Omega$ such that
if $f$ is $\mu$-measurable,
$g \in B$,
and $|f|\le |g|$ $\mu$-a.e.,
then $f \in B$ and $\|f\| \le \|g\|$.
}\end{definition}
We will use some pointwise expressions with elements of Banach lattices, e.g.,
$z = \left(\sum_j |f_j|^p \right)^{1/p}$, $1 \le p < \infty$,
where $\{f_j\}$ is a finite sequence in $B$.
Our main theorem uses the following structural properties of Banach lattices.
They are similar to convexity properties of standard Banach spaces.
\begin{definition}{
\rm Assume $1 \le p, q \le \infty$ and $B$ is a Banach lattice.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $B$ is called \emph{$p$-convex} if
there exists a constant $M$ so that
$\forall n, \forall x_1,\ldots,x_n \in B$
\begin{equation*}
\left\|\left(\sum_{i=1}^n |x_i|^p\right)^{1/p}\right\| \le M\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \|x_i\|^p\right)^{1/p}.
\end{equation*}
The smallest possible value of $M$ is denoted by $M^{(p)}(B)$.
\item $B$ is called \emph{$q$-concave} if
there exists a constant $M$ so that
$\forall n, \forall x_1,\ldots,x_n \in B$
\begin{equation*}
\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \|x_i\|^q\right)^{1/q} \le M\left\|\left(\sum_{i=1}^n |x_i|^q\right)^{1/q}\right\|.
\end{equation*}
(with the usual convention for $q=\infty$). The smallest possible value of $M$ is denoted by $M_{(q)}(B)$.
\end{enumerate}
}\end{definition}
Every Banach lattice is $1$-convex and $\infty$-concave.
As a non-trivial example,
the space $L_p(\mu)$ is a $p$-convex and $p$-concave Banach lattice
with $M^{(p)}(L_p)=M_{(q)}(L_p)=1$
(this can be easily verified).
If $p \ge 2$,
we can think it is $p$-concave and $2$-convex,
and if $1 \le p < 2$
we can think it is $p$-convex and $2$-concave
\citep[see][Proposition 1.d.5]{Lindenstrauss1979}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:BLAAR}
Let $B$ be a $p$-convex and $q$-concave Banach lattice $B$,
$1 < p \le 2 \le q < \infty$.
Suppose we are given $x_1,\ldots,x_T \in B$ for any positive integer $T$.
Assume also that $\|x_t\| \le X$ and $|y_t| \le Y$ for all $t=1,\ldots,T$.
Then there exists an algorithm taking some $a > 0$ such that
for all $f \in B^*$ and any sequence $y_1,\ldots,y_T$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BoundBLAAR}
L_T(\mathrm{Algorithm(a)}) \le L_T(f) + (Y^2X^2 + \|f\|^2)M^{(p)}(B)M_{(q)}(B)T^{1/2+\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = \max\{\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}\}$, and $s > 0$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem is similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAARLp}.
The main argument bases on Theorem 28.6 in~\citet{Tomczak1989} or Corollary 3.5 in~\citet{Pisier1979},
though their proof techniques are different
from the proof technique of the main argument for Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAARLp}.
The sequence of steps in the algorithm
follows the steps of the proof of these theorems.
\section{Applications}\label{sec:applications}
In this section we consider different applications of our main theorem.
They use Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAARLp} rather than Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAAR},
so the algorithm used to give predictions is Algorithm~\ref{alg:lattices}.
\subsection{Algorithm competing with functional Banach spaces}\label{ssec:ACBS}
A different protocol than Protocol~\ref{prot:theorem1}
is usually considered in the online regression literature:
inputs are elements of some domain $\mathbf{X} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$.
The goal is to find an algorithm
competing with all the functions from
a functional Banach space $\mathcal{B}$ on this domain $\mathbf{X}$.
Many algorithms are capable to compete with Reproducing Kernel Hilbert spaces.
The generalization of the notion of these spaces for the Banach case
is called a Proper Banach Functional space~\citep{VovkCWPR}.
\begin{definition}
A \em{Proper Banach Functional space} (PBFS) on a set $\mathbf{X}$
is a Banach space $\mathcal{B}$ of real-valued functions on $\mathbf{X}$ such that
the evaluation functional $\varphi: f \in \mathcal{B} \mapsto f(x)$ is continuous
for each $x \in \mathbf{X}$.
We will use the notation $c_\mathcal{B}(x)$ for the norm of this functional:
$c_{\mathcal{B}}(x) := \sup_{f:\|f\|_{\mathcal{B}} \le 1} |f(x)|$
and for the embedding constant
\begin{equation*}
c_{\mathcal{B}} := \sup_{x \in \mathbf{X}} c_{\mathcal{B}}(x)
\end{equation*}
assumed to be finite.
\end{definition}
We will show further examples of PBFS with finite constant $c_{\mathcal{B}}$.
We state here that it is possible to apply BLAAR
to get the following upper bound in the standard protocol.
It performs as well as any predictor $f$ from a Banach lattice
which has the PBFS property
(given an input vector $x \in \R^m$,
a predictor $f$ predicts $f(x)$).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:BLAAR2}
Let $\mathbf{X}$ be an arbitrary set
and $\mathcal{B}$ be a PBFS on $\mathbf{X}$
and a $q$-convex and $p$-concave Banach lattice,
$1 < q \le 2 \le p < \infty$.
Suppose we are given $x_1,\ldots,x_T \in \mathbf{X}$ for any positive integer $T$.
Assume also that $|y_t| \le Y$ for all $t=1,\ldots,T$.
Then it is possible to apply BLAAR with a parameter $a > 0$
such that for all $f \in \mathcal{B}$ and any sequence $y_1,\ldots,y_T$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BoundBLAAR2}
L_T(\mathrm{BLAAR}) \le L_T(f) + (Y^2c_{\mathcal{B}}^2+\|f\|^2)M_{(p)}(\mathcal{B})M^{(q)}(\mathcal{B})T^{1/2+\beta},
\end{equation}
where $\beta = \max\{\frac{1}{q}-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\}$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem bases on the correspondence between $\mathbf{X}$ and $(\mathcal{B})^{**}$ and Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAAR} and almost fully repeats the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:Sobolev} (follows further).
The regret term in~\eqref{eq:BoundBLAAR2} reaches its minimum by $p,q$ when $p=q=2$. In this case $\mathcal{B}$ is a Hilbert space. The PBFS property implies that $\mathcal{B}$ is a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space. In this case, the regret term is of order $T^{1/2}$ and coincides with the order of the regret terms given by the algorithms previously applied for competing with RKHS.
We can not apply Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAAR2} to $L_p$ spaces since they are not proper. But this theorem covers very important classes of Banach spaces: Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces with appropriate parameters~\citep{Triebel1978}. We start our description with the discussion of the algorithm competing with fractional Sobolev spaces.
The main trick used in order to compete with Sobolev spaces is to identify each element of them with some element from $L_p$ of the same (up to a constant) norm and thus to impose a lattice structure on these spaces. This isomorphism can be found if $\mathbf{X}$ is an open, non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}^m$ such that there exists a linear extension operator (see definition on p.1372 of \citealp{Pelczynski2003a}) from a Sobolev space $W_p^{s}(\mathbf{X})$ into $W_p^{s}(\mathbb{R}^m)$. This condition holds for Lipschitz domains
(see, e.g., \citealp{Rogers2006}). We will further assume our domain is a Lipschitz domain.
Let us take a function $u(x): \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}$ and by
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{u}(y) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^m} u(x)e^{-ixy} dx
\end{equation*}
denote a Fourier transform of $u(x)$. By $f^\vee$ we denote an inverse Fourier transform
\begin{equation*}
f^\vee(x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{m/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^m} f(y)e^{ixy} dy
\end{equation*}
for a function $f$. Then the isomorphism between a Sobolev space and a subspace of $L_p$ is described by the following theorem. It is constructed using Bessel potentials.
\begin{theorem*}[Isomorphism of $W_p^{s}$ and $L_p$]
Let $1 < p < \infty, s > 0$ such that $sp > m$. Then $W_p^s$ may be described as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convol}
W_p^s = \{ f \in S'(\mathbb{R}^m): \left((1+\|y\|_2^2)^{s/2}\widehat{f}(y)\right)^\vee \in L_p(\mathbb{R}^m)\},
\end{equation}
where $S'(\mathbb{R}^m)$ is a collection of all tempered distributions on $\mathbb{R}^m$.
\end{theorem*}
The mapping in \eqref{eq:convol} means the convolution of a given function $f$ and the function with a polynomial Fourier transform $(1+\|y\|_2^2)^{s/2}$ (the latter called Bessel potential). Explicit expressions of these functions see in~\citet{Aronszajn1963}.
For the Sobolev spaces with $p=2$ and $s$ is an integer number, the proof is easy and based on the Plancherel's theorem of norm equivalence. For all $s,p$ see \cite{Triebel1992}, Theorem 1.3.2.
We can apply this theorem to get an algorithm competing with Sobolev spaces. This algorithm can be derived from the proof of the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Sobolev}
Assume $\mathbf{X}$ is a Lipschitz domain, and $W_p^s(\mathbf{X})$ is a fractional Sobolev space of functions on $\mathbf{X}$, $s > 0, p > 1$. Suppose we are given $x_1,\ldots,x_T \in \mathbf{X}$ for any positive integer $T$. Assume also that $|y_t| \le Y$ for all $t=1,\ldots,T$. Then there exists an algorithm taking some $a > 0$ such that for all $f \in W_p^s(\mathbf{X})$ and any sequence $y_1,\ldots,y_T$ we have
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{BLAAR}) \le L_T(f) + (Y^2c_{W_p^s}^2 + \|f\|^2) K T^{1/2 + |1/2-1/p|}.
\end{equation*}
Here $K$ is defined by isomorphism between $W_p^s$ and $L_p$.
\end{corollary}
The proof of this corollary is given in the Appendix.
Lately Besov $B_{p,q}^s$ and Triebel-Lizorkin $F_{p,q}^s$ function spaces begin to interest researchers due to their connections with wavelets theory. They have the PBFS property \citep[see][Proposition 7(ii)]{Triebel2005}, and $c_{B_{p,q}^s}, c_{F_{p,q}^s} < \infty$. By the embedding theorem \citep[Theorem 2.3]{Triebel1978} $F_{p,q}^s \to B_{p,q}^s \to F_{p,2}^{s'} = W_{p}^{s'}, 1 < p \le q < \infty, s > s'$. Here embedding $A \to B$ means there exists a constant $C$ and linear operator $T: A \to B$ such that for any $f \in A$ we have $Tf \in B$ and $\|Tf\|_B \le C \|f\|_A$. For Slobodetsky spaces $B_p^s = B_{p,p}^s$ we can use another result from the same theorem: $B_p^s \to W_p^s, 2 \le p < \infty, s > 0$. It helps to keep the parameter $s$ and thus do not increase constants in the regret term.
Using Corollary~\ref{cor:Sobolev} we can get the theoretical bound
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{BLAAR}) \le L_T(f) + (Y^2c_{\{B,F\}_{p,q}^s}^2 + \|f\|_{\{B,F\}_{p,q}^s}^2) CT^{1/2+|1/2-1/p|}
\end{equation*}
for all $f \in \{B,F\}_{p,q}^s, p>1$ and some $C > 0$ defined as a multiplication of the embedding constants. An important benchmark class is the class of H\"{o}lder-Zygmund spaces $\mathcal{C}^s = B^s_\infty$ which is embedded to $B^{s'}_p = B^{s'}_{p,p}$ whenever $s' < s$. It is known that fractional Brownian motion $B^{(h)}$ almost surely belongs to $\mathcal{C}^s$, $s < h$.
\subsection{Application of the abstract framework}\label{ssec:AbstactFramewAppl}
In this section we describe an example
how our algorithm can be used in signal processing.
A signal can often be interpreted as a function on some domain, e.g.,
a picture can be thought of as
a mapping from points to colors.
A musical fragment can be thought of as
a mapping from a point in time into sound frequencies.
We may be given weak regularity restrictions
on the class these functions form, e.g.,
it can be a Sobolev or Besov space.
The family of Hilbert spaces is reasonably wide,
but if lacks many classes of functions of irregular behavior.
Imagine we are given a film consisting frames of resolution $1024 \times 768$ and
we want to predict some score calculated from each image.
The correct linear score for each image is given to us
only after we make a prediction about the score of this image.
Applying the algorithm from Lemma~\ref{lem:AARp} for prediction
we can get the following upper bound for the square loss of our predictions
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{AAR}) \le (Y^2X^2 + \|\theta\|_p^2) T^{1/2}n^{1/2-1/p}
\end{equation*}
where $p \ge 2$,
$n = 1024 \times 768 = 786432$,
$T$ is the length of the film in frames,
$X$ is the maximal $q$-norm of images ($1/q+1/p=1$), and
$Y$ is the upper bound on the absolute value of the score.
The upper bound from the remark is worse in $n$,
and in our example $n$ is the dominating constant for reasonable films length.
On the other hand, the algorithm from Theorem~\ref{thm:BLAARLp} has the upper bound
\begin{equation*}
L_T(\mathrm{BLAAR}) \le (Y^2X^2 + \|\theta\|_p^2) T^{1-1/p}.
\end{equation*}
Then if we want to predict 24 frames per second (say, to detect defective frames),
the upper bound on the loss of the second algorithm
will be better if we work with films of duration less than $32768$ (around $9$ hours).
The higher the resolution of the images is the more advantage the second algorithm has.
This improvement is due to the fact that
it finds linearly independent vectors and significantly depends only on them.
Note that the example above works well in the semi-online setting.
\subsection{Learning a classifier}\label{ssec:learnclass}
Online regression algorithms are often applied in the batch setting, when one has a training set with input vectors and their labels and a test set containing just input vectors. In this case the semi-online setting does not appear as a drawback.
Online regression methods can be used to learn a linear classifier, for example Perceptron. \citet{CesaBianchi2005} use the AAR algorithm steps to make an algorithm to train a Perceptron and to derive upper bounds on the number of mistakes. They consider both linear classification and classification in an RKHS. We show that the combination of our preprocessing steps and their algorithm allows us to learn a classifier working in a PBFS. The abstract protocol may be considered here, but we describe the standard protocol to give the reader the better understanding of how our algorithms can be applied to classify vectors.
Let $(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_T,y_T)$ be a set of examples,
where $x_i \in \R^m$ is an input vector and
$y_i = \{-1,1\}$ is its label, $i=1,\ldots,T$.
The label corresponds to the class of the input vector.
Define the hinge loss $D_\gamma(f,(x,y)) = \max\{\gamma - y f(x)\}, \gamma > 0$
of any function $f$ from a Sobolev space $W_p^s, s >0, p > 1$.
If we make preprocessing steps described in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:Sobolev}
we will get vectors $r_1,\ldots,r_T \in \ell_2^n$
corresponding to our input vectors, for some $n \le T$.
At step $t$ the second-order Perceptron Algorithm \citep[see][Figure 3.1]{CesaBianchi2005} predicts
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{y}_t = \text{sign}\left[\left(\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_t} y_i r_i \right)'(aI_n + \sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_t} r_i r_i')^{-1} r_t\right],
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{M}_t \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots\}$ is
the set of indices of mistaken trials ($y_i \ne \widehat{y}_i, i \in \mathcal{M}_t$)
before the step $t$.
It is possible to prove the following upper bound on the number of mistakes
\begin{theorem}
It is possible to run the second-order Perceptron Algorithm
on any finite sequence $(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_T,y_T)$ of examples such that
the number $k$ of mistakes satisfies
\begin{equation*}
k \le \inf_{\gamma > 0} \min_{f \in W_p^s}\left(\frac{R(f,T,a)^2}{2\gamma^2}
+ \frac{D_\gamma(f)}{\gamma}
+ \frac{R(f,T,a)}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{D_\gamma(f)}{\gamma}
+ \frac{R(f,T,a)^2}{4\gamma^2}}\right)
\end{equation*}
where $R^2(f,T,a) = c_{W_p^s}^2(T^{1/2-1/p}\|f\|_{W_p^s}^2 + \frac{1}{a}\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_T} f(x_i)^2)$
and $D_\gamma(f)$ is the cumulative hinge loss $\sum_{i=1}^T D_\gamma(f,(x_i,y_i))$ of $f$.
\end{theorem}
Note that $T^{1/2-1/p}$ in the theorem above is equal to the maximum number of linearly independent inputs (converted to the dual space $(W_p^s)^{**}$), so if the algorithm is run on the same sequence of inputs several times then this number remains the same.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:Discussion}
The idea of competing with Banach spaces is not new. Vladimir Vovk \citep{VovkCWPR,VovkME} considers two different ways to do this. The first technique is based on the game-theoretic probability theory \citep{Shafer2001} and called Defensive Forecasting.
The second technique is based on
the metric entropy of the space
with which the learner wishes to compete.
The Aggregating Algorithm is used for prediction.
Suppose that input vectors are taken from a domain $\mathbf{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^m$.
The main difference in the theoretical bounds for two algorithms
can be described by an example of Slobodetsky spaces $B^s_p(\mathbf{X}) = B^s_{p,p}(\mathbf{X})$.
We always assume that $sp > m$:
this condition ensures that the elements of $B^s_p$ are continuous functions on $\mathbf{X}$
(see, e.g., \citealp{Triebel1978}).
Assuming $p\ge2$,
the known upper bound on the regret term is of order $O(T^{1-1/p})$
when the learner uses either the Defensive Forecasting
or our algorithm from Corollary~\ref{cor:Sobolev} to predict the outcomes.
This order does not depend on $s$.
The order $O(T^{m /(m+s)})$ is provided by Metric Entropy technique.
This order does not depend on $p$ and so this algorithm can be applied to compete with spaces with $p=1$.
The question asked by \citet{VovkME} is whether it is possible to create an algorithm which will involve both $p$ and $s$ parameters in the order of $T$ in the regret term
Our paper gives another way to apply the Aggregating Algorithm and the order of the regret term corresponds to the order given by Defensive Forecasting: $T^{1-1/p}$. Thus we reduced the problem to the analysis of two different ways of using the Aggregating Algorithm to mix functions from Banach spaces.
Our paper shows the same order of the regret term by $T$ as the Defensive Forecasting method. It allows us to think that this order may be optimal by $p$. The lack of lower bounds for methods which are capable to compete with functions from Banach spaces does not allow us to make a strong argument.
\section{Acknowledgements}\label{sec:acknowledgement}
We are grateful for useful comments to Vladimir Vovk.
This work has been supported by EPSRC grant EP/F002998/1
and ASPIDA grant
from the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
Spectroscopic observations of extremely metal-poor (hereafter EMP) stars
in the Galactic halo with the 8m class telescopes opened a new window
to understand the formation and evolution of the Galaxy.
The statistics of these stars reveals that
(1) the frequency of stars with strong carbon enhancements is much
larger than that of Population I and II stars \citep{Rossi1999,Lucatello2006},
(2) the number of stars decreases significantly with decreasing metallicity
at $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -3.5$ \citep[see e.g.,][]{Beers2005b}, and
(3) derived surface abundances of elements like carbon and
neutron-capture elements like strontium and barium show star-to-star variations
at $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2$ \citep{Gilroy1988,Ryan1991,McWilliam1995b,Norris1997,Aoki2002a}.
Another finding among EMP stars is the discovery of three iron-poor stars
well below $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -4$ \citep{Christlieb2002,Frebel2005,Norris2007},
which share the common feature of the strong enhancement in carbon.
It is shown that these most iron-deficient stars can be understood in terms of the evolutionary properties of $Z = 0$ or extremely metal-poor models in intermediate mass interacting binaries \citep{Suda2004,Suda2005,Komiya2007,Nishimura2009}.
Thus, the evolutionary characteristics of low- and intermediate-mass $Z = 0$
models have direct relevance to the discussions of star formation
in the early universe.
The existence of low-mass stars born with $Z = 0$ is still controversial since we have not yet determined the initial mass function (IMF) in the early epoch of the universe.
From the viewpoint of star formation theory, it is argued that low-mass stars are unlikely to form in very metal-poor clouds because of the poor sources of radiative cooling \citep[e.g.][]{Bromm2004}.
On the other hand, \citet{Lucatello2005} and \citet{Komiya2007} discussed the IMF of
EMP objects deduced from the known EMP stars and stellar evolution models.
Both results indicate the importance of the evolution of low- and intermediate-mass stars with EMP composition.
In particular, \citet{Komiya2007} propose a high-mass IMF with the medium mass of $\sim 10 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -2.5$ based on the analysis of the peculiar abundance patterns of EMP stars using the models of stellar evolution at low metallicity.
They also address the importance of the dominant roles of binaries when discussing the history of the Galactic halo stars \citep{Komiya2009a,Komiya2009b}.
One of the most prominent characteristics of models of low- and intermediate-mass EMP stars is that they have alternative channels to become carbon stars compared with metal-rich populations \citep[][hereafter FII00]{Hollowell1990,Fujimoto2000}.
For initial CNO abundances $\textrm{Z} \lows{CNO} \la \pow{3}{-7}$, the convection generated in the hydrogen-exhausted layers by the off-centre core helium flash or by the shell helium flash extends into the hydrogen-rich layers, eventually leading to the enrichment of carbon and nitrogen at the surface \citep{Fujimoto1990,Hollowell1990}.
This mechanism, called ``He-flash driven deep mixing'' (He-FDDM), is different from the third dredge-up in asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars of Populations I and II that enriches surface material in $^{12}$C \citep{Iben1975}.
There have been many efforts in modelling the thermal pulses during AGB, and agreement is yet to be found for the resultant surface abundances after the He-FDDM.
Nevertheless, agreement is yet to be found about the resultant surface abundances after the He-FDDM, because the end products depend sensitively on the numerical treatment of mixing and nuclear burning.
Comparisons between these previous works as well as comparisons with our results will be given in later.
In this work, we describe the evolution of low and intermediate mass EMP models to explore the occurrence of a series of mixing events discovered by previous works and to revise the results of FII00 by using a stellar evolution program with updated input physics.
In particular, we intend to revise and expand a general picture of the evolution paths in the initial mass and metallicity plain proposed by FII00.
We computed a larger number of models with various initial mass and metallicity than \citet{Campbell2008b}, \citet{Lau2009}, or FII00.
The hydrogen mixing and dredge-up are also followed to obtain the surface abundances of model stars undergoing the He-FDDM events.
It is shown that different variations of mixing are obtained depending on initial mass and metallicity.
We compare our results with the observations of EMP stars.
The organisation of this paper is follows.
In Section 2, the updated version of the stellar evolution program for this work is described.
The results of the computations of stellar evolution are presented in Section 3.
Section 4 gives the discussion about the surface chemical composition of EMP stars and the implications of the comparisons between models and observations.
Conclusions follow in Section 5.
\section{The Computational Program}
The stellar evolution code used in this work is based on that of \citet{Iben1992}.
The input physics is almost the same as that in \citet{Suda2004} and \citet{Suda2007}.
We adopt \citet{Angulo1999} for nuclear reaction rates.
The conductive opacities are computed by the fitting formulae of \citet{Itoh1983}, and the neutrino loss rates by the fitting formulae of \citet{Itoh1996}.
We use the radiative opacity tables given by OPAL \citep{Iglesias1996} and by \citet{Alexander1994}.
As in \citet{Suda2007}, the interpolation of opacities between OPAL and \citet{Alexander1994} are carried out by squared sine curves for the temperature $T$ in $8000 {\rm K} < T < 10000$ K.
We construct rectangular tables to cover the regions of high temperature and high density by extrapolating with $T$ and $R \equiv \rho / T_{6}^{3}$ where $T_{6}$ is temperature in units of $10^{6}$ K.
For the extremely metal-poor models, the opacities are computed according to an interpolation recipe by Boothroyd\footnote{http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/$\sim$boothroy/kappa.html}.
However, it should be noted that we might use the wrong opacities at the surface if the CNO abundance changes greatly because \citet{Alexander1994} do not cover the opacity values for the metal abundances different from scaled solar ones.
In this work, we do not consider mass loss from the envelope, convective overshooting or semi-convection.
The borders of convective regions are determined by the Schwarzschild criterion and the mixing length is taken to be 1.5 times the local pressure scale height.
Computations are terminated after a number of thermal pulses during AGB phase or at the onset of carbon burning.
For thermally pulsating AGB (TPAGB) models, the evolutionary sequence includes the hydrogen-mixing event during the flashes and the third dredge-up events if they occur.
The hydrogen ingestion is treated by the following procedure;
the mixed protons are distributed uniformly down to a mixing depth.
The depth of the mixing is determined by the shell where the nuclear time-scale of proton capture is equal to the convective turnover time-scale.
Then, we solve the nuclear reactions in the convective zones in a time step comparable to, or shorter than the convective turnover time-scale.
The detailed numerical computations of this phenomenon require short time steps in order for the models to converge, which is time-consuming.
Because of the technical difficulty, we are not successful in computing the mixing and dredge-up events for all the models in this work.
The present work aims at clarifying the dependence of the occurrence of mixing events on initial mass and metallicity to see whether (1) hydrogen mixing takes place at the onset of the off-centre or central helium flash, (2) it occurs at the beginning of TPAGB phase, or (3) it never occurs.
We also derive the chemical abundances at the surface for light elements after the He-FDDM.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{f1.eps}
\caption{Evolutionary characteristics of computed models on the mass-metallicity diagram, denoted by different symbols:
the models that undergo He-FDDM-R (filled squares), He-FDDM-A (filled circles), hydrogen ingestion event during the AGB phase but without dredge-up (open circles), AGB evolution without contact of the helium-flash convection with the hydrogen-containing layer (open triangles), and carbon burning (crosses, to the right of the dot-dashed line).
Red and black solid lines demarcate the ranges of mass and metallicity for the He-FDDM-R and He-FDDM-A events (defined by the requirement that the helium flash convection penetrates into the hydrogen shell to $X > 0.1$), respectively.
Dotted lines show the maximum extent of helium-flash convection by the hydrogen abundance of the outermost engulfed shell, attached to individual lines.
The models with finite hydrogen abundance are regarded as undergoing hydrogen ingestion.
The hatched area denotes the possible site for neutron-capture nucleosynthesis by the hydrogen ingestion events without He-FDDM-A.
The red dashed line denotes the upper mass limit for off-centre ignition at the core helium flash.
The grey shaded area shows the possible range of lower mass limit for the occurrence of the third dredge-up, which is not yet well specified.
The black dashed line shows the upper mass limit for the occurrence of the third dredge-up.
}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure*}
\section{Evolution of Metal-Free and Extremely Metal-Poor Models}
We compute the evolution of stars from the zero-age main sequence through TPAGB phase or through the carbon ignition for the model parameters, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:model}, initial mass and metallicity diagram with a summary of characteristics of the resultant evolution.
Figure~\ref{fig:model} shows the mass-metallicity diagram of the computed evolutionary models and a summary of the results.
The chemical composition of initial models is the same as in FII00, i.e. $X = 0.767$, $Y = 0.233$, and $X_{3 \rm He} = \pow{2}{-5}$ in mass fraction.
For elements heavier than carbon, we adopt the scaled solar abundance of \citet{Anders1989}.
The only one exception is the model of $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -1.6$ where we set $[\alpha / \textrm{Fe}] = 0.4$.
In the following subsections, we adopt the same classification of the evolution of EMP models as in FII00, which is given in Table~\ref{tab:case} and noted in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
With regards to the notation related to the hydrogen mixing and burning, we call the hydrogen-mixing event ``hydrogen ingestion''.
We also use the terminology ``hydrogen flash'' when the thermal runaway of burning of mixed protons occurs in the helium-flash convective zones.
\input{Table1.tex}
For Cases I or II and II$^\prime$, the model experiences He-FDDM during the core helium flash
(He-FDDM-R) or at the early phase of the TPAGB (He-FDDM-A).
The notation ``R'' and ``A'' stands for the evolutionary status at the onset of He-FDDM, i.e. the red giant branch and asymptotic giant branch phase, respectively, according to the notations in \citet{Komiya2007}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:model}, black and red solid lines define the boundaries for the occurrence of the He-FDDM-A and the He-FDDM-R, respectively.
Dotted lines in the figure show the contours of the maximum hydrogen abundance, \ensuremath{X_{\rm mix}}, (denoted by attached numerals) of the shell to which the helium-flash convection extends.
He-FDDM-R occurs only for off-centre helium core flashes, as shown by red dashed line, which denotes the boundary between the off-center and central ignition of helium.
The boundary above $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -2$ is based on the previous result with the same stellar evolution code for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -1.6$ where we find the boundary between 2 and $2.1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ \citep{Suda2007b}.
He-FDDM-A characterizes the evolution for Cases II and II$^\prime$.
We find that the border of the occurrence of He-FDDM-A corresponds to $\ensuremath{X_{\rm mix}} \ga 0.01$ where we find the hydrogen flash and the penetration of surface convection.
The difference between Case II and II$^\prime$\ is the occurrence of the third dredge-up (hereafter TDU, in Case II$^\prime$) that will bring about the enhancement of $\nucm{12}{C}$ in the envelope.
It should be noted that the boundary between these two cases is not definitive in this work because we do not find exact lower limit for the occurrence of the TDU.
Especially, for the models in the mass range near the boundary, the core mass is so small after the He-FDDM-A that it will take many pulses for the core mass to increase sufficiently for the TDU events, as discussed later, and hence, whether the TDU occurs or not will depend on the efficiency of mass loss.
The upper mass limit to the occurrence of TDU is also shown by black dashed line.
We find no or negligible amount of hydrogen ingestion for Case III, IV, and IV$^\prime$.
The absence of hydrogen flash events in Case III and IV$^\prime$~ is due to the higher entropy in the hydrogen-burning shell for more massive stars, which constitutes higher entropy barrier between the helium convective zone and the hydrogen-containing layers.
It prevents hydrogen from being engulfed by the helium-flash driven convective zones \citep{Fujimoto1990}.
This is also true for Case IV with large initial abundance of CNO elements.
The models of Cases IV and IV$^\prime$) are distinguished from the models of Case III by whether we find the TDU or not.
Some of the models of Case III may explode as carbon deflagration supernovae because they may not suffer from efficient mass loss owing to the small content of metals.
For more massive stars, they will become super AGB with electron degenerate core of oxygen, neon, and magnesium or supernovae triggered by electron capture of neon and magnesium \citep{Miyaji1980,GarciaBerro1994,Ritossa1996}.
The boundary between Cases IV and IV$^\prime$\ is defined by the different efficiency of the {\it s}-process in the \nucm{13}{C} pocket, but it is approximately taken to be the critical metallicity of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \sim -2.5$.
This is inferred from the observed properties of EMP stars which show that the abundance ratio, [Pb/Ba], does not have an increasing trend with decreasing metallicity for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$.
Since the ratio is expected to increase because of the decrease in the number of iron seed nuclei in the \nucm{13}{C} pockets, the observations suggest that {\it s}-process does not take place or is inefficient in the \nucm{13}{C} pocket for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$ as discussed in \citet{Suda2004}.
Figure~\ref{fig:rhot} shows the evolution trajectories on the central density and temperature diagram for selected models.
For $Z = 0$ stars of $M \geq 1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, helium burning is ignited in the centre before the neutrino losses start to play a critical role \citep{Suda2007}, while the lower mass limit of central helium ignition is $2.1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -1.3$ \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Suda2007b}.
In the present computations, the maximum initial mass of central helium ignition monotonically increases with increasing metallicity because of decrease in the temperature in the hydrogen burning shell, as found by (\cite{Cassisi1993}, see also \cite{Fujimoto1995}).
For $-5 \leq \textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -3$, in particular, the helium ignition occurs in the centre for $M \geq 1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:rhot}, the dependence of the border on the metallicity can be seen from the different evolutionary paths of helium ignition that are distinguished by the adiabatic expansion of the centre of the star, respectively.
Another variation in evolutionary paths of models at different metallicities is found in the appearance of a convective core for intermediate mass stars.
This can be recognized by the increase in the central temperature as a functio nof density due to the change of polytropic index from 3 to 1.5 during the central hydrogen burning.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f2.eps}
\caption{
Evolutionary tracks of model centres in the temperature-density
plane.
Some of the models in Fig.~\ref{fig:model} are selected.
Colour represents the metallicity of the models:
$Z = 0$ (red), $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$ (green), $-4$ (blue), $-3$ (violet),
and $-2$ (cyan).
Labels on the panel show the model mass in units of $\ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
}
\label{fig:rhot}
\end{figure}
Table~\ref{tab:evo} summarizes the evolutionary characteristics of our models before the He-FDDM, i.e., either of He-FDDM-R or He-FDDM-A.
The first two columns in Table~\ref{tab:evo} give the initial mass and metallicity of model.
The entries of the rest of columns differs according to whether the He-FDDM-R occurs or not.
If it occurs, the third columns gives the helium core mass just before the core helium flash, and the fifth to the eighth columns give the surface abundances of He, C, N, and O before the core helium flash, respectively.
Otherwise, the third and fourth columns give the maximum core mass interior to the hydrogen burning shell before the second dredge-up and the mass coordinate at the bottom of convective envelope after the second dredge-up, respectively.
The remaining columns give the surface abundances after the second dredge-up.
\input{Table2.tex}
\subsection{Hydrogen ingestion at the tip of RGB}
The He-FDDM-R occurs at the helium core flash if $M \la 1.1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -4$.
The border between Case I and Case II is almost consistent with that of FII00, although it has a weak metallicity dependence.
For $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$, we find mixing events for the models of 0.8 - $1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, but the models of $M = 1.1$ and $1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ do not result in the deep dredge-up after the hydrogen flash.
Hydrogen is engulfed only up to the shell of hydrogen abundance $\ensuremath{X_{\rm mix}} \sim 10^{-2}$ and $\sim 10^{-5}$ for $1.1$ and $1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, respectively.
For $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$, the hydrogen ingestion occurs for $M \leq 1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, but the hydrogen burning is not strong enough to drive convection and to dredge-up the nuclear products in the former helium convective shell.
Table~\ref{tab:hefddm} summarizes the characteristic values of He-FDDM and the surface abundances after the dredge-up.
The first and second columns specify the model parameters:
the third and fourth columns give the mass and radius of the helium-burning shell when He-FDDM takes place:
the fifth and sixth columns gives the maximum temperature reached at the bottom of helium-flash convection and the maximum helium-burning luminosity:
the next four columns provide the surface composition after the He-FDDM:
and the last column assigns the types of He-FDDM of whether it happens on the tip of the RGB (R) or during the early phase of TPAGB (A).
\input{Table3.tex}
In the following, we give some more detailed description to the characteristics of He-FDDM-R for the model of $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$ as a representative sincee there is no significant differences in the evolution of He-FDDM-R for the other models.
Figure~\ref{fig:hefddmr} shows the time development of convection during the off-centre core helium flash for this model.
The helium flash starts at the shell of $M_r \simeq 0.3585 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ in the helium core and drives a convection there.
The helium burning rate climbs to the peak of $\log L_{\rm He}^{\rm max} / \ensuremath{L_\odot}) = 10.86$ when the mass in the helium core is $M_{1} = 0.5395 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
The helium-flash convective zone extends further outward and we find the hydrogen ingestion when it comes to involve the mass $0.1767 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\log L/\ensuremath{L_\odot} = 2.976$ and $\log \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}} = 3.669$.
The helium-flash convection erodes the entire hydrogen
burning shell and leaves a sharp discontinuity in the
hydrogen profile.
The mass $M_{\rm mix}$ of the hydrogen-containing layers incorporated by the helium flash-convection amounts to $\sim \pow{6}{-3} \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
The mass of hydrogen engulfed is estimated at $\sim \pow{8}{-5} \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, and this amount is enough for the hydrogen flash to occur and split the helium-flash convective zone.
In the helium-flash convection, the mass fractions of CNO elements change before and after the hydrogen mixing from $(X_{\rm C}, X_{\rm N}, X_{\rm O} ) = (\pow{3}{-2}, \pow{2}{-9}, \pow{3}{-6})$ to $ (\pow{4.8}{-2}, \pow{9.2}{-3}, \pow{1.1}{-5})$.
The deepening of the surface convection changes the surface abundances to $\ensuremath{X_{\rm C}} = \pow{1.6}{-2}$, $\ensuremath{X_{\rm N}} = \pow{3.1}{-3}$, and $\ensuremath{X_{\rm O}} = \pow{3.7}{-6}$.
The total mass fraction \ensuremath{X_{\rm CNO}}\ of CNO elements is \pow{1.91}{-2} for this model.
We do not find any hydrogen ingestion events at the AGB phase because of the large CNO abundance in the envelope after the He-FDDM-R.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f3.eps}
\caption{
Time evolution of helium-flash convection due to the mixing and the dredge-up by the surface convection during the off-centre core helium flash for $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$.
Dash-dotted line with the label ``$M_{{\rm bhs}}$'' denotes the bottom of the hydrogen-burning shell or of the hydrogen-containing layers.
The time $t = 0$ is set at the appearance of helium-flash convective zone.
Shaded areas denote the convective zones driven by helium burning (light shaded) and hydrogen burning (dark shaded).
Hatched area represents the surface convection.
}
\label{fig:hefddmr}
\end{figure}
Finally, we briefly comment on the weak hydrogen mixing events at the RGB so that do not involve the hydrogen flash and the splitting of convective zone.
It occurs in the models adjacent to the red line, as shown by dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}, although the amount of hydrogen engulfed by the helium flash-convection decreases rapidly with the initial CNO abundance and with the stellar mass because of the increase in the entropy in the hydrogen burning shell \citep{Fujimoto1990}.
For example, the $1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ encounters a small amount ($\ensuremath{X_{\rm mix}} < 10^{-8}$) of hydrogen mixing despite its large helium-burning luminosity ($\log (L_{\rm He}^{\rm max} / \ensuremath{L_\odot})$ = 10.57) at the peak of the core helium flash.
For very low metallicity, the dotted lines come close together since the tail of hydrogen profile is curtailed owing to the carbon production by 3$\alpha$ reactions in the bottom of hydrogen burning shell.
The mixed hydrogen triggers he neutron capture reactions in the helium convective zone, but in the case of He-FDDM-R, the nuclear products are buried in the core without any effect on the surface abundances.
These models simply evolve to the TPAGB and undergo He-FDDM-A.
\subsection{Hydrogen ingestion during the early phase of AGB}
The hydrogen ingestion events are found for masses up to $\sim 6 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$, as shown by circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
In some of them, hydrogen ingestion is strong enough to cause hydrogen burning flashes which eventually drive hydrogen flash convection and deep mixing by the surface convection, giving rise to He-FDDM-A.
These Case II and II$^\prime$~models are shown by filled circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
In other models, mixed protons are burned in the helium-flash convective zones, but they do not affect the subsequent evolution except for nucleosynthesis in the helium flash convective zone.
These models are shown by open circles and we do not refer to them as He-FDDM-A.
These models are shown by open circles with the contour map of \ensuremath{X_{\rm mix}}, and we do not refer to them as He-FDDM-A.
Case II and II$^\prime$\ models undergo hydrogen ingestion in the beginning of AGB after a few thermal pulses, and yet, the timing of mixing events varies with the initial mass and metallicity.
The difference depends sensitively on the thermal state of the helium core and, therefore, on the growth of the helium shell flashes.
Figure~\ref{fig:hefddmaa} shows the mixing and dredge-up by the He-FDDM-A in the fifth pulse of the $2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ model as typical of the He-FDDM-A event.
In this case, we find the occurrence of weak hydrogen ingestion twice, once during the third pulse and once during the fourth pulse, neither of which causes the hydrogen flashes.
At the fifth thermal pulse, the hydrogen mixing is strong enough to drive a flash in the helium convection.
The peak luminosity of helium burning in the fifth pulse amounts to $\log (L_{{\rm He}} / L_{\sun}) = 7.28$.
Engulfed protons are mixed down to $\approx 20$ percent from the top of helium flash convection in mass, and are quickly burnt at the bottom of mixed shell where the temperature is $\sim \pow{1.0}{8}$ K.
When the helium-flash convection extends outward to the hydrogen containing shell of hydrogen abundance $X \approx 0.02$, the hydrogen-flash driven convection appears at the bottom of mixed shell.
At this moment, the hydrogen-burning luminosity reaches $\pow{1.1}{10} L_{\sun}$.
In this double convective shell phase, the outer hydrogen flash convection grows further in mass by the engulfment of the hydrogen-containing shells.
The hydrogen flash convection incorporates the mass of $\pow{8.30}{-3} \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ at the maximum erosion, nearly half of the maximum mass of helium-flash convection.
The hydrogen convection lasts for six years until the flash is quenched due to the expansion of the burning shell.
The luminosity due to the hydrogen burning and the temperature at the bottom of convective shell decrease to $\log (L_{{\rm H}} / L_{\sun}) = 3.55$ and $\pow{1.52}{7}$ K, respectively, just before the disappearance of hydrogen flash convection.
The abundances in the convective zone are the following; $X = 0.393$, $\ensuremath{X_{\rm C}} = 0.175$, $\ensuremath{X_{\rm N}} = \pow{1.37}{-2}$, and $\ensuremath{X_{\rm O}} = \pow{8.22}{-3}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f4.eps}
\caption{
Time evolution of helium- and hydrogen-flash convection during the mixing and dredge-up at the fifth thermal pulse of $2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$;
$M_{1}$ and $M_{{\rm bhs}}$ are the centre and bottom of the hydrogen-burning shell, defined by the shells of hydrogen abundance equal to half the surface value and equal to zero, respectively, and $M_{{\rm CO}}$ is the border between the helium-rich layer and the carbon-oxygen core, defined by the helium abundance equal to a half in mass.
The surface abundances of carbon and nitrogen are also shown in logarithms of the ratio to the scaled solar abundance relative to iron, i.e., $[ {\rm X } / {\rm Fe}]$ as indicated in the right-hands side margin.
The time $t = 0$ is set at the appearance of helium-flash convective zone.
The meanings of the shaded areas are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:hefddmr}.
}
\label{fig:hefddmaa}
\end{figure}
After He-FDDM-A, we have the surface abundances of $\textrm{[C/Fe]} = 3.50$, $\textrm{[N/Fe]} = 2.83$, and $\textrm{[O/Fe]} = 1.68$ at the surface.
The mass dredged up by the surface convection is $\pow{7.89}{-3} \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, which is almost all the mass involved in the convective zone driven by hydrogen flash.
Since the whole envelope becomes abundant in CNO elements ([CNO/H] $> -2.5$) after the dredge-up, the hydrogen ingestion does not occur in the following thermal pulses.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f5.eps}
\caption{
Evolution of the helium-burning rate (in unit of $\ensuremath{L_\odot}$) during the early TPAGB phase for different masses with the same metallicity, as given on top left corner.
Crosses and circles denote the first contact of helium-flash convection with the bottom of the hydrogen-burning shell for each thermal pulse and the occurrence of He-FDDM.
The time $t=0$ is set at the arbitrary time in the early phase of the TPAGB.
}
\label{fig:lhemass}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f6.eps}
\caption{
The same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:lhemass}, but for different metallicity with the same mass of $M = 2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
}
\label{fig:lhemetal}
\end{figure}
The way the thermal pulse grows differs from model to model.
Figures~\ref{fig:lhemass} and \ref{fig:lhemetal} show the variation of the growth of the thermal pulses for various models, which present the mass and metallicity sequence of shell helium flashes with a given metallicity of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ and a given mass of $M = 2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, respectively.
It shows that He-FDDM-A is preceded by weak hydrogen ingestion without hydrogen shell-flash or the splitting of convection once to several times except for the model of the smallest mass.
The weak hydrogen ingestion may entail the neutron capture reactions with \nuc{13}C as neutron sources to produce peculiar abundance patterns of light elements, C through Al with s-process elements \citep{Nishimura2009}.
These nuclear products are incorporated into the convective zone during the subsequent helium flashes and finally are dredged up to the surface during He-FDDM-A, differently from He-FDDM-R.
In addition, we find the case of hydrogen ingestion without He-FDDM.
This is the case for the model of $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:lhemass}, and for the models shown by open circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
These models can be the origins of both CEMP-{\it s} and CEMP-no{\it s} depending on the efficiency of {\it s}-process nucleosynthesis in the helium-flash convective zones.
For example, TDU is found at the tenth thermal pulse for $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ after the weak hydrogen-mixing events of $\ensuremath{X_{\rm mix}} \sim 10^{-5}$.
In this model, 11 hydrogen-mixing events are found during 12 thermal pulses.
Interestingly, the final surface chemical composition after the He-FDDM-A can differ greatly not only with the mass among the models with $Z = 0$ but also between the models with $Z = 0$ and other EMP models.
For $M \la 1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, it depends on the strength of the thermal pulse when the hydrogen ingestion drives the flash.
For the model of $M = 1.2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$, He-FDDM-A occurs at the helium shell-flash of the maximum helium-burning luminosity, $\ensuremath{\log (L_{\rm He} / L_{\odot})} \simeq 5.0$.
This is relatively low compared with the typical luminosity of $\ensuremath{\log (L_{\rm He} / L_{\odot})} \ga 6$.
As a result of a weak thermal pulse, the final surface abundances of CNO elements are as small as [C/H] $= -1.98$, [N/H] $= -0.43$, and [O/H] $= -2.66$, but sufficiently large to prohibit the hydrogen ingestion during the subsequent helium shell-flashes.
For $M = 1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$, we also find a weak hydrogen ingestion at $\ensuremath{\log (L_{\rm He} / L_{\odot})} = 4.28$ during the second thermal pulse.
As a result, we obtain $\abra{C}{H} = -3.94$, $\abra{N}{H} = -1.87$,
and $\abra{O}{H} = -4.62$ after the He-FDDM-A.
However, the entropy barrier at the core is still too small to prevent a hydrogen ingestion.
For this model, therefore, we find a second He-FDDM-A in the fifth pulse where $\ensuremath{\log (L_{\rm He} / L_{\odot})} = 7.15$, which eventually raises the surface CNO abundances become rich enough to prohibit further events of hydrogen ingestion.
For $M = 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$, we find a different mechanism of dredge-up during the sixth thermal pulse as well as the hydrogen ingestion.
In this model, the convective instabilities take place at the hydrogen-burning shell during the sixth pulse after several events of weak hydrogen ingestion.
Figure~\ref{fig:hefddmab} shows the appearance of convective zone at the bottom of the hydrogen burning shell and dredge-up in the sixth pulse.
The convective zone appears in the shell where the bottom of convection reaches down to the shell of $X \sim 10^{-5}$, which is close to the bottom of hydrogen-containing shell as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hefddmab}.
The reason for the appearance of convective instabilities is discussed below.
This hydrogen-burning driven convection grows in mass as much as $\pow{2.29}{-3} \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, and finally contains hydrogen, with $X = 0.59$.
For this case, nuclear products in the hydrogen burning shell are brought up to the surface as the convective envelope deepens.
Since the dredge-up does not penetrate into the helium-burning layer, the resultant surface abundances of CNO elements are not so large compared with the case of the He-FDDM.
We find $\ensuremath{X_{\rm C}} = \pow{7.0}{-8}$, $\ensuremath{X_{\rm N}} = \pow{2.0}{-7}$, and $\ensuremath{X_{\rm O}} = \pow{4.6}{-9}$ after the dredge-up in the sixth pulse.
This result is different from the models of $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$ computed by \citet{Siess2002} and \citet{Campbell2008b}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f7.eps}
\caption{
Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:hefddmaa}, but for the sixth pulse of the model of $M = 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and $Z = 0$.
Surface abundances are shown in units of mass fraction.
The location of $M_{1}$ is omitted in this figure since it is almost identical to those of $M_{{\rm bhs}}$.
}
\label{fig:hefddmab}
\end{figure}
We may conclude that the dredge-up by the hydrogen convective instability has nothing to do with the hydrogen mixing into the helium flash convection.
The computations of this model is terminated at the seventh pulse due to technical difficulties in the numerical computations.
It is to be noted, however, that the hydrogen ingestion events are still in a growing phase along with the number of pulses.
We expect therefore that the further computations of the model may increase the surface abundances because CNO abundances do not exceed the mixing limit of [CNO/H] $\sim -2.5$, and we may classify this model as He-FDDM-A.
\citet{Campbell2008b} find the mixing events and dredge-up for the same mass and metallicity.
We have encountered two types of convective instability in the hydrogen burning shell.
The first type is found for the 2 or $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -5$ including $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$ as mentioned above.
Similar results are reported for the models of $4 \mathchar`- 6 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z=0$ by \citet{Chieffi2001} and for the models of 2 and $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z=0$ by \citet{Siess2002}.
In these models, the temperature of the hydrogen-burning shell is high enough to produce CN-cycle catalysts during the stable helium shell burning on AGB.
Then, convection appears at the very bottom of the hydrogen-burning shell only with $X \la 10^{-5}$ initially.
The convection is driven by the active CN cycle for which the temperature dependence of energy generation rates is large compared with {\it p-p}\ chains.
It grows and engulfs more hydrogen into the convection and finally forms an abundance discontinuity between the hydrogen-burning shell and the helium core.
The formation of this discontinuity occurs during the decay phase of the helium flash where $L_{\rm He} \sim 10^4 \ensuremath{L_\odot}$.
However, we could not find any contact of helium-flash convection with this hydrogen.
After the end of the helium flash, the hydrogen discontinuity disappears quickly due to the hydrogen shell burning at its bottom.
Due to the small expansion of the hydrogen-burning layer, the convective envelope slightly dredges up materials to the surface, but the surface abundances are almost unchanged.
The hydrogen-burning luminosity by this convective burning is negligible compared with the helium-burning luminosity.
Note that this type of convective instability is driven by the same mechanism as the He-H flash in low-mass Pop.~III stars caused by the strong temperature dependence of triple-$\alpha$ reaction rates \citep{Fujimoto1990,Suda2007}.
The second type of convective instability is found in $M \ga 4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models.
This type of convection is caused by the effect of opacity just after the disappearance of helium-flash convection.
Since the convective shell appears in the middle of the hydrogen-burning shell, the profile of the hydrogen-burning shell is smooth at its bottom.
Although we find the convective instability in every thermal pulse, it does not cause any effects on the evolution and the surface abundances.
In the models of this mass range, convective instabilities do not occur at the bottom of hydrogen-burning shell because the CNO abundances are decreased by the penetration of surface convective zone at the second dredge-up.
\subsection{No hydrogen ingestion events}
For Case III models in Tab.~\ref{tab:case}, which are designated by open triangles in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}, the helium flash convection never touches the hydrogen-containing layer.
The final fate of Case III evolution is not well established and still controversial because of the uncertainty in the prescription of the mass loss rate.
\citet{Gil-Pons2007} discusses the final fate of these models by comparing the time for the core to approach Chandrasekhar mass and the time to expel the whole envelope using their adopted prescription for mass loss.
They conclude that the former is much smaller than the latter and that the stars in this mass range are likely to end their lives as carbon detonation/deflagration supernovae.
The models that ignite the carbon burning in the degenerate core finish their lives by exploding the whole star.
\citet{Tsujimoto2006} insist that there are three metal-poor stars showing the evidence of the thermonuclear supernovae of $4-7 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ stars with very low metallicity ($\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -4$).
They argue that these stars are formed from gas polluted by the remnant of the carbon deflagration supernovae evolved from the AGB stars whose cores approach Chandrasekhar limit due to their inefficient mass loss.
For more massive stars, carbon burning develops after the second dredge-up.
The border of the occurrence of carbon burning is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
We terminated our computations when the carbon burning drives convection to appear.
This border is defined by $\ensuremath{M_{\rm UP}}$ as the critical initial mass above which carbon burning starts in the centre of the CO core without explosion.
The value of $\ensuremath{M_{\rm UP}}$ becomes $8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \geq -4$, $9 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$, and $8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $Z = 0$ in our models.
The models in this region can become white dwarfs for primordial stars as they lose their envelope through mass loss after evolving to the so-called ``Super AGB'' \citep{GarciaBerro1994,Ritossa1996}.
These models have O, Ne, and Mg cores and undergo the thermally pulsing phase of the hydrogen and helium burning \citep{GilPons2005}.
For $Z = 0$ and $5 \leq M / \ensuremath{M_\odot} \leq 10$, \citet{Gil-Pons2007} followed
the carbon burning and super AGB phase with and without convective overshooting.
They find no hydrogen engulfment by the helium shell flashes, which is consistent with ours and also with FII00.
They also find $\ensuremath{M_{\rm UP}}$ of $7.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ without overshooting.
\section{Discussion}
In this section, we discuss the possible application of our computational results to the observed characteristics of EMP stars, starting with the discussion about model uncertainties and the comparisons with previous works.
\subsection{Model uncertainties}
We examine the uncertainties of our numerical models by changing the values of mixing length parameter for $6 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$.
We compute several models for different $\ensuremath{\alpha_{{\rm MLT}}} = 1.0 - 3.0$ to check whether the mixing length parameter affects the efficiency of the TDU event because the model is close to the boundary of the occurrence of the TDU events as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
The model computed with $\ensuremath{\alpha_{{\rm MLT}}} = 1.5$ never produced TDU events up to the 55th thermal pulse.
We re-compute the models of $54 \mathchar`- 60$th thermal pulse (over the duration of $> 10^{4}$ years which is enough time to readjust the envelope) by changing the value of $\ensuremath{\alpha_{{\rm MLT}}}$, but do not encounter the deep dredge-up to enrich carbon in the envelope.
The change of mixing length parameters by a factor of a few seems not to change the efficiency of dredge-ups.
If we take into account significant amount of overshooting, the threshold for dredge-ups may be lowered.
\citet{Lau2009} already discussed this and obtained differences from their fiducial models within expectation.
Therefore, we will not discuss here about overshooting since unfortunately, we do not have any plausible methods for calibrating the values of overshooting as well as the mixing length parameters for AGB models at low-metallicity.
We also computed a $2.0 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ with $\ensuremath{\alpha_{{\rm MLT}}} = 3.0$ from the zero-age main sequence to see the total quantitative difference from our fiducial model of $\ensuremath{\alpha_{{\rm MLT}}} = 1.5$.
This model has almost the same mass of helium core at the beginning of the thermal pulse as our fiducial model.
We encounter hydrogen ingestion at the 3rd, 4th, and 5th thermal pulses as in the fiducial model.
We obtain slightly different helium core mass at the 5th thermal pulse where we find He-FDDM-A, and hence, a small difference in the surface abundances after dredge-up within a few factor.
We may conclude that the dependence of mixing length parameter is weak.
Before closing this subsection, we comment on the hot bottom burning (HBB).
In our models, we do not find any signature of HBB episodes.
The temperature at the bottom of convective envelope always remains lower than $\pow{3}{7} K$ irrespective of stellar mass.
\citet{Campbell2008b} and \citet{Siess2002} insist that they find the HBB for the models of $\geq 2$ or $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ of zero metallicity.
On the other hand, \citet{Lau2009} do not find HBB for $M \leq 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, while they find hot third dredge-up for the models of more massive star, typically $M \geq 4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
The hot third dredge-up is the efficient dredge-up of the former helium convective shells after the thermal pulse by the convective envelope where CN cycles operate at its bottom.
The reason for the efficient HBB at lower initial metallicity should be related to the larger temperature of the hydrogen-burning shell than in the more metal-rich counterparts because of the lack of pristine CNO elements.
However, the situation can be changed if He-FDDM occurs in the early phase of thermal pulses and enriches the CNO elements in the surface as much as those of metal-rich populations.
The surface abundances of EMP models at the AGB play an important role when we consider the origins of the most iron-poor stars currently known.
The efficient HBB events are not supported by the observations of EMP stars in the view of the dearth of nitrogen enhanced EMP stars relative to carbon-enhanced EMP (CEMP) stars.
In the current observations, only 10 \% of CEMP stars show $[\textrm{N}/\textrm{C}] \ga 0.5$ (T. Suda et al. 2010, in prep.).
The reason for the absence of HBB events is still an open question \citep{Masseron2009}.
In order to understand the difference in the operation of HBB, we have compared models with different stellar evolution codes (Suda et al 2010, in preparation).
As far as we check the details of models, a difference is likely to be due to the difference in numerical schemes.
The detailed discussion about this topic is beyond the scope of this paper because we mainly focus on the mixing events and dredge-up.
However, it should be noted that the final surface abundances presented here can be affected by HBB if it occurs during the TPAGB phase.
\subsection{Comparisons with previous works}
As mentioned in \S 1, several previous works reported the abundances after the He-FDDM events, which can be compared with our results shown in Table~\ref{tab:hefddm}.
Table~\ref{tab:compare} summarize the previous results of computations of low- and intermediate-mass stars at low metallicity except for LST09 who computed the models in the mass range of $1 \leq M / \ensuremath{M_\odot} \leq 7$ and the metallicity range of $-6.3 \leq \textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -2.3$ but give the resultant abundances only in their figures.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f8.eps}
\caption{
Final surface CNO abundances of our models at the AGB phase as a function of initial mass.
Our computations are terminated after several thermal pulses.
For Cases I, II, and Case II$^\prime$\ models, the final surface abundances are dominated by the He-FDDM events.
For $Z = 0$ models, we assume that the model surfaces are contaminated additionally by metals with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5.5$ to compare with the observed HMP stars.
For $1.5$ and $2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models with $Z = 0$, we plot the results for 1st and 2nd event of the He-FDDM-A.
}
\label{fig:abn}
\end{figure}
\input{Table4.tex}
For low mass stars, most of the previous works find hydrogen ingestion into the helium-flash convection and revealed the huge enrichment of CNO abundance in the surface.
These abundances are consistent within a factor of 2 or 3 except for the oxygen abundance.
The large oxygen abundances by \citet{Picardi2004} and by \citet{Campbell2008b} (hereafter CL08), compared with ours and probably with those of \citet{Schlattl2002} is due to the neutron recycling reactions, $\nucm{12}{C} (n, \gamma) \nucm{13}{C} (\alpha, n) \nucm{16}{O}$, as discussed in \citet{Nishimura2009}.
In our computations, we did not follow the neutron capture reactions, and hence, oxygen is produced solely by $\nucm{12}{C} (\alpha, \gamma) \nucm{16}{O}$.
Accordingly, for the He-FDDM-R and the He-FDDM-A in low-mass stars, more than an order of magnitude differences arise because of an inefficient oxygen production by $\nucm{12}{C} (\alpha, \gamma)$ at small carbon abundance in the helium flash convective zone.
However, the differences narrow for the He-FDDM-A since the oxygen production becomes efficient rapidly with increasing carbon abundance \citep[see e.g.,][]{Suda2004}.
With regard to the parameter ranges of the He-FDDM events, CL08 find He-FDDM-R (which they call Dual Core Flash) in the $0.85 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model but not in $1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model for the metallicity of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -5.45$.
This threshold metallicity for $1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ is lower than our result.
However, the general trend is the same, i.e., the proton ingestion is likely to take place for models that are less massive and more metal-poor.
This can be seen from the dotted lines in Fig~\ref{fig:model} that show the largest hydrogen abundance in the hydrogen-containing layer that the helium-flash convection has reached.
As for He-FDDM-A, the upper metallicity boundary of the occurrence ($\textrm{[Fe/H]} \simeq -2.5$) is somewhat larger than obtained by CL08 and LST09.
CL08 find He-FDDM-A events (which they call Dual Shell Flash) for the metallicity, $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -3$ and $< -4$ in their models of $M < 2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and $M \geq 2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, respectively.
The boundary metallicity of hydrogen flash in LST09 is almost the same as in CL08.
As for the mass boundary of He-FDDM-A, our result presented in Fig~\ref{fig:model} is similar to, though slightly larger than, the results both by CL08 ($M \leq 2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ and $M \leq 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -5$) and by LST09 ($M \leq 2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -4$), as well as to that of FII00.
On the other hand, our mass and metallicity threshoulds for He-FDDM-A agree well with those of \citet{Iwamoto2004}, in contrast to the discrepancy with those of CL08 and LST09.
Fig.~1 of CL08 shows the time evolution of convective zones during the He-FDDM-R event for $1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -6.5$.
Our comparative model of $1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$ gives quantitatively similar results.
In our model, core helium flash ignites at slightly smaller core mass ($M_{1} = 0.499 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ vs. $M_{1} = 0.51 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ in CL08) in slightly outer mass shell ($M_{r} = 0.317 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ vs. $M_{r} = 0.295 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ in CL08).
Accordingly, the pressure in the helium burning shell is smaller, and hence, the helium flash is weaker in ours than in CL08.
The mass in the hydrogen-flash convective zone is smaller in our model than in CL08, ($0.09 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ vs. $0.1 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$), though the difference reduces because of larger radius at the shell of ignition.
The duration of the hydrogen-flash convection is shorter ($\simeq 500$ versus $\simeq 1000$ years).
On the other hand, the dredge-up mass is larger in our models than in CL08 by a factor of $\sim 2$, since the helium flash, and hence, the hydrogen flash, occur in the shells closer to the hydrogen-burning shell.
Such small differences may readily arises from the difference in the numerical treatment such as the treatment of spacing and rezoning of mesh points.
Slight differences in temperature can cause considerable changes in the condition of igniting helium flashes because of the strong temperature dependence of helium-burning rate at the ignition.
For LST09, we may compare the models of our $1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ at $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$, $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ at $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$, and $4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ at $Z = 0$ with their models of same masses at $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3.3$, $-5.3$, and $-6.3$.
For all of these models, they have larger helium core mass at the beginning of thermal pulses on AGB phase.
The largest difference is $0.07 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ ($13\%$ of the core mass) between the
$1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models, while the difference grows smaller to be only $0.01$ - $0.02 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for more massive models like 3 and $4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
The larger core mass may be one of the reasons that they find a boundary for He-FDDM at smaller initial mass and metallicity.
For $1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models, our models have larger mass in the helium-flash convection during helium shell flashes than those of LST09 ($0.035 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ compared with $0.024 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$) due to the smaller masses of carbon-oxygen core.
Both meet with the He-FDDM-A event at the third pulse on the TPAGB.
In spite of the difference in helium core mass, the maximum helium-burning luminosity is almost the same in both models ($\log (L_{\textrm{He}}^{\textrm{p}} / \ensuremath{L_\odot}) = 7.6$, see Tab.~\ref{tab:hefddm}).
The dredge-up mass by this event is two times larger in our model ($0.018 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$) than in LST09 ($0.009 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$), while the dredge-up efficiency is smaller in ours (80 \% of the former hydrogen-flash convective zone) than in theirs (almost 100 \%).
The maximum hydrogen-burning luminosity is much larger in our model.
Our model reaches $\log (L_{\textrm{H}}^{\textrm{p}} / \ensuremath{L_\odot}) \sim 10$, while they have only $\sim 7$.
For $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models, the growth of thermal pulses is similar in both models in their height and interval.
However, they find a so-called ``carbon ingestion'', as discussed later, while we do not.
For $4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models, the result is quite different in the sense that they find deep convective envelope well below the bottom of the hydrogen-burning shell (they call hot third dredge-up) after the seventh thermal pulse.
The bottom of convective envelope comes close to the carbon oxygen core in their model.
In contrast, we only find ordinary third dredge-up at tenth thermal pulse for this model.
This is the same phenomenon as ``hot dredge-up'' found in $5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models of \citet{Herwig2003}.
We still do not know why such quite different efficiency of the TDU is obtained by different stellar evolution code.
From the published data, it is difficult to pinpoint the critical reason for differences between models because of a lack of comparable data.
For intermediate mass stars with M $\geq$ 4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}, \citet{Chieffi2001} also demonstrate that
``carbon ingestion'' occurs for AGB models of $Z = 0$ and 4 - $6 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
This is driven by the hydrogen-burning instability during the thermal pulse, which causes the penetration of the hydrogen convective zone into the underlying carbon-rich layer, assisted by the induced overshooting.
An injection of hydrogen into the carbon-rich layer gives rise to a hydrogen flash in carbon-rich layer to deepen the convective envelope in mass, leading to the enhancement of CNO elements in the surface convection as much as $\ensuremath{X_{\rm CNO}} \sim \pow{4}{-6}$.
It is suggested that additional mixing, such as increased overshooting, leads to the enrichment of surface CNO elements to values like those in Pop.II AGB models.
\citet{Siess2002} found and named ``carbon injection'' similar to that found by \citet{Chieffi2001} and detected the inward extension of convection by the hydrogen shell burning during thermal pulses for $Z = 0$ and $M = 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4$, and $5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models.
\citet{Herwig2003} also finds the hydrogen convective episode at the bottom of the hydrogen-burning shell for $5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $Z = 0$, although it does not cause the carbon ingestion.
The different results for the carbon ingestion are ascribed to the different treatment of convective mixing.
The carbon ingestion events are found in stellar evolution codes that mix the layers over the convective boundary with the discontinuity of chemical composition.
Since the treatment of convective overshooting with such large difference in the molecular weight is not well established, and since the evolution and nucleosynthesis in these metal-poor models are sensitive to the treatment of mixing and burning in the code, numerical details should be investigated more carefully.
\subsection{Comparisons with observed EMP stars}
If we compare the abundance of models with those of observed stars directly, we should adopt the models with mass $M \la 0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ because most of the known EMP stars have long lifetimes equal to or longer than the age of the universe.
On the other hand, we can compare the abundances of models with $M > 0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, if we assume that binary mass transfer or wind accretion occurs in a binary system consisting of a massive primary and a low-mass secondary whose mass is $\sim 0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
We have emphasized the role of binaries as addressed in the previous works \citep{Suda2004,Komiya2007,Komiya2009a}.
In this case, however, it seems difficult to constrain how much mass is accreted onto the surface of the secondary in the EMP binaries.
This is true even if the binary parameters are known from observations since the evolution of stars in the close binary systems critically depends on the angular momentum loss from the systems, which is yet to be well constrained both theoretically and observationally.
Accordingly, in this work, we do not consider the details of the binary evolution.
Figure~\ref{fig:abn} summarizes the surface CNO abundances of our low- to intermediate-mass models.
Here we assume that $Z = 0$ models are polluted with metals by interstellar accretion to as metal-rich as $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5.5$, roughly comparable with the abundances of hyper/ultra metal-poor (HMP/UMP) stars, defined as having metallicity below $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -4.5$.
For $M = 1.5$ and $2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models with $Z = 0$, we add the results of the two He-FDDM-A events.
As can be seen in the figure, we obtained various trends for the ratio of CNO elements, which are useful indicators for the origins of observed EMP stars.
As for oxygen, our results set a lower bound for the enrichment since our models do not take into account the oxygen production due to neutron recycling reactions.
Nevertheless, our results suggest that the oxygen production by $\nucm{12}{C} (\alpha, \gamma) \nucm{16}{O}$ alone can produce a fairly large oxygen enrichment to explain some of the observations.
The oxygen enrichment in EMP stars is discussed by \citet{Nishimura2009} in detail with the oxygen production taken into account in the helium-burning shell both through the $\alpha$ capture of \nucm{12}{C} and the neutron recycling reactions.
Figure~\ref{fig:cno} shows the observed C and N abundances, taken from the SAGA database \citep{Suda2008}.
For models after He-FDDM events, we obtain the range, $-2 \la \textrm{[C/N]} \la 1$.
If these models experience the subsequent TDU events, only carbon can be enhanced, and hence, the data go toward bottom right in Fig.~\ref{fig:cno}.
In general, we find extremely large enhancement of carbon and nitrogen by He-FDDM-R, because of relatively large mass in the flash convective zone and of relatively small envelope mass.
For He-FDDM-A, we find small variations in abundance ratios for between $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ and $-5$, while $Z = 0$ models have different ratios depending on initial mass.
It should be noted that our model computations are terminated after several thermal pulses without considering mass loss.
The final surface abundances depend on the mass loss history of progenitor stars, although the surface abundances are strongly influenced by the He-FDDM events.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f9.eps}
\caption{
Comparison of the carbon and nitrogen enhancement obtained by the model computations with the observed abundances for EMP and HMP/UMP stars.
The present results are shown by the same symbols connected by the same types of lines as in Fig.~\ref{fig:abn}.
Numerals attached to some of points indicate the model masses.
The labels with ``(1)'' and ``(2)'' denote the results after the first and second event of hydrogen ingestion, respectively.
The observed abundances are taken from the SAGA database \citep{Suda2008} and divided into three groups; C-normal stars for $\textrm{[C/Fe]} < 0.5$, C-rich stars for $\textrm{[C/Fe]} \geq 0.5$ and $\textrm{[Fe/H]} > -2.5$, and CEMP stars for $\textrm{[C/Fe]} \geq 0.5$ and $-4.5 \leq \textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -2.5$, and HMP/UMP stars for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} < -4.5$.
}
\label{fig:cno}
\end{figure}
As for the three HMP/UMP stars known to date, HE0107-5240, HE1327-2326, and HE0557-4840, we may suggest that their progenitors are the low-mass members of binary systems whose surfaces have been polluted with the envelope matter ejected by the primary stars evolving to AGB.
Regardless of the details of binary mass accretion, the CNO abundances of HE0107-5240 \citep{Christlieb2002,Christlieb2004b} may be consistent with those of $1.5 - 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$ or $Z = 0$, if we take into account the carbon enrichment by the TDU subsequent to He-FDDM, as discussed in \citet{Suda2004} and \citet{Nishimura2009}.
For HE1327-2326, $M = 1.5 - 2.0 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$ model agrees well for carbon and nitrogen abundances derived by \citet{Aoki2006b} without recourse to TDU.
The oxygen abundance derived by \citet{Frebel2006b} is explicable in terms of neutron recycling reactions in the helium-flash convective zones as discussed in \citet{Nishimura2009}.
The abundance pattern of HE0557-4840 may be the result of the TDU event as discussed in \citet{Nishimura2009}.
The model of $M = 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$ seems to agree with the abundance trend of CNO elements, but we cannot exclude the possibility of He-FDDM-A with weak hydrogen ingestion at $M = 3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $Z = 0$.
For this star, we have to wait for the abundances for nitrogen and oxygen since \citet{Norris2007} give only the upper limits.
These interpretations are shown to be compatible with the observed abundances for other elements such as Na, Mg, and Al \citep{Nishimura2009}, and will be discussed for s-process elements in the subsequent paper (Yamada et al.~ in preparation).
Of course, the detailed comparisons require the more sophisticated modelling of binary evolution considering the mass loss and mass accretion history and the element mixing between the accreted and envelope matter in the secondary of the binary system.
Finally, we note that for all of these stars, the self-pollution by the He-FDDM-R in $\sim 0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ stars should be rejected because of too large enhancement of carbon and nitrogen such as $\textrm{[C/Fe]} \sim \textrm{[N/Fe]} > 5$ \citep[see also,][]{Picardi2004,Campbell2008b}.
\subsection{Other modifications of surface abundances}
So far, we have focused on the hydrogen ingestion and He-FDDM, and in this section, we discuss the other events that may affect the surface abundances.
The main driver of changing surface abundances is the surface convection in the envelope that deepens in mass to dredge up the nuclear products of the hydrogen and helium-burning.
There are three ocasions that with regards to the notation of the dredge-up mechanisms,
we adopt the following convention that is commonly used; the 1st dredge-up occurs at the beginning of the red giant branch, the second dredge-up occurs at the beginning of the TPAGB phase, and the 3rd dredge-up occurs during double shell burning.
For the EMP stars, the 1st dredge-up in $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ stars only slightly changes the surface abundances because of the shallower surface convection when compared with the more metal-rich models.
Our models show the change of helium abundance by less than two percents, and also, changes in the CNO abundances by less than one percent, regardless of metallicity.
On the other hand, \citet{Spite2005} find some C-poor and N-rich stars among EMP giants and named them ``mixed'' stars.
The mixed stars are reported to have typically [C/N] $\sim -1.5$, while ``unmixed'' stars have [C/N] $\ga 0$.
This can be brought about by the internal mixing during the first ascent on the red giant branch, while also possible is pollution by AGB stars in the binaries, as discussed by \citep[see also,][]{Spite2006}.
In the former case, the conversion of carbon into nitrogen in the envelope requires extended mixing (so-called ``extra mixing'') in the radiative zone below the surface convection.
Figure~\ref{fig:mixed} shows the profile of abundance ratio $\abra{C}{N}$ in the radiative zone as a function of the depth of the shell from the bottom of surface convection, measured in pressure, $\Delta \ln \ensuremath{P_{\rm mix}} \equiv \ln (P / P_{\rm bc})$, where $P$ and $P_{\rm bc}$ are the pressures at the shell and at the bottom of surface convection, respectively, for various metallicity.
The observed ratios of $\abra{C}{N} (\simeq -1.5)$ are realized in the shells deeper by 5 pressure scale-heights for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} =-2.3$ to by more than10 pressure scale-heights for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = 4$, depending on the metallicity;
the depth corresponds to $\sim 0.06 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ in mass for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} =-3$.
This may give an estimate of the depth that extra-mixing has to reach in order to realize the abundance changes observed for ``mixed'' stars during the RGB evolution, though the actual degrees of abundance changes also depend on the time scale of extra mixing.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f10.eps}
\caption{
Abundance profile of carbon to nitrogen ratio in the envelope of $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models for various metallicities as a function of the logarithmic pressure ratio, $\Delta \ln P_{\rm mix} = \ln (P/P_{\rm bc})$, between the pressure, $P$, at the shell and the $P_{\rm bc}$ at the bottom of surface convection (solid lines).
Models are taken at the maximum depth of surface convection during the first ascent on the giant branch.
Dotted line denotes the temperature for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$.
The axis of abscissa in the top gives the mass contained between the shell and the bottom of surface convection for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$.
}
\label{fig:mixed}
\end{figure}
The characteristics of the second dredge-up are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:evo}.
The effect of the second dredge-up is significant in the helium enhancement for lower metallicity.
For $Z = 0$, the helium mass fraction exceeds $0.3$ for the initial mass of $2.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, while this is the case for $M \geq 6 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \geq -4$.
The larger enrichment of helium for lower metallicity comes from a less steep hydrogen profile in the envelope.
Because of the lack of initial CNO elements, {\it p-p}\ chains are dominant in the outer part of the hydrogen burning shell, which forms a gradual decrease of hydrogen abundance from the surface to the middle of the hydrogen burning shell due to the smaller temperature dependence of nuclear reaction rates in {\it p-p}\ chains than in CNO cycles.
As a result, helium is abundant in the outer hydrogen-burning shell and is easily enhanced at the surface by the deepening of the convective envelope.
Our models show the dependence of the occurrence of TDU on initial mass
and metallicity.
For the low-mass stars, the evolution after the He-FDDM events is similar to that of more metal-rich models because the increase in the abundance of CNO elements in the envelope activates the CNO cycle reactions and raises the hydrogen burning rate.
In most of our models, we stopped computations after the deep mixing and do not find the TDU because of the decreased helium core by the dredge-up.
In an effort to find the TDU, however, we follow the evolution after the He-FDDM for $2.0 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ and $1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -2$ and $-4$.
We find the TDU after the 35th pulse for $2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ when the mass of helium core grows to be $0.780 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
On the other hand, we failed to find the TDU for $1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$ after the He-FDDM, although we follow the computation until the 49th thermal pulse with helium core mass of $0.789 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
For the model of $1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -2$, we find the TDU at 29th pulse when $M_{1} = 0.742 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
This seems consistent with the result that the TDU occurs for $M \geq 1.5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ by \citet{Lattanzio1987} ,although their models have $\textrm{[Fe/H]} > -1$.
For more massive stars, the efficiency of TDU turns to decrease, and hence, the change of surface abundances becomes smaller, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:model},
As for the metallicity dependence, the efficiency of TDU decreases with decreasing metallicity.
These trends can be interpreted as the strength of the helium shell flashes because strong flashes expand the envelope, which enhances the efficiency of the TDU.
In Figure~\ref{fig:tdu}, we show the strength of the helium shell flashes for the computed models just before the thermal pulses prior to the first TDU event or the final thermal pulses of our computations without any TDU events.
The figure shows the ratio of the maximum pressure at the bottom of the helium-flash convective zone to the pressure at the bottom of the hydrogen-containing shell as a function of helium core mass.
First, there exists a critical core mass to encounter the TDU events, which is around $0.74 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ and may depend on the pressure ratio and metallicity.
Another critical value to drive the TDU is the pressure ratio shown in the figure, which slightly increases with increasing helium core mass.
The strength of the shell flashes measured by the pressure is first discussed in \citet{Sugimoto1978}, who define the proper pressure that takes into account the flatness of the helium-burning layer before the ignition.
Using the proper pressure of the thermal pulses, we obtain the same correlation with the occurrence of the TDU events as in Fig.~\ref{fig:tdu}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f11.eps}
\caption{
Thickness of the helium-flash convective zones in pressure as a function of core mass if a third dredge-up episode takes place after the thermal pulse (filled circles).
If the models never encounter the TDU, we take the final models of the TPAGB (open circles).
The thickness of the helium-flash convective zones is measured by the ratio of maximum pressure at the bottom of convective zone during the thermal pulse $\ln P_{\rm bcs,max}$ to the bottom of hydrogen-containing shell at that time $P_{\rm bhs}$.
Lines connect the results for the models with the same metallicity.
For some models, the initial masses are labelled next to the point.
}
\label{fig:tdu}
\end{figure}
One should note that the efficiency or the occurrence of the TDU events depends on the status of the envelope as well as that of the helium shell flashes.
One of the important factors that determine the physical status of the envelope is the entropy of the hydrogen-burning shell.
It affects the compression of helium layer in the core for the models with $Z > 0$ through small hydrogen burning rate.
For $Z = 0$, the temperature in the hydrogen-burning shell directly determines the thermal state of the helium core as discussed in \citet{Suda2007}.
Therefore, the condition for the occurrence of the TDU events at $Z = 0$ can be different from other models with finite metallicity.
Another possible factor to determine whether the TDU occurs or not is the inclusion of overshooting at the bottom of helium-flash convective zones as discussed by \citet{Herwig2000}.
If it were introduced in our models of extremely metal-poor and metal-free stars, the strength of the helium flashes may increase enough to drive the TDU events.
The detailed discussion about the occurrence of the TDU events can be even more complicated than the discussion here, and furthermore, we have not yet the precise prescription for the strength of overshooting, which needs elaboration in future works.
It is to be noted that the carbon abundance is enhanced for $M = 6$ - $8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $Z = 0$ models as seen in Tab.~\ref{tab:evo} and Fig.~\ref{fig:abn}.
This enhancement is not due to the TDU but the second dredge-up.
In $Z = 0$ models, helium-rich layer has a high temperature, i.e., $\log T \approx 7.8$ so that 3-$\alpha$ reactions take place during the second ascent on the red giant branch.
These carbon-rich shells are dredged up to the surface just before the thermal pulse phase.
As a result, the surface abundance of these models become carbon-rich compared with other light elements, although the absolute abundances are as low as [C/H] $\sim -3$ (see also Table~\ref{tab:evo}).
\citet{Lau2009} insist that the 6 and $7 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models with $Z = 10^{-8}$ undergo TDU events, while $5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ model with the same metallicity does not.
They also insist that this irregular dependence of the third dredge-up efficiency is due to the different CNO abundances in the hydrogen-burning shell \citep{Lau2008}.
In our models, we certainly find carbon enhancement by the second dredge-up in $M \geq 7 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -4$ and $M \geq 5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models for $Z = 0$.
However, we still do not find any TDU events in these models.
As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:tdu}, the strength of shell flashes for these models are still below the critical values to drive the TDU event.
The effect of carbon enhancement in the hydrogen-burning shell can be seen only for $Z = 0$ as the increase of pressure ratio with increasing initial mass for $M \geq 5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:tdu}.
\subsection{Horizontal branch EMP models}
One of the characteristics of the EMP model is the extended horizontal branch (HB) for $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ having a high effective temperature, greater than 7000K, without any modification of envelope mass and composition (See Figure~\ref{fig:hrd}).
These blue HB stars can be seen for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$.
The location of the horizontal branch shifts blueward as the {\it p-p}\ chains become dominant energy source of hydrogen burning.
For our models of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ and $-4$, luminosity by {\it p-p}\ chains, $L_{pp}$ is the order of $10 L_{\sun}$.
On the other hand, luminosity by CN cycles, $L_{CN}$ is 10 times smaller than $L_{pp}$ at the zero-age horizontal branch, while they become comparable for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -2.3$.
Along with the decrease of the contribution by CN cycles, the entropy of the hydrogen-burning shell decreases.
This causes the shrinkage of the whole star through the increase of density and pressure of the hydrogen-burning shell.
The model stars of $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$ at the zero age horizontal branch have typical radii of $\la 5 R_{\sun}$.
Consequently, the effective temperature of model stars at zero age horizontal branches increases with decreasing metallicity.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{f12.eps}
\caption{
Stellar evolution tracks on the $\log g$ - $\ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}$ diagram for $0.8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with various metallicity.
The onset of the hydrogen-mixing event He-FDDM-R is shown by arrows for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$ and $Z = 0$.
The locations of zero age horizontal branch (ZAHB) are also shown for models of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -2$.
Crosses and circles on the horizontal branch denote an evolutionary point of every 10 Myr starting from the ZAHB for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ and $-4$, respectively.
}
\label{fig:hrd}
\end{figure}
Observationally, we cannot confirm the metallicity gradient along the HB in the Galactic halo because of the lack of detailed abundance analyses for HB stars of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -3$.
Instead, the field HB stars are used as the tools for investigating the kinematics and dynamics in the Galaxy.
Without a selection bias, blue HB stars should appear in H-R diagram and vary in \ensuremath{T_{\rm eff}}\ with the initial metallicity of stars if the significant modifications of surface composition, such as radiative levitation, are absent and mass loss is not significant.
Since the lifetime of blue HB stars is approximately 30 Myr (see Fig.~\ref{fig:hrd}) and is $\simeq 30$ times smaller than that of RGB stars, we expect to find at least one blue HB star per 30 RGB stars on average having comparable luminosity among stars with $-4 \la \textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$.
When $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -5$ initially, the He-FDDM-R leads to the enhancement of carbon and nitrogen in the hydrogen-burning shell.
This does not follow the blueward extension of the horizontal branch because $L_{CN}$ becomes $\sim 100$ times larger than $L_{pp}$.
Therefore, $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \sim -4$ should be the lower limit in metallicity for the absence of red horizontal branch stars.
It is known that the reduction in the envelope mass due to mass loss and the surface helium enrichment due to the extra-mixing on the RGB can promote the blue horizontal branch stars \citep[e.g., see ][and references therein]{Suda2006}.
As suggested for the second parameter problem in the globular cluster stars, however, this may works only for the metallicity $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -1$,
Accordingly, the $0,8 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ models with $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -5$ can stay on the red horizontal branch since the He-FDDM-R event is likely to give rise to the surface CNO enhancement larger than $\abra{CNO}{Fe} \ga -1$ (see Tab.~\ref{tab:compare}).
The possible peculiar morphology of horizontal branch can be related to the work by \citet{Beers2007b} who suggest that the 78 percent of horizontal branch stars in the sample of HK surveys are likely to be blue horizontal branch.
This may be consistent with the present models of metal-poor stars if most of the sample stars are in the metallicity range of $-4 \la \textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$, although the sample includes thick disk stars.
Finally, we comment on the blueward extension in Fig.~\ref{fig:hrd} for the model of $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$.
This model experiences a blue loop when $M_{1} \geq 0.67 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with thin envelope.
This is caused by the rapid growth of helium core during the horizontal branch phase after the decreased helium core ($M_{1} = 0.426 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$) and the large helium enhancement in the envelope ($X_{\textrm{env}} = 0.52$) by the He-FDDM-R event.
For $Z = 0$, on the other hand, core mass increases from $0.455$ to $0.599 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$, which does not cause a blue loop.
The lifetime of this blue loop is the order of 10 Myr and may be observable, although it depends sensitively on the depth of the dredge-up by the He-FDDM-R event.
\section{Conclusions}
We modelled the evolution of metal-poor stars below $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -2$ from the zero-age main sequence through the asymptotic giant branch phase with mass range between 0.8 and $9.0 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
The present computations focus mainly on the hydrogen mixing from the bottom of the hydrogen burning shell into the helium-flash convection at the core helium flash and/or at the helium shell flashes, depending on the initial mass and metallicity.
The condition that hydrogen mixing occurs at the core helium flash has rather complicated dependence on initial mass and metallicity, different from the previous results of \citet{Fujimoto2000} in which the computations were done with significantly different input physics from the present work.
We followed the evolution after the hydrogen-mixing event and the subsequent dredge-up during the helium shell flash phase.
For the mass range, $0.8 \leq M / \ensuremath{M_\odot} \leq 2$ for $-5 \leq \textrm{[Fe/H]} \leq -3$ and $0.8 \leq M / \ensuremath{M_\odot} \leq 3$ for $Z = 0$, we find significant changes in the surface abundances after the dredge-up by the helium-flash driven deep mixing (He-FDDM).
We also find the models with the hydrogen ingestion into the helium flash convective zones without the hydrogen flash and associated deep mixing.
These models ($3 \la M / \ensuremath{M_\odot} \la 5$ and $-5 \la \textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$) can be the origins of the so called CEMP-no{\it s} stars if {\it s}-process by the radiative \nucm{13}{C} pocket is inefficient.
Our models show the dependence of the efficiency of the third dredge-up (TDU) on initial mass and metallicity.
The efficiency of the TDU depends both on the strength of helium shell flashes and on the mass of carbon-oxygen core.
We derived the minimum thickness of the helium-burning shell required for shell flashes to drive the TDU.
The critical core mass for the TDU is $\approx 0.74 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ with possible dependence on the thickness of the helium-burning shell and metallicity.
In order for the TDU to take place, models must satisfy both of these criteria.
The TDU will not take place below this critical mass even if the helium shell flash is strong enough and vice versa.
The resultant upper limit of the occurrence of the TDU is $5 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$, $4 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -4$, and $3 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$ for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} = -5$.
We do not find any TDU events for $Z = 0$ models because of the weak helium flashes, which may be consistent with the result of \citet{Lau2009}.
This work also discusses the relevance to the observed properties of extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars.
We compare the carbon and nitrogen abundances of observed EMP stars with the surface abundances of our models.
Most of the observed CEMP stars can be explained by the modification of surface abundances during AGB phase
through the He-FDDM and the TDUs.
For the most iron-deficient stars currently known, we propose the following binary scenario for the origins of these objects by comparing the CNO abundances only:
\begin{itemize}
\item HE0107-5240: primary star is in the mass range $1.5 \la M_{1} / \ensuremath{M_\odot} \la 3.0$ and have undergone the He-FDDM during the thermal pulses on AGB.
This star also may have changed its surface abundances by the TDUs.
It is yet to be answered if the star is a primordial star or not.
\item HE1327-2326: primary star is in the mass range around $2 \ensuremath{M_\odot}$.
The He-FDDM should have taken place in TPAGB phase but not TDUs.
The model with $Z = 0$ seems to match with the observed abundances for carbon and nitrogen.
\item HE0557-4840: firm conclusion can hardly be deduced from the current observed abundances, which is less constraint.
The TDUs without the He-FDDM seems to be responsible for the abundances, while the possibility of weak hydrogen ingestion into the helium-flash convective zones cannot be excluded.
\end{itemize}
A blueward excursion of horizontal branch stars is found at the metallicity range of $-4 \la \textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -2.5$.
The high effective temperatures of these models are due to the lack of CNO elements in the hydrogen-burning shell because of low metallicity when they evolve into the zero-age horizontal branch (ZAHB).
For $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -5$, the He-FDDM occurs at the core helium flash phase, which enriches the hydrogen burning shell with CNO elements and moves the ZAHB to the red.
It is expected that one blue horizontal branch stars will be found among 30 EMP giants in the Galactic halo, estimated from the lifetime of blue horizontal branch stars in this metallicity range.
It is also expected that red horizontal branch stars in this metallicity range will be found only for $\textrm{[Fe/H]} \la -5$.
In addition, we may find a metallicity gradient along the horizontal branch for Galactic halo stars or stars in metal-poor dwarf galaxies.
The detailed treatment of material mixing and nuclear burning is crucial for modelling the TPAGB phase.
In particular, for EMP models, the contact of helium-flash driven convection with the hydrogen-burning shell is very sensitive to the numerical scheme in the one-dimensional stellar evolution code.
The situation can be even more complicated if we consider the convective mixing in three-dimension \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Herwig2006}.
Since such hydrogen-mixing events severely affect the subsequent evolution, the resultant surface chemical composition will depend on the mixing length parameter and the treatment of overshooting and diffusion.
Unfortunately, there are no constraints on all of these from observations of EMP stars.
Despite these difficulties, it is worth exploring the models of EMP stars.
Further investigations of mixing in EMP models and of comparisons with observations will be provided in future works.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to acknowledge Michael E. Bennett and Raphael Hirschi for
useful comments in revising the manuscript.
We are grateful to the anonymous referee for useful comments to improve
the manuscript.
This work has been partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (18104003, 19740098), from Japan Society of the
Promotion of Science.
T. S. has been supported by a Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowship
of the European Community FP7 Program under contract number PIIF-GA-2008-221145.
\bibliographystyle{mn}
|
\section{Introduction}
High resolution observations have revealed the existence of many apparently
normal young OB (including Wolf-Rayet; WR) stars in the galactic center
(GC), where tidal forces exerted by the massive black hole (MBH; \citep{sch+02b,ghe+03a})
are likely to inhibit regular star formation in regular molecular
clouds. The existence and properties of such stars could give us important
clues for understanding of the GC environment \citep[see][for a review]{ale05}.
They could also help constrain the origin and evolution of hypervelocity
stars observed in the Galactic outskirts \citep{hil88,bro+06a,per09},
which in principle could probe the potential and dark matter component
of the Galaxy \citep{gne+05,yuq+07,per+09}.
The young stars observed in the central pc near the MBH, could be
divided into two seemingly distinct stellar populations, which differ
both in their types (B-stars vs. O or WR stars) and in their kinematic
properties. The young B-stars population ($\sim7-15\, M_{\odot}$;
fainter stars can not currently be resolved) includes a few tens of
stars with an isotropic distribution extending from $\sim0.01$ pc
all through the central pc \citep{bar+10}. For some of these stars,
in the central 0.04 pc (so called the 'S-stars' or the 'S-cluster'),
full orbital solutions are known, showing them to have relatively
high eccentricities ($0.3\le e\le0.95$) \citep{ghe+03a,eis+05},
with approximately thermal eccentricity distribution, and random orbital
orientations. Although the full kinematic properties of the B-stars
outside this region are not known, the available data suggest their
distribution is isotropic with similarly relaxed eccentricity distribution.
The other young stars (mostly O and WR stars) reside in a more restricted
region, between 0.04 pc to 0.5 pc, in seemingly two coherent structures.
Most of these reside in a stellar disk moving clockwise in the gravitational
potential of the MBH \citep{lev+03,gen+03a,lu+06,pau+06,tan+06,bar+09}.
The second structure is less coherent and its exact nature (and existence)
is still unknown and debated. The orbits of the stars in the CW disk
have an average eccentricity of $\sim0.35$ and the opening of the
disk is $h/R\sim0.1$, where $h$ is the disk height and $R$ is its
radius. The disk structure is warped at large angles ($65^{\circ}$).
Most of the stars outside the CW disk reside in somewhat less coherent
structure, between 0.3-0.5 pc from the MBH, and highly inclined with
respect to the CW disk. A small fraction of the young O stars do not
reside in either of these structures at some intermediate inclinations.
The current knowledge on the observed properties of the young stars
in the GC are discussed in several recent papers (see e.g. \citealp{bar+10}). In table 1, we summarize the observed properties
of the young stars in the GC, which should be satisfied by models
of their origin and evolution.
{\scriptsize }%
\begin{table}
{\scriptsize }\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
{\tiny Stellar} & {\tiny Masses and } & {\tiny Morphology} & {\tiny Radial ($n(r)$)} & {\tiny Eccentricity}\tabularnewline
{\tiny Type} & {\tiny Lifetime/age} & & {\tiny Distribution} & {\tiny Distribution}\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
{\tiny B} & {\tiny 7-15 $M_{\odot}$ } & {\tiny Isotropic} & {\tiny $r^{-1.1}$} & {\tiny $\sim$Thermal}\tabularnewline
& {\tiny 10-50 Myrs} & {\tiny (spherical)} & & {\tiny $\left\langle e\right\rangle \sim0.7$}\tabularnewline
& {\tiny regular IMF} & & & \tabularnewline
\hline
{\tiny O and WR} & {\tiny 15-60 $M_{\odot}$;} & {\tiny Clockwise warped ($65^{\circ}$) disk } & {\tiny $r^{-2}$} & {\tiny $\left\langle e\right\rangle \sim0.35$}\tabularnewline
& {\tiny{} 4-6 Myrs} & {\tiny ($H/R\sim0.1$) + coherent highly } & {\tiny (in the CW disk)} & {\tiny (in the CW disk)}\tabularnewline
& {\tiny top heavy IMF} & {\tiny inclined disk/stream structure} & & \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}{\scriptsize \par}
{\scriptsize \caption{{\scriptsize Properties of the GC young stars}}
}
\end{table}
{\scriptsize \par}
In the following we briefly overview suggested scenarios for the origin
of the young stars in the Galactic center. Several models suggested
these stars to be older stars, which only appear to be young. However,
current observations show the young GC stars are apparently normal,
genuinely young, and massive stars. We therefore focus on other more
favorable scenarios, producing \emph{young} stars (see \citet{ale05}
for an overview of the young stars impostors scenario, as well as
some of less recent literature on some of the other models).
\section{Origins and evolution}
\subsection{In-situ star-formation from infalling gaseous clumps}
It was suggested that the young OB stars in the GC were formed in-situ
in the central pc a few million years ago in gaseous disks and/or
streams formed from infalling and/or colliding gaseous clumps \citep{mor93}.
Analytic calculations and simulations \citep{nay+05b,lev07,bon+08,hob+09}
have shown that stars could form in such fragmenting clumps to form
stellar disks and/or other coherent structures, in the region of a
few 0.01 pcs up to a few 0.1 pcs from the MBH. These could, in principle,
be consistent with the observed young stellar structures (disk and
a secondary inclined structure). This scenario could also explain
the radial distribution of OB stars in the disk and possibly also
explain their eccentricities. Moreover, some of the models studied
produce a top heavy mass function (MF) for the newly formed stars,
possibly consistent with observations \citep{bar+10}.
Note, however, that our poor understanding of the initial conditions
and the star formation processes in the GC, allows for a wide parameter
space to play with, which, naturally, raise difficulties in constraining
(or strictly falsifying) such models. Nevertheless, the robustness
of producing some sort of star formation in the GC region under a
variety of conditions explored in the literature suggest these models
as the currently most promising scenarios for the origin of the young
stellar disk and stellar structures (although less likely the origin
of the isotropic B-stars population, as discussed below).
\subsection{In-situ star-formation followed by rapid migration}
Non of the models for in-situ star formation in the central pc suggests
the formation of stars as close to the MBH as the S-stars, or the
apparent existence of two distinct young O and B stellar populations.
Producing both the disk and isotropic B-stars population in the same
scenario (and in particular the inner S-stars) requires a somewhat
fine-tuned scenario. One requires a selective process which works
differentially on stars of different masses. In any case, an additional
process would be required for the migration of stars from the outer
to inner regions in the central pc in order to produce the S-stars
close to the MBH.
Two-body relaxation processes works, in principle, differentially
on stars of different masses, through mass segregation (energy equipartition)
processes. For example, such processes in an isolated stellar disk
would somewhat segregate the more massive stars into a thinner disk
\citep{ale+07,per+08b} producing mass stratified populations. However,
this effect is relatively small. Moreover, the most important component
for relaxation in the GC is likely to be the stellar black holes population
of the stellar cusp, which work through resonant relaxation \citep{per+08b,loc+09,per+09b}.
Segregation into two different stellar population of different masses
regimes is not likely to insue in this case. Moreover, such scattering
of stars could not produce the population of S-stars closer to the
MBH (\citealp{per+08b}; also Perets et al., in prep.). Encounter
of binary-single stars \citep{cua+08,per+08c} can also have only
a small effect in producing the isotropic B-stars population from
a thin stellar disk. Perturbation by massive perturbers \citep{per+07}
such as infalling IMBHs \citep{yuq+07b,gua+09} or other stellar disks
\citep[; also Gualandris et al., in prep.]{loc+09} do not differentiate
between stars of different masses either.
Given the lacking suggestion for a mass differentiating process, a
different route can be taken. We can suggest that two distinct epochs
of in-situ star-formation have occurred. Even two such epochs would
still require a migration process of some of the stars from the disk
into the inner regions close to the MBH, where stars do not form in-situ.
One should mention, in this context, that in some cases different
mass function was found for stars formed at different structures in
the same simulation \citep{hob+09}. We can therefore either suggest
two epochs of star formation happening at different times, or a single
epoch producing two distinct population. In either case the rapid
migration producing the S-stars should affect only one of the stellar
populations formed.
Two distinct star formation epochs could naturally produce more massive
and less massive stellar populations. Even if both epochs produced
stellar population with the same initial mass function, the most massive
stars from the first epoch may already end their life, leaving a stellar
population of less massive stars. However, comparing the top heavy
mass function of the disk stars, as suggested from current observation,
with the regular mass function of the isotropic B-stars disfavor this
scenario (otherwise much more B-stars should have been observed in
the stellar disk).
This bring us to an interesting very general requirement applicable
to any scenario in which the S-stars formed far from their current
positions. We can term this the model efficiency.
In any such scenario only a fraction, $f_{mig}$, of the
stars formed in some external region (e.g. the stellar disk, the central
pc, or even stars outside the central pc) migrate to become S-stars.
For a given number of observed S-stars, $N_{s},$ the parent external
population should be $1/f_{mig}$ larger to have $N_{par}=N_{s}/f_{mig}$
stars (compare with similar constraints derived by \citealp{per09}).
Using our efficiency term, more ``efficient'' models are the ones having
larger $f_{mig}$.
Cases in which $f_{mig}$ is small, could be strongly constrained
by such requirement. For example, the 'billiard' model for the origin
of the S-stars \citep{ale+04} in which stars from the central pc
are captured close to the MBH through exchanges with SBHs close to
the MBH, is disfavored since the population of similar B-stars in
the central pc, are too small to accommodate the required parent population
\citep{pau+06}. Similarly, one can turn to models of a disk origin
for the S-stars, such as the Kozai-like perturbations in the two disks
scenario \citep{loc+09}, the eccentric disk instability model \citep{mad+09},
or the spiral density wave model \citep{gri10}. All of these models,
irrespective of details, suggest that the S-stars formed as part of
a stellar disk, up to a few 0.1 pc away from the MBH. A small fraction
of the stars formed in the disk migrated through some process (which works
equally on stars of any mass), to later
on become the currently observed S-stars. The current number of B-stars
inferred in the central 0.5, outside the central 0.04 pc where the
S-stars reside, is comparable, and likely somewhat smaller than the
total number of S-stars. These models are required to have a very
high migration efficiency in order to explain the origin of the S-stars.
Putting it differently, a much larger $f_{mig}$ than currently suggested
by these models is required. We can therefore conclude that (at least)
the current formulations of these models, can likely be excluded.
\subsection{External star-formation followed by rapid migration}
Another set of scenarios suggest that the GC young stars formed outside
the central pc, where conditions are less hostile for regular star
formation. These scenarios try to explain only the origin of the stellar
disk, or the origin of the isotropic B-stars, in particular the S-stars,
but not both. Note that the extension of S-stars distribution beyond
the central 0.04 pc is only a recent observational development, nevertheless,
some of the models suggested for the S-stars origin discussed the
possible existence of such extended distribution.
\subsubsection{Cluster infall}
An infall of a young stellar cluster (with or without an intermediate
MBH; IMBH) into the central pc was suggested as alternative scenario
for the origin of the GC young stars \citet{ger01,kim+03,por+03,kim+04,lev+05,gur+05,ber+06b,mak+07,fuj+09}.
Such dissolving cluster is likely to form a stellar disk like structure,
possibly with additional outlying structures and/or isolated stars
outside of the main disk, as observed in the GC. It would also produce
a bias towards more massive stars to be concentrated in the central
region of the GC. These more massive stars, which were originally
more segregated in the inner regions of the cluster, would be the
last to dissolve from the cluster, i.e. in the central most regions
closer to the MBH.
Such inspiraling objects, however, may not be able to inspiral in
the appropriate time window for producing the stellar disk \citep{kim+03,kim+04}.
\citet{yuq+07} and others invoke the existence of an IMBH with mass
$>10^{4}\, M_{\odot}$ which could help produce the current observations.
Nevertheless, formation of such an object in a cluster and its infall
in the appropriate time window appears difficult \citep[e.g. ][]{kim+04}
and need to be fine tuned to explain the observations. In fact, detailed
N-body simulations of stellar clusters, combined with stellar evolution,
do not produce IMBH in these clusters \citep{gle+09,van+09}. The
possibility of an IMBH infall is therefore unfavorable given our currents
understanding and the lack of evidence for such objects in the central
region of the Galaxy.
Apart from the problems posed by requiring the existence of an IMBH,
cluster infall models may not be consistent with observations \citep{pau+06}.
An infalling cluster is likely to leave most of its stars behind during
its inpiral as it dissolves, where as very few young stars are observed
outside the central 0.5 pc. In a sense, this difficulty is similar to the
efficiency problem discussed previously for other models.
Note that even the simulations of an infalling
cluster hosting an IMBH show that the young stars are stripped from
the cluster before the IMBH reaches the central 0.04 pc (see e.g.
\citealt{lev+05,ber+06b}). The young stars closest to the MBH (the
S-stars) are therefore not likely to directly originate from such
a scenario in any case.
\subsubsection{Binary disruption}
A close pass of a binary star near a MBH results in an exchange interaction,
in which one star is ejected at high velocity, while its companion
is captured by the MBH and is left bound to it \citep{hil88}. Such
interaction occurs because of the tidal forces exerted by the MBH
on the binary components. A young binary star could therefore be formed
outside the central region and later be scattered onto the MBH on
a highly radial orbit leading to its disruption. Such a scenario was
suggested by \citet{gou+03} to explain the origin of the star S2.
In order for the capture rate of such stars to explain the current
observation of all the GC B-stars, rapid relaxation processes are
required for the binaries to be scattered onto the MBH. Such a model,
suggested by \citet{per+07}, which takes into account scattering
by massive perturbers outside the central 1.5 pc (such as giant molecular
clouds and clumps observed in the GC region and other galactic nuclei;
\citealp{per+07,per+08}) could account for the observed number of
B-stars. Note that this scenario, like the disk origin models for
the S-stars discussed above, can be constrained by observations of
the parent population from which the S-stars originate. Current observations
do not exclude this model \citep{per+07,per09}. Future observation
looking for young stars in these regions should, in principle, give
better constraints. Nevertheless, other observational signatures may
be more easily verified or refuted. We discuss these in the following.
The binary disruption scenario leaves the captured stars on highly
eccentric orbits (>0.94), and further dynamical evolution is required
in order to explain their currently observed eccentricity distribution.
Study of their evolution, which is driven by resonant relaxation
processes \citep{rau+96}, suggest that indeed the more relaxed, almost
thermal eccentricity distribution of the S-stars \citep{per+09b}
could be consistent with their evolution from much higher initial
eccentricity. It is interesting to note, however, that the resonance
relaxation time scales in the GC increase with distance from the MBH
\citep{hop+06a}. Therefore stars captured further away from the MBH
are likely to have less relaxed eccentricity distribution, i.e. this
scenario produce a correlated eccentricity-distance, with stars more
distant from the MBH expected to have higher eccentricities. Stars
captured further than 0.5 pc, for example, are likely to be highly
eccentric (>0.94) in this scenario.
Typically, a binary is disrupted when it crosses the tidal radius
of the MBH (see e.g. \citealp{per+09b} for details). One of the binary
components is typically captured at a close orbit near the MBH \citep{gou+03},
and its companion is ejected at high velocities \citep{hil88}. The
semi-major axis of the captured star around the MBH is linearly related
to its original binary progenitor separation \citep{hil91}. The radial
distribution of captured stars therefore maps the distribution of
the binaries separations. The distribution of semi-major axis of massive
binaries in the Solar-neighborhood follows a log-constant distribution.
The radial distribution of captured stars in the GC should therefore
be log-constant, or $n(r)\sim r^{-1}$, if the GC binaries have similar
properties.
The mass function of captured stars is likely to be regular, i.e.
reflecting the mass function of stars far from the MBH, where regular
star-formation could occur. A small contribution from Kozai induced
merger of stars, induced by Kozai resonances near the MBH, may contribute
a small fraction of more massive stars \citep{ant+09,per09b,per+09c}.
In addition, longer living stars captured at earlier times may have
a higher probability of being disrupted by the MBH during their dynamical
evolution \citep{per+09b}. Taken together, the observed mass function
(MF) of captured B-stars is likely be quite regular, although possibly
more top heavy closer to the MBH, where disruption and merger occur,
than a regular MF expected for stars captured further away.
\section{Summary}
In these proceedings we have shortly reviewed the origin and evolution of the young stars in the Galactic center. These stars which could be divided into two distinct stellar populations likely originated from two different processes. The young stellar disk which contains mostly O and WR stars likely originated from an in-situ star formation through fragmentation of an infalling gaseous clamps.
The population of young B-stars isotropically distributed throughout the central pc around the MBH likely have a different origin. Such stars were not likely to have been produced like the O-stars, and then migrated to their current postions, since a much larger parent population of B-stars should have been observed in the central pc. A binary disruption scenario, in which binaries which formed outside the central pc were scattered onto the MBH, could still be consistent with current observations. Such a scenario have specific predictions regarding the kinematic properties of the GC B-stars. We have reviewed these predictions which could be tested through direct observations in the coming few years.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
|
\section{ Developable surfaces}
The equation of developable surface is defined by the condition \cite{Bysh}
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq1}
\left[ \begin {array}{cccc} {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}
F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) \\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y
}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y
\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) \\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial x\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial y\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {z}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial }{\partial
z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}F \left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) &{\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) &0\end {array} \right]=0.
\end{equation}
It is equivalent to the second order partial differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq2}
- \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}
F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}+$$$$+2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}
{\partial {x}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right)
\right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) -$$$$-
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}F \left( x,y,
z \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) +$$$$+ \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}-$$$$-2\,
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}
}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x
}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) -$$$$-2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }
{\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) {\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) +$$$$+2\, \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}F \left( x,
y,z \right) +$$$$+2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}F
\left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {y}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) {\frac {
\partial }{\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) +$$$$+ \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^
{2} \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}F \left( x,y,z \right)
\right) ^{2}-$$$$-2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}
F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}
}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x
}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y
\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z \right) -$$$$- \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {y}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}F \left( x,y,z \right) + $$$$+\left( {
\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}F \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) ^{2}
=0.
\end{equation}
\section{ Method of solutions}
To obtain particular solutions of nonlinear
partial differential equations
\begin{equation}\label{Dr10}
F(x,y,f_x,f_y,f_{xx},f_{xy},f_{yy},f_{xxx},f_{xyy},f_{xxy},..)=0
\end{equation}
we use the parametric presentation of the functions and variables \cite{drum},\cite{dryum},\cite{cher}
\begin{equation}\label{Dr11}
f(x,y)\rightarrow u(x,t),\quad y \rightarrow v(x,t),\quad
f_x\rightarrow u_x-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_x,\quad f_y \rightarrow \frac{u_t}{v_t},$$$$
\quad f_{yy} \rightarrow \frac{(\frac{u_t}{v_t})_t}{v_t}, \quad
f_{xy} \rightarrow \frac{(u_x-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_x)_t}{v_t},...
\end{equation}
where variable $t$ is considered as parameter.
Remark that conditions of equality of mixed derivatives
\[
f_{xy}=f_{yx}
\]
are fulfilled at the such type of presentation.
In result instead of equation (\ref{Dr10}) one gets the relation between a new
variables $u(x,t)$ , $v(x,t)$ and their partial derivatives
\begin{equation}\label{Dr12}
\Psi(u,v,u_x,u_t,v_x,v_t...)=0.
\end{equation}
At the condition $v(x,t)=t$
the relation (\ref{Dr12}) coincides with the equation (\ref{Dr10}) and takes a more general
form after the reduction $u(x,t)=F(\omega(x,t),\omega_t...)$ and $v(x,t)=\Phi(\omega(x,t),\omega_t...)$.
The substitution $u(x,t)$ into the relation (\ref{Dr12}) leads to the p.d.e. with respect
the function $v(x,t)$ and it can be considered as the partner equation to the equation (\ref{Dr10}).
Classification of possible reductions of the relation (\ref{Dr12}) connected with a given equation
(\ref{Dr10}) has an important interest for development of the $(u,v)$-transformation method.
The most popular reductions of the relation (\ref{Dr12}) are in the form
\[
u(x,t)={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)t,
\]
\[
v(x,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z),
\]
or
\[
v(x,t)={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)t,
\]
\[
u(x,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z).
\]
\section{An examples of solutions}
The equation (\ref{dr:eq2}) after the applying transformation
(\ref{Dr11}) with the conditions
\[
v(x,t,z)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z)
\]
and
\[
u(x,t,z)={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)
\]
is reduced to the form
\begin{equation}\label{Dr14}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}
}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) \right) ^{2}-2\, \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial z}}\omega
\left( x,t,z \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial z}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) +$$$$+ \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}
}{\partial t\partial z}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) \right) ^{2}{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) -
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}
\omega \left( x,t,z \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {
z}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) + $$$$+\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial t\partial x}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right)
=0,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent the condition
\begin{equation}\label{Dr15}
\left[ \begin {array}{ccc} {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}
\omega \left( x,t,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t
\partial x}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial x\partial z}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) \\\noalign{\medskip}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}\omega \left( x,t,z
\right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z
\right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial z}}\omega \left( x
,t,z \right) \\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial z}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial t\partial z}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{
2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) \end {array}
\right] =0.
\end{equation}
From solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr15}) can be derived solutions of the equation
(\ref{dr:eq2}) with the help of elimination of the parameter $t$ from the relations
\[
y-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)+\omega(x,t,z)=0
\]
and
\[
F(x,y,z)-{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)=0.
\]
To integrate the equation (\ref{Dr15}) we rewrite it in the form
\begin{equation}\label{Dr16}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}h \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}
}h \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}-2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}
}{\partial x\partial y}}h \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}h \left( x,y,z \right)
\right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}h \left( x,y,z
\right) + $$$$+\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}h
\left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}
^{2}}}h \left( x,y,z \right) - \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}h \left( x,y,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}
}{\partial {x}^{2}}}h \left( x,y,z \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}h \left( x,y,z \right) +$$$$+ \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}h \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^
{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}h \left( x,y,z \right)
=0
\end{equation}
where we change the parameter $t$ on the variable $y$
and the function $\omega(x,t,z)$ on the function $h(x,y,z)$.
After the $(u,v)$-transformation with conditions
\[
v \left( x,t,z \right) =t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\theta \left(
x,t,z \right) -\theta \left( x,t,z \right),
\]
\[
u \left( x,t,z \right) ={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\theta \left( x
,t,z \right)
\]
this equation is reduced at the equation on the function $\theta(x,t,z)$
\begin{equation}\label{Dr17}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\theta \left( x,t,z
\right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\theta
\left( x,t,z \right) - \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial z}}\theta \left( x,t,z \right) \right) ^{2}=0.
\end{equation}
From solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr17}) we find the function $h(x,y,z)$
by the way of elimination of the parameter $t$ from the relations
\[
y-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\theta \left(
x,t,z \right) +\theta \left( x,t,z \right)=0,
\]
and
\[
h(x,y,z)-{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\theta \left( x
,t,z \right)=0.
\]
Using the function $h(x,y,z)$ we get the function $\omega(x,t,z) =h(x,t,z)$
and then the solutions of the equation (\ref{dr:eq2}).
Solutions of the equation (\ref{Dr17}) can be derived by the $(u,v)$ transformation
and are determined with the help of elimination of the parameter $\tau$ from the relations
\[
\tau x+\phi(\tau,t)z+\psi(\tau,t) \theta(x,t,z)-1=0,
\]
\[
x+\phi_{\tau} z+\psi_{\tau} \theta(x,t,z)=0
\]
where $\phi$ and $\psi$ are arbitrary functions.
\section{An example}
After the substitution
\[
\varphi \left( \tau,t \right) =-A \left( t \right) {\tau}^{2},
\]
\[
\psi \left( \tau,t \right) =B \left( t \right) \tau
\]
from the system of equations
\[
x\tau-A \left( t \right) {\tau}^{2}z+B \left( t \right) \tau\,\theta
\left( x,t,z \right) -1=0,\]\[
x-2\,A \left( t \right) \tau\,z+B \left( t \right) \theta \left( x,t,z
\right) =0
\]
we find
\[
\theta(x,t,z)={\frac {-x+2\,\sqrt {A \left( t \right) z}}{B \left( t \right) }}.
\]
From the equations
\[
h \left( x,y,z \right) -{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\theta \left( x
,t,z \right)=0,\]
\[
y-{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\theta \left( x,t,z \right) +\theta
\left( x,t,z \right)=0
\]
at the conditions
\[
A \left( t \right) = \left( B \left( t \right) \right) ^{2},\]\[
B \left( t \right) ={\frac {t+1}{t-1}}
\]
we get the function
\[
h \left( x,y,z \right) =-{\frac { \left( 1/2\,\sqrt {2}x+1/2\,\sqrt {6
\,{x}^{2}-4\,yx+8\,\sqrt {z}x} \right) ^{2}}{x}}
\]
and corresponding function
\[
\omega \left( x,t,z \right) =-1/2\,{\frac { \left( x+\sqrt {x \left( 3
\,x-2\,t+4\,\sqrt {z} \right) } \right) ^{2}}{x}}.
\]
Now after the elimination of the parameter $t$ from the system of equations
\[
F \left( x,y,z \right) -{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x
,t,z \right)=0\]\[
y-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) +\omega
\left( x,t,z \right)=0
\]
we find the function
\[
F \left( x,y,z \right) ={\frac {x+y+2\,\sqrt {z}+\sqrt {{y}^{2}-4\,yx-
4\,y\sqrt {z}+{x}^{2}+4\,\sqrt {z}x+4\,z}}{4\,\sqrt {z}+3\,x}}
\]
which is solution of the equation (\ref{dr:eq2}).
\section{Partner equation}
After application of the $(u,v)$-transformation with the condition
\[
u(x,t,z)=t
\]
the equation (\ref{Dr16}) is transformed to the partner equation
\begin{equation}\label{Dr18}
- \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t,z
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}
}v \left( x,t,z \right) \right) ^{2}- \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial t\partial z}}v \left( x,t,z \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t,z \right) - $$$$\left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}v \left( x,t,z \right)
\right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}v \left( x,t,z
\right) +2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}v
\left( x,t,z \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial t\partial z}}v \left( x,t,z \right) \right) {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}v \left( x,t,z \right) +$$$$+ \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t,z \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t
,z \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}v \left(
x,t,z \right) =0.
\end{equation}
After the substitution
\[
v \left( x,t,z \right) =A \left( x,t \right) z
\]
we get the equation with respect the function $A(x,t)$
\begin{equation}\label{Dr19}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}A \left( x,t \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}A \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2}+ \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}A \left( x,t
\right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}A
\left( x,t \right) -\]\[-2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t
\partial x}}A \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{
\partial t}}A \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}A \left( x,t \right) =0.
\end{equation}
A simplest solution of this equation has the form
\[
A \left( x,t \right) ={\it \_F1} \left( x \right) {\it \_F2} \left( t
\right),
\]
where the functions ${\it \_F1} \left( x \right)$ and ${\it \_F2} \left( x \right)$ are defined from the
equations
\[
{\frac {d^{2}}{d{x}^{2}}}{\it \_F1} \left( x \right) ={\frac { \left(
{\frac {d}{dx}}{\it \_F1} \left( x \right) \right) ^{2}}{{\it \_c}_{{
1}}{\it \_F1} \left( x \right) }}=0,
\]
\[
{\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}{\it \_F2} \left( t \right) =2\,{\frac {
\left( {\frac {d}{dt}}{\it \_F2} \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}}{{
\it \_F2} \left( t \right) }}-{\frac { \left( {\frac {d}{dt}}{\it \_F2
} \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}}{{\it \_F2} \left( t \right) {\it \_c
}_{{1}}}}=0
\]
and has the form
\[
{\it \_F1} \left( x \right) = \left( \left( {\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{
-{\it \_C1}\,x+{\it \_C1}\,x{\it \_c}_{{1}}-{\it \_C2}+{\it \_C2}\,{
\it \_c}_{{1}}}} \right) ^{{\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{-1+{\it \_c}_{{1}}
}}} \right) ^{-1},
\]
\[
{\it \_F2} \left( t \right) = \left( \left( {\frac {{\it \_C3}\,t-{
\it \_C3}\,t{\it \_c}_{{1}}+{\it \_C4}-{\it \_C4}\,{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{{
\it \_c}_{{1}}}} \right) ^{{\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{-1+{\it \_c}_{{1}}
}}} \right) ^{-1}.
\]
In result we obtain the function $\omega \left( x,t,z \right)$
\[
\omega \left( x,t,z \right) =z \left( \left( -{\frac {-{\it \_C3}\,y+
{\it \_C3}\,y{\it \_c}_{{1}}-{\it \_C4}+{\it \_C4}\,{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{{
\it \_c}_{{1}}}} \right) ^{{\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{-1+{\it \_c}_{{1}}
}}}\right) ^{-1}\times\]\[\times \left( \left( {\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{-{\it \_C1}
\,x+{\it \_C1}\,x{\it \_c}_{{1}}-{\it \_C2}+{\it \_C2}\,{\it \_c}_{{1}
}}} \right) ^{{\frac {{\it \_c}_{{1}}}{-1+{\it \_c}_{{1}}}}} \right) ^
{-1}.
\]
With the help of the $\omega \left( x,t,z \right)$ the function $F(x,y,z)$ can be fond from the relations
\[
F \left( x,y,z \right) -{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x
,t,z \right) =0
\]
and
\[
y-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x,t,z \right) +\omega
\left( x,t,z \right) =0.
\]
after elimination of the parameter $t$.
As example in the case
\[
{\it \_c}_{{1}}=2,
\]
the function $F(x,y,z)$ which is solution of the equation (\ref{dr:eq2}) is defined by the equation
\[
4\, \left( F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{3}{{\it \_C4}}^{3}+27\,
\left( F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}{\it \_C3}\,z{{\it \_C1}}^
{2}{x}^{2}+54\, \left( F \left( x,y,z \right) \right) ^{2}{\it \_C3}
\,z{\it \_C1}\,x{\it \_C2}+\]\[+27\, \left( F \left( x,y,z \right)
\right) ^{2}{\it \_C3}\,z{{\it \_C2}}^{2}+12\, \left( F \left( x,y,z
\right) \right) ^{2}{\it \_C3}\,{{\it \_C4}}^{2}y+12\,F \left( x,y,z
\right) {{\it \_C3}}^{2}{\it \_C4}\,{y}^{2}+\]\[+4\,{{\it \_C3}}^{3}{y}^{3
}=0.
\]
The equation (\ref{Dr19}) can be integrated by the $(u,v)$- or the Legendre -transformation
and its solutions may be used to construction of solutions of the equation (\ref{dr:eq2}).
\section{Ruled surfaces}
The equation of any ruled $f=f(x,y)$ surface is derived by elimination of the parameter $\tau$ from
the relations
\[
f-\alpha(\tau) x-a(\tau)=0,
\]
\[
y-\beta(\tau) x-b(\tau)=0.
\]
It can be presented as \cite{git}
\[
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}Q \left( x,y \right)
\right) ^{2}-2\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}
f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}Q
\left( x,y \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}Q \left( x
,y \right) + $$$$+\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left(
x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}Q \left( x
,y \right) \right) ^{2}-8\,QT=0
\]
where
\[
T= \det\left[ \begin {array}{ccc} {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f
\left( x,y \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f
\left( x,y \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{3
}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right)
\\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}
}f \left( x,y \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x
\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) &{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^
{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) \end {array} \right],
\]
and
\[
Q=\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y
\right) - \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2},
\]
In explicit form it looks as
\begin{equation}\label{Dr20}
-18\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {
x}^{2}\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) {
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y
\right) +$$$$+6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {
x}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) {\frac
{\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) -$$$$-6\, \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}f \left( x,
y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{
3}}}f \left( x,y \right) -$$$$-6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {
x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3
}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) {
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y
\right) +$$$$+12\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {
y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) +$$$$+
12\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y
\right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}
\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2
}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{
3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) -$$$$-6\, \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y
\right) \right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial
y}}f \left( x,y \right) -$$$$-6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x
}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) {\frac
{\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) +
$$$$+\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) ^{3} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2}+ \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{3}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{3}+$$$$+9
\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2}+$$$$+9\,
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f \left( x,y
\right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial y
\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2}-$$$$-8\, \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) ^{3} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}
f \left( x,y \right)
=0
\end{equation}
After the $(u,v)$-transformation
\[
u \left( x,t \right) =t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x,
t \right) -\omega \left( x,t \right), \]\[
v \left( x,t \right) ={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x,t
\right)
\]
we get the equation with respect the function $\omega \left( x,t \right) $
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq6}
-9\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x\partial t\partial x}}
\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{
2}-$$$$-6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x
,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x\partial
t\partial x}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{
2}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {t}^{3}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) +$$$$+
6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}\omega \left( x,t
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}
\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial
^{3}}{\partial {t}^{2}\partial x}}\omega \left( x,t \right) +$$$$+ \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}\omega \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega
\left( x,t \right) \right) ^{3}+9\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{
2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {t}^{2}\partial x}}\omega
\left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2}- $$$$-\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{3} \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {t}^{3}}}\omega \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2}=0
\end{equation}
It has the solution of the form
$$
\omega \left( x,t \right) =A \left( t \right) +B \left( x \right) t.
$$
where the functions $A(t)$ and $B(t)$ satisfy the equations
\[
\left( {\frac {d^{3}}{d{x}^{3}}}B \left( x \right) \right) ^{2}-\mu
\, \left( {\frac {d^{2}}{d{x}^{2}}}B \left( x \right) \right) ^{3}=0
\]
and
\[
9\, \left( {\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}+6
\, \left( {\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A \left( t \right) \right) t{
\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A \left( t \right) -\mu\,t \left( {\frac {d^{2
}}{d{t}^{2}}}A \left( t \right) \right) ^{3}+{t}^{2} \left( {\frac {d
^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A \left( t \right) \right) ^{2}=0.
\]
From here we find
\[
A \left( t \right) = \left( -4\,{\frac {\ln \left( {\it \_C1}\,t-1
\right) }{\mu}}+4\,{\frac {\ln \left( t \right) }{\mu}}-4\,{\frac {1
}{\mu\,{\it \_C1}\,t}}-{\frac {{\it \_C2}}{t}}+{\it \_C3} \right) t
\]
and
\[
B \left( t \right) =-4\,{\frac {\ln \left( x+{\it \_C4} \right) }{\mu
}}+{\it \_C5}\,x+{\it \_C6}.
\]
Using these expressions we find the function $f(x,y)$ satisfying the equation (\ref{Dr20}).
In particular case
\[
{\it \_C5}=0,\quad
{\it \_C2}=0,\quad
{\it \_C3}=0,\quad
{\it \_C4}=0,\quad
{\it \_C6}=0
\]
it is determined from the equation
\[
y\mu+8\,\ln \left( 2 \right) +4\,\ln \left( -{\frac {1}{f \left( x,y
\right) \mu\,{\it \_C1}}} \right) -4\,\ln \left( {\frac {-4+f
\left( x,y \right) \mu\,{\it \_C1}}{f \left( x,y \right) \mu\,{{\it
\_C1}}^{2}}} \right) -\]\[-f \left( x,y \right) \mu\,{\it \_C1}+4\,\ln
\left( x \right) =0
\]
\subsection{Partner equation}
After the $(u,v)$-transformation with condition
\[
u \left( x,t \right) =t
\]
the equation (\ref{Dr20}) takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{dr:eq71}
-6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v \left( x,t
\right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}v
\left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {
t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{3}}
{\partial {t}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) +$$$$+18\, \left( {\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial t}}v \left( x,
t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t
}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x
\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) +$$$$+6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{
2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial t}}v
\left( x,t \right) +$$$$+6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2
}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{2}\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {t}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) -$$$$-12
\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v \left( x,t
\right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}
\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2
}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{
3}}{\partial {t}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) +$$$$+6\, \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v
\left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x
\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) +$$$$+6\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{
2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {t}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v \left( x,t
\right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x\partial {t}^{2}}}v
\left( x,t \right) -$$$$-12\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{
3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2
}{\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t
\right) +$$$$+8\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v
\left( x,t \right) \right) ^{3} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {x}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{3}}
{\partial {t}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) -9\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial x\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,
t \right) \right) ^{2}-$$$$-9\, \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}
^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2} \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2}- \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v
\left( x,t \right) \right) ^{3} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {t}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2}-$$$$- \left( {\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}v \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2}
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{3}.
=0
\end{equation}
It has solution of the form
\[
v(x, t) = A(t)+B(x)\]
which looks as
\[
v \left( x,t \right) =-4\,{\frac {\ln \left( {\it \_C1}+x \right) }{
\mu}}+{\it \_C2}\,x+{\it \_C3}
4\,{\frac {\ln \left( {\it \_C4}+t \right) }{\mu}}+{\it \_C5}\,t+{
\it \_C6}.
\]
Using these expressions and the conditions
\[
y-v \left( x,t \right)=0,\quad t=f(x,y)
\]
we can find the function $f(x,y$ which is solution of the equation (\ref{Dr20}.
In particular case
\[
{\it \_C6}=0,\quad
{\it \_C3}=0,\quad
{\it \_C1}=0,\quad
{\it \_C4}=0,\quad
{\it \_C5}=1
\]
one gets
\[
f\left( x,y \right) =4\,{\frac {{\it LambertW} \left( 1/4\,\mu\,{
{\rm e}^{1/4\,y\mu-1/4\,{\it \_C2}\,\mu\,x}}x \right) }{\mu}},
\]
where the function ${\it LambertW} \left( x \right)$ is defined by the relation
\[
{\it LambertW} \left( x \right) {{\rm e}^{{\it LambertW} \left( x
\right) }}=x.
\]
\section{Minimal surfaces}
Minimal surfaces are defined by solutions of the equation \cite{Kur}
\begin{equation}\label{Dr21}
\left( 1+ \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}f \left( x,y \right)
\right) ^{2} \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f
\left( x,y \right) -2\, \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}f
\left( x,y \right) \right) {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y
\partial x}}f \left( x,y \right) + \]\[+\left( 1+ \left( {\frac {\partial }
{\partial x}}f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2} \right) {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f \left( x,y \right)=0
\end{equation}
After the $(u,v)$-transformation
\[
v \left( x,t \right) =t{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x,
t \right) -\omega \left( x,t \right),\]\[
u \left( x,t \right) ={\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega \left( x,t
\right).
\]
one gets the equation
\begin{equation}\label{Dr22}
- \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}\omega \left( x,
t \right) \right) ^{2}+{t}^{2} \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) -{t}^{2} \left( {
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}\omega \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2}+$$$$+2\,t \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}
}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}
\omega \left( x,t \right) -\left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}
\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) ^{2}-1+ \left( {\frac {\partial ^{2
}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right) \right) {\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega \left( x,t \right)=0.
\end{equation}
It has the solution
\[
\omega \left( x,t \right) =1/4\,t\arctan \left( t \right) + \left( 1+{
t}^{2} \right) {x}^{2}.
\]
Corresponding solution of the equation (\ref{Dr22}) can be presented in
a parametric form
\[
f \left( x,y \right) =1/4\,{\frac {\arctan \left( t \right) +\arctan
\left( t \right) {t}^{2}+t+8\,t{x}^{2}+8\,{t}^{3}{x}^{2}}{1+{t}^{2}}},
\]
\[
t=1/4\,{\frac {\sqrt {2}\sqrt {4\,y-1+\sqrt {16\,{y}^{2}-8\,y+1+64\,{x
}^{2}y+64\,{x}^{4}}}}{x}}.
\]
\section{Partner equation}
After the $(u,v)$-transformation with the condition
\[
u \left( x,t \right) =t
\]
the equation (\ref{Dr21}) is transformed into the partner equation
\begin{equation}\label{Dr23}
- \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) +2\,
\left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}v \left( x,t \right) \right)
\left( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}}v \left( x,t
\right) \right) {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right)
-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) -\]\[-{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right) - \left(
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}v \left( x,t \right)
\right) \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}v \left( x,t \right)
\right) ^{2}=0.
\end{equation}
It has the same form with the initial equation (\ref{Dr21}).
This property can be used to construction a new solutions of the equation
(\ref{Dr21}) by the way of elimination of the parameter $t$ from the relations
\begin{equation}\label{Dr24}
y-v\left(x,t\right)=0,\quad
t-f\left(x,y\right)=0.
\end{equation}
Let us consider an examples.
The function
\[
f \left( x,y \right) =\ln \left( \sqrt {{x}^{2}+{y}^{2}}+\sqrt {{x}^{
2}+{y}^{2}-1} \right)
\]
is solution of the equation (\ref{Dr21}).
Then the function
\[
v \left( x,t \right) =\ln \left( \sqrt {{x}^{2}+{t}^{2}}+\sqrt {{x}^{
2}+{t}^{2}-1} \right)
\]
is the solution of the equation (\ref{Dr23}).
Elimination of the parameter $t$ from the conditions
\[
y-\ln \left( \sqrt {{x}^{2}+{t}^{2}}+\sqrt {{x}^{2}+{t}^{2}-1}
\right)=0,
\]
\[
t=f\left(x,y\right)
\]
leads to the relation
\[
y-\ln \left( \sqrt {{x}^{2}+ \left( f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2
}}+\sqrt {{x}^{2}+ \left( f \left( x,y \right) \right) ^{2}-1}
\right)=0
\]
from which we get the function
\[
f \left( x,y \right) =1/2\,\sqrt {2-4\,{x}^{2}+{{\rm e}^{-2\,y}}+{
{\rm e}^{2\,y}}}
\]
which is solution of the equation (\ref{Dr21}).
If the
\[
f \left( x,y \right) =\ln \left( {\frac {\cos \left( y \right) }{\cos
\left( x \right) }} \right)
\]
is solution of the equation (\ref{Dr21}),
then the function
\[
v \left( x,t \right) =\ln \left( {\frac {\cos \left( t \right) }{\cos
\left( x \right) }} \right)
\]
satisfies the equation (\ref{Dr23}).
Now from the conditions (\ref{Dr24}) we find the equation
\[
y-\ln \left( {\frac {\cos \left( f \left( x,y \right) \right) }{\cos
\left( x \right) }} \right)=0
\]
from which we get a new solution of the equation (\ref{Dr21})
\[
f \left( x,y \right) =\arccos \left( {{\rm e}^{y}}\cos \left( x
\right) \right).
\]
In the case of the substitution
\[
v \left( x,t \right) =H \left( {x}^{2}+{t}^{2}+1 \right) )
\]
we find the solution of the equation (\ref{Dr23})
\[
v \left( x,t \right) =\ln \left( \left( -2\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}+{x}^{2}
+{t}^{2}+\sqrt {-{\frac { \left( {x}^{2}+{t}^{2} \right) \left( -{t}^
{2}+4\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}-{x}^{2} \right) }{{{\it \_C1}}^{2}}}}{\it \_C1
} \right) {{\it \_C1}}^{-1} \right) {\it \_C1}.
\]
Now from the conditions (\ref{Dr24}) we obtain the equation
\[
y=\]\[=\ln \left( \left( -2\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}\!+\!{x}^{2}\!+\!f \left( x,
y \right)^{2}\!+\!\sqrt {{\frac { \left( {x}^{2}\!+\!f
\left( x,y \right)^{2} \right) \left( f \left( x,y
\right)^{2}\!-\!4\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}\!+\!{x}^{2} \right) }{{{\it
\_C1}}^{2}}}}{\it \_C1} \right) {{\it \_C1}}^{-1} \right) {\it \_C1}
\]
to determination of the function $f(x,y)$.
Corresponding solution has the form
\[
f \left( x,y \right) =1/2\,\sqrt {2}\sqrt {{{\rm e}^{{\frac {y}{{\it
\_C1}}}}} \left( {\it \_C1}\,{{\rm e}^{2\,{\frac {y}{{\it \_C1}}}}}+4
\,{{\it \_C1}}^{2}{{\rm e}^{{\frac {y}{{\it \_C1}}}}}-2\,{{\rm e}^{{
\frac {y}{{\it \_C1}}}}}{x}^{2}+4\,{{\it \_C1}}^{3} \right) }{{\rm e}^
{-{\frac {y}{{\it \_C1}}}}}.
\]
\section{Acknowledgements}
The research was partially supported in the framework of joint Russian-Moldavian
research project\\[1mm]
(Grant 08.820.08.07 RF of HCSTD ASM, Moldova, and RFBR grant 08-01-90104, Russia).
|
\section{Markov Chain Approximation}
In \cite{Li07}, we showed that any orbit inside an attractor (chaotic or turbulent attractors are the most interesting ones) can be uniformly approximated on the infinite time interval $t \in [0, \infty )$ by an infinite sequence of segments out of a finite number of segments. The attractor (or its attracting neighborhood) is partitioned into $N$ small neighborhoods $\{ A_n \}_{n=1,2, \cdots , N}$. Each neighborhood $A_n$ is attached with an orbit segment $s_n$ over a fixed time interval $t \in [0,T]$. Denote by $F^t$ the evolution operator. The flow tube $\cup_{t \in [0,T]} F^t(A_n)$ is approximated by the segment $s_n$. If $F^T(A_n) \cap A_m \neq \emptyset$, then the flow tube $\cup_{t \in [T,2T]} F^t(F^T(A_n) \cap A_m)$ is approximated by the segment $s_m$. This process can be continued to $t \rightarrow \infty$. If we re-distribute the Lebesgue measure of $F^T(A_n) \cap A_m$ uniformly on $A_m$ (i.e. we assume the points in $F^T(A_n) \cap A_m$ as random points with uniform probability distribution in $A_m$), then we obtain a Markov chain approximation. When $A_n$'s are small and the attractor has good mixing properties, we expect this Markov chain approximation to perform very well. The key element for this Markov chain approximation is the transition matrix \cite{KS60}, \cite{DLZ01}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = \left ( \rho_{ij} \right ) \ ,
\label{mctm}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\rho_{ij} = \frac{ \mu (F^T(A_j) \cap A_i)}{\mu (F^T(A_j))} \ ,
\]
and $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure. We can simply label $A_n$ and $s_n$ by the letter $n$. Then our Markov chain is defined by the transition matrix $\Lambda$ acting on $N$ letters $\{ 1,2, \cdots , N\}$.
\section{Ulam Approximation}
The Transfer Operator (Perron-Frobenius Operator) is defined as,
\begin{equation}
\nu_{n+1}(A) = \nu_n(F^{-T}(A))=\sum_{j=1}^{N} \nu_n(F^{-T}(A) \cap A_j) \ ,
\label{to}
\end{equation}
where $\nu_n$'s are measures. The Ulam approximation of the transfer operator is defined as,
\begin{equation}
\nu_{n+1}(A) =\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\mu (F^{-T}(A) \cap A_j)} { \mu (A_j)} \nu_n (A_j) \ ,
\label{ua}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure.
If we re-distribute $\nu_n(F^{-T}(A) \cap A_j)$ uniformly on $A_j$ (i.e. we assume the points in $F^T(A) \cap A_j$ as random points with uniform probability distribution in $A_j$), then we obtain the Ulam approximation by
\[
\nu_n(F^{-T}(A) \cap A_j) \sim \frac{\mu (F^{-T}(A) \cap A_j)} { \mu (A_j)} \nu_n (A_j) \ .
\]
The transition matrix of the Ulam approximation is
\begin{equation}
P = \left ( \sigma_{ij} \right ) \ ,
\label{uatm}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\sigma_{ij} = \frac{ \mu (F^{-T}(A_i) \cap A_j)}{\mu (A_j)} \ .
\]
If $F^T$ is $1-1$ and we replace the partition $\{ A_i \}$ by $\{ F^T(A_i)\}$, then
\[
\sigma_{ij} = \frac{ \mu (A_i \cap F^T(A_j))}{\mu (F^T(A_j))} = \rho_{ij} \ .
\]
\section{Asymptotic Cycles \label{SAC}}
Using the segments $\{ s_n \}_{n=1,2, \cdots , N}$, one can identify certain
pseudo-orbits (called segment linking orbits) and the associated sequence of $A_n$'s:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & \cdots s_{n_{-2}} s_{n_{-1}} s_{n_{0}} s_{n_{1}} s_{n_{2}} \cdots \\
& & \cdots A_{n_{-2}} A_{n_{-1}} A_{n_{0}} A_{n_{1}} A_{n_{2}} \cdots
\end{eqnarray*}
where $s_{n_{j}}$ attaches to $A_{n_{j}}$ and the end point of $s_{n_{j}}$
belongs to $A_{n_{j+1}}$ (recall also that the starting point of
$s_{n_{j}}$ belongs to $A_{n_{j}}$). Since there are only finite $s_n$'s;
as $n_{j} \rightarrow +\infty$, some $s_{n_{j}}$ has to repeat itself, then all the segments
after it repeat themselves too. Thus all these pseudo-orbits are always asymptotic
to cycles:
\[
\cdots \cdots s_{n_{j_1}} \cdots s_{n_{j_k}} s_{n_{j_1}} \cdots s_{n_{j_k}} \cdots
\]
where $k$ can be $1$ in which case the asymptotic cycle is a ``fixed point''.
\section{Transition Matrix}
We shall compute the transition matrix for the tent map:
\[
x_{n+1} = f(x_n), \ x_n \in [0,1];
\]
where
\[
f(x_n) = \frac{x_n}{a} \ (x_n<a),
\ f(x_n) = \frac{x_n-1}{a-1} \ (x_n \geq a);
\]
and $a$ is a parameter $a\in (0,1)$. We choose $a=1/3$. We break the interval
$[0,1]$ into $20$ subintervals. Take $100$ initial conditions in each subinterval.
For each initial condition $x_0$ in the $i$-th subinterval, we compute $x_T$ as the
$T$-iteration starting from $x_0$. If $x_T$ belongs to $j$-th subinterval,
we increase the $(j,i)$-th entry of the transition matrix by $\frac{1}{100}$.
Initially all the entries of the transition matrix are set to $0$. Since the
iterated map $f^T$ has $2^{T-1}$ tents, the transition matrix also resembles
this pattern. Our conjecture is that when $T \rightarrow + \infty$, the transition matrix
approaches a uniform matrix with every entry being $1/20$. See Figure \ref{tm} for
an illustration.
\section{Different Types of Orbits}
We shall compute several types of orbits:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf The true orbit}. It is computed by Runge-Kutta method for
differential equations, and by iterations for maps; for a time interval
$t \in [0, T^*]$.
\item {\bf The segment orbit}. First we cut the total time interval $[0, T^*]$
into subintervals of length $T$. The interested region in the phase space, where
the attractor lives is partitioned into $N$ small neighborhood
$\{ A_n \}_{n=1,2, \cdots , N}$ (usually squares or cubes). If at time $t = j T$, the
true orbit lands in some $A_n$, then $(j+1)$-th segment will be the one attached to
$A_n$ (usually this segment is computed with the initial condition at the center of
the square or cube for a time length of $T$). For $j = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$; all the segments
together form the segment orbit. It is a uniform approximation of the
true orbit for all positive time.
\item {\bf The segment linking orbit}. If the initial condition of the true orbit
lands in some $A_n$, then the first segment will be the one attached to $A_n$. If the
first segment ends in some $A_m$, then the second segment will be the one attached to
$A_m$. By repeating this process, we generate the segment linking orbit. As discussed
in Section \ref{SAC}, the segment linking orbit is asymptotic to some cycle. The
segment orbit uniformly approximates a particular orbit in the basin of attraction,
while the segment linking orbit only uses the initial condition of the true orbit, and
is not a uniform approximation of the true orbit. In reality, the segment orbit is
difficult to obtain without the full knowledge of the true orbit, while the
segment linking orbit is trivial to obtain once all the segments attached to the $A_n$'s are known.
\item {\bf The maximal probability Markov chain}. If the initial condition of the
true orbit lands in some $A_n$, then the first segment will be the one attached to $A_n$.
Then we test many random initial points in $A_n$, see where they land at time $t=T$,
and we pick maximal probability partition element $A_m$. The second segment will
be the one attached to $A_m$. Repeating the process, we generate the maximal
probability Markov chain.
\item {\bf The Reynolds average orbit}. We pick initial conditions near the
initial condition of the true orbit, compute the orbit corresponding to
each initial condition, at each $t \geq 0$, we do an algebraic average of all the
orbits, then we get the Reynolds average orbit.
\end{enumerate}
Overall, the segment orbit is a uniform approximation of a particular orbit, while
the segment linking orbit, the maximal probability Markov chain and the Reynolds
average orbit are all aiming at certain average property of the attractor.
\section{Minea System}
Consider the Minea system
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d u_1}{dt} &=& 1-u_1-\delta u_2^2 \ ,\\
\frac{d u_2}{dt} &=& \delta u_1 u_2-u_2\ ;
\end{eqnarray*}
where $(u_1, u_2) \in (0,1)\times(0,1)$ and $\delta$ is a parameter.
When $\delta > 1$, all the orbits converge to one point \cite{T88}.
We choose $\delta = 5$ for our simulations here. The total simulation time $T^* = 10$,
while the segment time $T=1$ (i.e. $10$ segments along each orbit). The interested
region in the phase plane is $(u_1, u_2) \in (0,1)\times(0,1)$. We cut this unit
square into $60 \times 60$ subsquares (i.e. the $A_n$'s). The segment attached to
each $A_n$ starts from the center of $A_n$. The true orbit starts from the initial
point ($\frac{1}{24}, 0.5 + \frac{1}{120}$). For the calculation of the maximal
probability Markov chain, we test $1000$ random initial points in $A_n$. For the
calculation of the Reynolds average orbit, we pick $4$ initial conditions within
$\frac{1}{120}$ distance from the initial condition of the true orbit. The results
are shown in Figure \ref{minea}. As expected, the Reynolds average
orbit is a better approximation of the true orbit than the other types of orbits.
\section{H\'enon Map}
Consider the H\'enon map
\begin{eqnarray*}
x_{n+1}&=&y_n+1-1.4x_n^2,\\
y_{n+1}&=&0.3x_n.
\end{eqnarray*}
The total simulation time $T^* = 1000$ (iterations),
while the segment time $T=250$ (i.e. $4$ segments along each orbit). The interested
region in the phase plane is $(x_n, y_n) \in (-2,2)\times(-2,2)$. We cut this
square into $40 \times 40$ subsquares (i.e. the $A_n$'s). The segments attached to
each $A_n$ starts from the center of $A_n$. The true orbit starts from the initial
point ($0.631354477,0.189406343$). For the calculation of the maximal
probability Markov chain, we test $1000$ random initial points in $A_n$. For the
calculation of the Reynolds average orbit, we pick $2$ or $4$ initial conditions within
$10^{-6}$ distance from the initial condition of the true orbit. The results
are shown in Figure \ref{henon}. One thing is clear, that is, the
Reynolds average orbits are definitely bad approximations to the true orbit, and
bad descriptions of the strange attractor.
\section{Lorenz System}
Consider the Lorenz system
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{dx}{dt} &=& a(y-x),\\
\frac{dy}{dt} &=& x(b-25 z)-y,\\
\frac{dz}{dt} &=& 25 xy-cz,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we choose $a=10$, $b=28$, $c=8/3$.
The total simulation time $T^* = 100$,
while the segment time is either $T=10$ (i.e. $10$ segments along each orbit) or
$T=1$ (i.e. $100$ segments along each orbit). The interested
region in the phase space is $(x, y, z) \in (-0.8,0.8)\times(-1,1)\times(0,2)$. We
cut this region into $16 \times 16 \times 16$ subregions (i.e. the $A_n$'s). The
segments attached to
each $A_n$ starts from the center of $A_n$. The true orbit starts from the initial
point ($0.1, 0, 0$). For the calculation of the maximal
probability Markov chain, we test $1000$ random initial points in $A_n$. For the
calculation of the Reynolds average orbit, we pick $2$ or $4$ initial conditions within
$0.05$ distance from the initial condition of the true orbit. The results
are shown in Figures \ref{lorenz1} and \ref{lorenz2}. Once again the
Reynolds average orbits are definitely bad approximations to the true orbit, and
bad descriptions of the strange attractor. Naturally as the number of the segments along
an orbit increases, the segment linking orbit and the maximal probability Markov chain
deviate further away from the true orbit.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
As discussed in details in \cite{Li07} \cite{Li07b} \cite{Li07c}, an effective description of
turbulence means a solution to the problem of turbulence. An effective description of chaos
is also very useful in applications of chaos theory.
It is dangerous to draw strong conclusion with limited numerical experiments. But it is clear
from these numerical experiments here that the Reynolds average is a terrible description of
strange attractors. The segment description has the potential to generate useful descriptions of
strange attractors. Both the segment linking and the Markov chain have the potential
to generate useful characterizations on certain average properties of the strange attractors.
Traditionally the Reynolds average is based upon the setup of typical orbits being high
frequency oscillations around a mean orbit. This is not the case inside a strange attractor.
Therefore, one should not expect that the Reynolds average can be a good description on any sort
of average property of the strange attractor. For the segment description, computing the
segments can be costly if the partition is fine enough. Computing the segment orbit associated
with a true orbit needs the full knowledge of the true orbit. So the potential of the segment
description lies at the statistics of the segments rather than any individual segment orbit.
Segment linking is a convenient way to
start the study on the statistics of the segments. Markov chain is a first level study on
the statistics of the segments. Practically it is very costly to generate the probability
transition matrix for the Markov chain.
Finally what kind of average properties that a strange attractor may possess are not clear
at all. If the strange attractor has ergodicity, then tracking one orbit is enough to get
a good picture of the strange attractor. On the other hand, especially in higher dimensions,
often the chaotic (turbulent) dynamics is transient. What kind of average properties that
such transient dynamics may possess are even less clear.
|
\section{Introduction}
Chaos synchronization has exhibited an increasing interest in
the last decade since the pioneering works
reported in \cite{PecCar90,PecCar91}, and it has been advocated
as a powerful tool in secure communication
\cite{Spec97a,Spec97b,KolKenChu98b,Spec00a,Spec02a}.
Chaotic systems are indeed characterized by a great sensitivity to the
initial conditions and a spreading out of the trajectories, two properties
which are very close to the Shannon requirements of confusion and diffusion
\cite{Massey92}.
There are basically two approaches when using chaotic dynamical systems for
secure communications purposes. The first one amounts to numerically
computing a great number of iterations of a discrete chaotic system,
in using e.g. the message as initial data
(see \cite{Schmitz01} and the references therein).
The second one amounts
to hiding a message in a chaotic dynamics. Only a part of the state vector
(the ``output'') is conveyed through the public channel. Next, a
synchronization mechanism is designed to retrieve the message at the
receiver part (see \cite{RMB06} and the references therein).
In both approaches, the first difficulty is to ``build'' a
chaotic system appropriate for encryption purposes.
In this context, the corresponding chaotic signals must have
no patterning, a broad-band power spectrum and an auto-correlation
function that quickly drops to zero.
In \cite{PecCar97}, a mean for synthesizing volume-preserving
or volume expanding maps
is provided. For such systems, there are several directions of expansion
(stretching), while the discrete trajectories are folded back into a confined
region of the phase space. Expansion can be carried out by
unstable linear mappings with at least one positive Lyapunov exponent.
Folding can be carried out with modulo functions through shift operations,
or with triangular, trigonometric functions through reflexion operations.
Fully stretching piecewise affine Markov maps have also attracted
interest because such maps are expanding in all directions and
they have uniform invariant probability densities
(see \cite{rovset98,Hasdelro96}).
Besides, we observe that the word ``chaotic'' has not the
same meaning everywhere, and that the chaotic behavior of a
system is often demonstrated only by numerical evidences.
The first aim of this chapter is to provide a rigorous
analysis, based on the definition given by Devaney \cite{Devaney},
of the chaotic behavior of a large class of affine dynamical systems defined
on the homogeneous space associated with a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$.
Classical piecewise affine chaotic transformations, as the {\em tent map},
belong to that class. The
dimension $N$ may be arbitrarily large in the theory developed below,
but, for obvious reasons, most of the examples given here will be related
to regular tilings of the plane ($N=2$).
The study of the subclass of (time-invariant or switched) affine systems on ${\mathbb T} ^N$, the $N-$dimensional torus, is done in \cite{RMB04,RMB06}.
The folding for this subclass is carried out with modulo maps, which,
from a geometric point of view, amounts to ``fold back''
${\mathbb R} ^N$ to $[0,1)^N$ by
means of translations by vectors in ${\mathbb Z} ^N$. Those translations are replaced
here by all the isometries of some crystallographic group for an arbitrary regular
tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$. Notice also that the fundamental domain used in
the numerical
implementation may be chosen with some degree of freedom. It may be a
hypercube (as $[0,1)^N$ for ${\mathbb T} ^N$), or a polyhedron, or a more complicated bounded, connected set in ${\mathbb R} ^N$.
For ease of implementation and duplication, a
cryptographic scheme must involve a map for which the parameters
identification is expected to be a difficult task, while computational requirements
for masking and unmasking information are not too heavy. The second aim
of this chapter is to show that all these requirements are fulfilled for
the class of dynamical systems considered here. The way of extracting the masked information is provided through an observer-based
synchronization mechanism with a finite-time
stabilization property.
Let us now describe the content of the chapter. Section 2 is devoted to the
mathematical analysis of the chaotic properties of the following
discrete dynamical system
\begin{equation}
\label{affine}
x_{k+1}=Ax_k+B \quad (\hbox{\rm mod } G)
\end{equation}
where $A\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$, $B\in {\mathbb R}^N$, and (mod $G$) means roughly
that $x_{k+1}$ is the point in the fundamental domain $\cal T$ derived from
$A x_k+B$ by some transformation $g$ in the group $G$.
(\ref{affine}) may be viewed as a ``realization'' in ${\cal T}\subset {\mathbb R} ^N$
of an abstract dynamical system on the homogeneous space ${\mathbb R} ^N/G$ of classes modulo $G$.
The torus ${\mathbb T} ^N$ corresponds to the simplest case when
$G$ is the group of all the translations of vectors $u\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$ and
the fundamental domain is ${\cal T}=[0,1)^N$.
Note that most of the examples encountered in the literature are given only
for the torus
${\mathbb T} ^N$ with $N=1$ and $|A|\ge 2$, or for $N=2$ and $\text{det } A=1$
(see e.g. \cite{KH}).
We give here a sufficient condition for (\ref{affine}) to be
chaotic in the sense of Devaney for any given regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ ($N\ge 1$),
and we investigate the Lyapunov exponents of (\ref{affine}) and the
equirepartition of the trajectories of (\ref{affine}).
Finally, a masking/unmasking technique based on a dynamical
embedding is proposed in Section 3.
\section{Chaotic dynamical systems and regular tilings of ${\mathbb R} ^N$}
\subsection{Chaotic dynamical system}
Let $(M,d)$ denote a compact metric space, and let $f:M\rightarrow M$ be a
continuous map.
The following definition of a chaotic system
is due to Devaney \cite{Devaney}.
\begin{defi}
\label{def1}
The discrete dynamical system
$$
(\Sigma )\qquad x_{k+1}=f(x_k)
$$
is said to be {\em chaotic}
if the following conditions are fulfilled:\\
{\em (C1) (Sensitive dependence on initial conditions)} There exists a number
$\varepsilon >0$ such that for any $x_0\in M$ and any $\delta >0$, there
exists a point $y_0\in M$ with $d(x_0,y_0)<\delta $ and an integer $k\ge 0$
such that $d(x_k,y_k)\ge \varepsilon$;\\
{\em (C2) (One-sided topological transitivity)} There exists some
$x_0\in M$ with $(x_k)_{k\ge 0}$ dense in $M$;\\
{\em (C3) (Density of periodic points)} The set
$D=\{ x_0\in M; \ \exists k>0,\ x_k=x_0\}$ is dense in $M$.
\end{defi}
Recall \cite[Thm 5.9]{Walters}, \cite[Thm 1.2.2]{Vesentini}
that when $f$ is {\em onto} (i.e., $f(M)=M$), the one-sided
topological transitivity is equivalent to the condition: \\
(C$2'$) For any pair of nonempty open sets $U,V$ in $M$,
there exists an integer $k\ge 0$ such that $f^{-k}(U)\cap V\ne \emptyset$
($\iff U\cap f^k(V)\ne \emptyset$).
\subsection{Regular tiling of ${\mathbb R}^N$}
An {\em isometry} $g$ of ${\mathbb R}^N$ is a map from ${\mathbb R} ^N$ into ${\mathbb R} ^N$ such that
$||g(X)-g(Y)||=||X-Y||$ for all $X,Y\in {\mathbb R} ^N$.
Let $G$ be a group of isometries of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ such that
for any point $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$
the orbit of $X$ under the action of $G$, namely the set
$$
G\cdot X =\{ g(X);\ g\in G \},
$$
is closed and discrete.
Let $P\subset {\mathbb R} ^N$ be a compact, connected set with a nonempty interior.
Following \cite{Berger},
we shall say that the pair $(G,P)$ constitutes a {\em regular tiling} of ${\mathbb R}^N$ if
the two following conditions are fulfilled:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \displaystyle\bigcup_{g\in G} g(P) = {\mathbb R} ^N \label{T1}\\
&& \forall g,h\in G\quad
\left( g(\stackrel{\circ}{P} ) \cap h(\stackrel{\circ}{P} )\ne \emptyset \quad \Rightarrow \quad g=h\right).\label{T2}
\end{eqnarray}
Recall that $\stackrel{\circ}{P}$ stands for the {\em interior} of $P$, that is
$$
\stackrel{\circ}{P} = \{ x\in P;\ \exists \varepsilon >0,\ B(x,\varepsilon )\subset P\}.
$$
The set $P\subset {\mathbb R} ^N$ is termed a {\em fundamental tile}, and the group $G$
a {\em crystallographic group}.
An example of a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R}^ 2$ with
a triangular fundamental tile is represented in Fig. \ref{triangle}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=triangle,width=10cm}
\caption{A regular tiling of ${\mathbb R}^2$ with a triangular fundamental tile.}
\label{triangle}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that a point
$X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$ may in general be obtained in several ways as the transformation
of a point in $P$ by an isometry in $G$. We introduce a set
$\cal T$, called a {\em fundamental domain}, with $\stackrel{\circ}{P} \subset {\cal T}\subset P$ and such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \displaystyle\bigcup_{g\in G} g({\cal T}) = {\mathbb R} ^N \label{T10}\\
&& \forall X,X'\in {\cal T},\ \forall g\in G\quad
\left( X'=g(X)\quad \Rightarrow \quad X'=X\right).\label{T11}
\end{eqnarray}
Introducing the equivalence relation in ${\mathbb R} ^N$
$$
X\sim Y \quad \iff \quad\exists g\in G,\quad Y=g(X),
$$
we denote by $x=\overline{X}$ the class of $X$ for $\sim$,
i.e. $x=\{ g(X);\ g\in G\} = G\cdot X$.
When several groups are considered at some time, we denote by $\overline{X}^G$ the class of
$X$ modulo $G$.
Finally, we introduce the homogeneous space of cosets ${\mathbb H} =({\mathbb R} ^N/G) =
\{ x=\overline{X}; X\in {\mathbb R} ^N\}$, and define on it the following metric
$$
d(\overline{X}, \overline{Y} )=\inf_{g\in G} ||Y-g(X)||.
$$
The natural covering mapping
$\pi : {\mathbb R}^N\rightarrow {\mathbb H}$, defined by $\pi (X)=\overline{X}$, satisfies
$$
d(\pi (X), \pi (Y)) \le ||X-Y||,
$$
hence it is continuous. It follows that ${\mathbb H}=\pi( P)$ is a compact metric space.
On the other hand, the restriction of $\pi$ to $\cal T$ is a bijection from $\cal
T$ onto ${\mathbb H}$. We may therefore define the projection $\varpi:{\mathbb R} ^N\rightarrow {\cal T}$
by $\varpi (X)= (\pi_{\vert {\cal T}})^{-1} \pi (X)$. Note that $\varpi$ is
in general not continuous when $\cal T$ is equipped with the topology induced from ${\mathbb R} ^N$, while it is continuous when $\cal T$ is endowed with the topology inherited from ${\mathbb H}$.
The simplest example of a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ is provided by the
group of translations by vectors with integral coordinates
(which is isomorphic to the lattice subgroup)
\begin{equation}
G=\{ t_u;\ u\in {\mathbb Z} ^N\} \sim {\mathbb Z}^N,
\label{Gtore}
\end{equation}
where $t_u(X)=X+u$.
In such a situation, a fundamental tile (resp. domain) is given by
$P=[0,1]^N$ (resp. ${\cal T}=[0,1)^N$), and the homogeneous space ${\mathbb H}$ is the
standard $N-$dimensional torus ${\mathbb T} ^N$.
A classification (up to isomorphism) of the crystallographic groups
of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ has been
done for a long time for $N\le 3$. There are 17 such groups in ${\mathbb R} ^2$, and
230 groups in ${\mathbb R} ^3$, see \cite{Berger,Bur}.
\subsection{Affine transformation}
We aim to define ``simple'' chaotic dynamical systems on $M={\mathbb H}$ by
using affine transformations. Assume given a matrix $A\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$
and a point $B\in {\mathbb R}^N$. The following hypotheses will be used at
several places in the chapter.\\
(H1)
$$\forall X,X'\in {\mathbb R}^n \quad (X\sim X' \Rightarrow
AX+B \sim AX' +B)
$$
i.e. $X'=g(X)$ for some $g\in G$ implies $AX'+B=g'(AX+B)$ for some
$g'\in G$;\\
(H2) There exist a subgroup $G'\subset G$ of translations and a finite
collection of isometries $(g_i)_{i=1}^k$ in $G$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G$ is spanned as a group by the isometries in $G'\cup (g_i)_{i=1}^k$;
\item $G'=\{ t_u; u=\sum_{i=1}^N y_iu_i,\ y=(y_i)_{i=1}^N\in {\mathbb Z}^N \}$
for some basis $(u_i)_{i=1}^N$ of ${\mathbb R} ^N$;
\item Setting
$ P':= \cup_{1\le i\le k} \ g_i(P)$
we have that $(G',P')$ is a regular
tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$. We denote by ${\cal T}'$ a fundamental domain for $(G',P')$.
\end{enumerate}
(H1) is a compatibility condition needed to define a dynamical system
on ${\mathbb H}$. If $G$ is given by \eqref{Gtore}, then (H1)
holds for any $A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ and any $B\in {\mathbb R}^N$. However, if
\begin{equation}
\label{Greseau}
G=\{ t_u; u=\sum_{i=1}^N y_iu_i,\ y=(y_i)_{i=1}^N\in {\mathbb Z}^N \}
\end{equation}
for some basis $(u_i)_{i=1}^N$ of ${\mathbb R} ^N$, then
(H1) holds if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{condAreseau}
U^{-1}AU\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}
\end{equation}
where $U$ is the $N\times N$ matrix with $u_i$ as $i$th column
for $1\le i\le N$.
(H2) allows to decompose the projection $\varpi$ onto $\cal T$ into
a projection onto ${\cal T}'$, a fundamental domain for the
regular tiling $(G',P')$ of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ involving only
translations, followed by a projection from ${\cal T}'$ onto $\cal T$.
\begin{exa}
Let $G=<t_1,t_2,r>$ and $G'=<t_1,t_2>$, where $t_1(X)=X+(1,-1)$,
$t_2(X)=X+(1,1)$, and $r(X_1,X_2)=(-X_2,X_1)$.
Pick $k=4$ and $(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)=(r,r^2,r^3,id)$.
Take as fundamental tiles $P=\{ X=(X_1,X_2); 1\le X_1\le 2,\
0\le X_2\le 2-X_1\}$ (solid line) and $P'=P\cup r(P)\cup r^2(P)\cup r^3(P)$
(broken line) (see Fig. \ref{GGprime}).
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=GGprime,width=10cm}
\caption{A regular tiling of ${\mathbb R}^2$ with a triangular fundamental tile.}
\label{GGprime}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{exa}
Assume that (H1) holds. Then we may define
$$A\overline{X} +B :=\overline{AX+B}$$
for any $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$. Thus we may consider the dynamical system
$(\Sigma _{A,B})$ on ${\mathbb H}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{dyn}
(\Sigma _{A,B})\
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
x_{k+1}&=f(x_k):=A x_k+B,\\
x_0&\in {\mathbb H}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The map $f$ is called an {\em affine transformation} of ${\mathbb H}$.
\begin{exa}
Let $N=1$, and let $G=<t,s>$ be the group spanned by the translation
$t(X)=X+2$ and the symmetry $s(X)=2-X$. Set $P=[0,1]$. Then $(G,P)$ constitutes a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R}$. Note that $P$ is also a fundamental domain. Pick
$(A,B)=(2,0)\in {\mathbb R} ^2$. (H1) and (H2) are satisfied with $G'=\{ t_u;\ u\in 2{\mathbb Z} \}$, $k=2$, $g_1=s$ and $g_2=s^2=id$.
Let us write the realization of \eqref{dyn} in $P$.
Obviously, $AX\in P$ for $0\le X<1/2$, while $s(AX)=2(1-X)\in P$ for
$1/2\le X\le 1$. Viewed in $P=[0,1]$, the dynamics reads then
\begin{equation}
\label{tent}
x_{k+1}=h(x_k)
\end{equation}
where $h$ is the familiar tent map (see Fig. \ref{tentfig})
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=tent,width=10cm}
\caption{A~: Action of $s$ and $t$; B~:
the tent map}
\label{tentfig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
$$
h(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2x \quad &\text{\rm if}\ 0\le x<\frac{1}{2}, \\
2(1-x) &\text{\rm if}\ \frac{1}{2} \le x \le 1.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
It follows from Theorem \ref{thm2} (see below) that \eqref{tent} is chaotic on $[0,1]$.
\end{exa}
When ${\mathbb H}={\mathbb T}^N$ and $B=0$, $f$ is nothing else than an endomorphism
of the topological group $({\mathbb T} ^N,+)$, and $f$ is onto (resp., an isomorphism)
if and only if $\hbox{\rm det } A\ne 0$
(resp., $\hbox{\rm det } A=\pm 1$) (see \cite[Thm 0.15]{Walters}).
Let $\text{\rm sp}(A)$ denote the spectrum of the matrix $A$,
that is the set of the eigenvalues of $A$. A {\em root of unity}
is any complex number of the form $\lambda =\exp (2\pi it)$, with $t\in {\mathbb Q}$.
To see whether a dynamical system $(\Sigma _{A,B})$ is chaotic, we
need the following key result \cite[Thm 1.11]{Walters}.
\begin{prop}
\label{ergodic}
Let $f(x)=Ax+b$ ($b\in {\mathbb T}^N$, $A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ with
$\hbox{\rm det }A\ne 0$) be an affine transformation of ${\mathbb T}^N$. Then the
following conditions are equivalent:\\
\begin{tabular}{ll}
(i) &$(\Sigma _{A,b})$ is one-sided topologically transitive;\\
(ii) &(a) $A$ has no proper roots of unity (i.e., other than 1)
as eigenvalues,
and \\
&(b) $(A-I){\mathbb T} ^N +{\mathbb Z} b$ is dense in ${\mathbb T} ^N$;\\
(iii) &$f$ is {\em ergodic}; that is,
$f$ is {\em measure-preserving} (i.e. for any Borel set
$E\subset {\mathbb T} ^N$, $m(f^{-1}(E))=$ \\
& $m(E)$, where $m$ denotes the Lebesgue measure
on ${\mathbb T}^N$),
and the only Borel sets $E\subset {\mathbb T} ^N$ for \\
&which $f^{-1}(E)=E$ satisfy $m(E)=0$ or $m(E)=1$.
\end{tabular}
\end{prop}
Notice that (ii) reduces to ``$A$ has no roots of unity as eigenvalues''
when $b=0$. Indeed, it may be seen that
$(A-I){\mathbb T} ^N$ is dense in ${\mathbb T} ^N$ if and only if
$(A-I)$ is invertible.
\subsection{Endomorphism of ${\mathbb T} ^N$}
The first result in this chapter, which comes from \cite{RMB06}, provides a necessary and sufficient condition for $\Sigma _{A,0}$ to be chaotic
in ${\mathbb T} ^N$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm1}
Let $A\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$. Then $(\Sigma _{A,0})$ is chaotic in
${\mathbb T} ^N$
if, and only
if, $\hbox{\rm det A}\ne 0$ and $A$ has no roots of unity as eigenvalues.
\end{thm}
{\em Proof.\ } Assume first that $(\Sigma _{A,0})$ is chaotic.
We first claim that $A$ is nonsingular.
Indeed, if $\hbox{\rm det }A=0$, then the map $f$ defined in \eqref{dyn}
is not onto \cite[Thm 0.15]{Walters}, i.e. $A{\mathbb T} ^N\ne {\mathbb T}^N$.
As $A{\mathbb T} ^N$ is compact (hence equal to its closure), it is not dense in
${\mathbb T} ^N$, hence we cannot find some state $x_0\in {\mathbb T}^N$ such that
the sequence $(x_k)=(A^kx_0)$ is dense in ${\mathbb T} ^N$, which contradicts (C2).
Thus $\hbox{\rm det }A\ne 0$.
On the other hand, since $(\Sigma _{A,0})$ is
one-sided topologically transitive, the matrix $A$ has no roots of
unity as eigenvalues by virtue of Proposition \ref{ergodic}.
Conversely, assume that $\hbox{\rm det A}\ne 0$ and that $A$ has
no roots of unity as eigenvalues.
As (C1) is a consequence of (C2) and (C3)
(see \cite{BCDS},\cite[Thm 1.3.1]{Vesentini}), we
only have to establish the later properties. (C2) follows from Proposition
\ref{ergodic}. To prove (C3) we need to prove two lemmas.
\begin{lem}
\label{invertible}
Let $A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ be such that $\hbox{\rm det }A\ne 0$, and pick
any $p\in {\mathbb N}^*$ with $(p,\hbox{\rm det} A)=1$ (i.e. $p$ and
$\hbox{\rm det }A$ are relatively prime).
Then the map
$T:x\in ({\mathbb Z} / p{\mathbb Z} )^N\mapsto Ax\in ({\mathbb Z}/ p{\mathbb Z} )^N$ is invertible.
\end{lem}
{\em Proof of Lemma \ref{invertible}.\ } First, observe that the map
$T$ is well-defined. Indeed, if $X,Y\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$ fulfill $X-Y\in
(p{\mathbb Z} )^N$, then $AX-AY\in (p{\mathbb Z} )^N$ so that $AX$ and $AY$ belong to the same
coset in $({\mathbb Z} /p{\mathbb Z} )^N={\mathbb Z} ^N/(p{\mathbb Z} )^N$. As $({\mathbb Z} /p{\mathbb Z} )^N$ is a finite set,
we only have to prove that $T$ is one-to-one. Let $X,Y\in {\mathbb Z}^N$ be such that
$AX=AY$ in $({\mathbb Z} /p{\mathbb Z} )^N$ (i.e., $A(X-Y)\in (p{\mathbb Z} )^N$). We aim to show that
$X=Y$ in $({\mathbb Z} /p{\mathbb Z} )^N$ (i.e., $X-Y\in (p{\mathbb Z} )^N$). Set $U=X-Y$, and
pick a vector $Z\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$ such that $AU=pZ$. It follows that
$U=\frac{p}{\hbox{\rm det }A}{\tilde A}Z$, where
$\tilde A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ denotes the adjoint matrix of $A$ (i.e. the
transpose of the matrix formed by the cofactors).
Since $U\in {\mathbb Z}^N$, each component of
the vector $p{\tilde A}Z$ is divisible by
$\hbox{\rm det } A$.
Since $(p,\hbox{\rm det }A)=1$, we infer the existence of
a vector $V\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$ such that ${\tilde A}Z=(\hbox{\rm det }A) V$. Then
$X-Y=U=pV\in (p{\mathbb Z} )^N$, as desired. \hfill$\quad$\qd\par
\begin{lem}
\label{dense}
Let $A$ and $p$ be as in Lemma \ref{invertible}, and let
$E_p:=\{\overline{0},\overline{(\frac{1}{p})}, ...,
\overline{(\frac{p-1}{p})}\}\subset {\mathbb T}$. Then each point
$x\in E_p^N$ is periodic for $(\Sigma _{A,0})$. As a consequence, the set
of periodic points of $(\Sigma _{A,0})$ is dense in ${\mathbb T} ^N$ (i.e., (C3)
is satisfied).
\end{lem}
{\em Proof of Lemma \ref{dense}.\ }
First, observe that for any $i,j\in \{0 , ... , p-1\}$,
$i/p \equiv j/p \ (\hbox{\rm mod }1)$ if and only if $i\equiv j\
(\hbox{\rm mod }p)$.
We infer from Lemma \ref{invertible}
that the map $\tilde T: x\in E_p^N\mapsto Ax \in E_p^N$ is well defined
and invertible. Pick any $x\in E_p^N$. As the sequence
$({\tilde T}^kx)_{k\ge 1}$
takes its values in the (finite) set $E_p^N$, there exist two numbers
$k_2>k_1\ge 1$ such that ${\tilde T}^{k_1}x={\tilde T}^{k_2}x$. $\tilde T$
being invertible, we conclude that $A^{k_2-k_1}x=x$ (i.e., $x$ is a
periodic point). Finally, the set $E=\cup \{ E_p^N;\ p\ge 1,\
(p,\hbox{\rm det }A)=1\}$ is clearly dense in ${\mathbb T}^N$
(take for $p$ any large prime number), and all its points
are periodic. This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{dense} and of
Theorem \ref{thm1}.\hfill$\quad$\qd\par
For an affine transformation, we obtain a result similar to Theorem
\ref{thm1} when $1\not\in \text{\rm sp}(A)$.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor1}
Let $A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ and $b\in {\mathbb T}^N$. Assume that $1$ is not
an eigenvalue of $A$. Then $(\Sigma _{A,b})$ is chaotic in ${\mathbb T}^N$
if, and only if,
$\hbox{\rm det }A\ne 0$ and $A$ has no roots of unity as eigenvalues.
\end{cor}
{\em Proof.\ }
Pick any $B\in {\mathbb R} ^N$ with $\overline{B}=b$. As $1\not\in
\text{\rm sp} (A)$, we
may perform the change of variables
\begin{equation}
\label{cov}
x=r-\overline{(A-I)^{-1}B},
\end{equation}
which transforms (\ref{dyn}) into
\begin{equation}
\label{dynbis}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
r_{k+1}&=A r_k,\\
r_0&=x_0+\overline{(A-I)^{-1}B}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Clearly, the conditions (C2) and (C3) are fulfilled for
$(\Sigma _{A,b})$ if, and only if, they are fulfilled for (\ref{dynbis}).
Therefore, the result is a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{thm1}. \hfill$\quad$\qd\par
\begin{cor}
\label{cor2}
Let $G$ be defined by \eqref{Greseau} for some basis
$(u_i)_{i=1}^N$ of ${\mathbb R} ^N$.
Let $A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ and $B\in {\mathbb R} ^N$.
Assume that \eqref{condAreseau} holds
and that $1$ is not an eigenvalue of $A$.
Then $(\Sigma _{A,B})$ is chaotic in ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb R} ^N/G$ if,
and only if, $\hbox{\rm det}\ A\ne 0$ and $A$ has no roots of unity as eigenvalues.
\end{cor}
{\em Proof.\ } From Corollary \ref{cor1}, we know that the dynamical system
on ${\mathbb T} ^N$
\begin{equation}
z_{k+1}={\tilde f} (z_k):=U^{-1}A U z_k + U^{-1}B
\end{equation}
is chaotic if, and only if, ${\rm det}\ A \ne 0$ and $A$ has no roots of
unity as eigenvalues. To prove that the dynamical system on ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb R} ^N/G$
\begin{equation}
x_{k+1} = f(x_k) := A x_k +B
\end{equation}
is chaotic under the same conditions, it is sufficient to prove that
the maps $f:{\mathbb H} \rightarrow {\mathbb H}$ and $\tilde f:{\mathbb T} ^N\rightarrow {\mathbb T} ^N$ are topologically
conjugate;
i.e., there exists a homeomorphism $h:{\mathbb H} \rightarrow {\mathbb T} ^N$ such that
$h\circ f= \tilde f\circ h$. Define $h$ by $h(\overline{X})=\overline{Z}$
where $Z=U^{-1}X$, $\overline{X}=G\cdot X$ is the class of $X$ in ${\mathbb H}$
and $\overline{Z}$ is the class of $Z$ in ${\mathbb T} ^N$. Note first that $h$ is well
defined and continuous. Indeed, if $X'=X+UK$ with $K\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$, then
$Z'=U^{-1}X'=U^{-1}X+K=Z+K$, so that $h$ is well defined. On the other hand, the map $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N\mapsto \overline{U^{-1}X}\in {\mathbb T} ^N$ is clearly continuous.
Obviously, $h$ is invertible with $h^{-1}(\overline{Z})=\overline{X}$ for
$X=UZ$. $h$ is therefore a homeomorphism from ${\mathbb H}$ onto ${\mathbb T} ^N$. Let us check now
that $h\circ f=\tilde f\circ h$. Pick any $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$. Then
$$
h\circ f(\overline{X}^G) =h(\overline{AX+B}^{G})
=\overline{U^{-1}(AX+B)}^{{\mathbb T} ^N} = \tilde f (\overline{U^{-1}X}^{{\mathbb T} ^N})
=\tilde f\circ h (\overline{X}^G)
$$
and the result follows.\hfill$\quad$\qd\par
We are in a position to state and prove the main result of this chapter.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm2}
Let $(G,P)$ be a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^n$, and
let $(A,B)\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}\times {\mathbb R} ^N$ be such that both the assumptions
(H1) and (H2) are fulfilled. Assume in addition that
$\text{\rm det}\ A\ne 0$ and that $A$ has no roots of unity as eigenvalues.
Then the discrete dynamical system in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G$
\begin{equation}
\label{A100}
x_{k+1}=Ax_k+B
\end{equation}
is chaotic.
\end{thm}
{\em Proof.}
Pick any fundamental domain $\cal T$ for $(G,P)$, and let $G'$ and ${\cal T}'$
be as in (H2). In addition to \eqref{A100}, we shall
consider the discrete dynamical system
in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G'$
\begin{equation}
\label{A101}
z_{k+1}=Az_k+B.
\end{equation}
For any given $X_0\in {\mathbb R} ^N$, let $x_0=\overline{X_0}^G$ and
$z_0=\overline{X_0}^{G'}$. Clearly, if $X\sim X'$ (mod $G'$), then
$X\sim X'$ (mod $G$). Therefore, one can define a map $p:{\mathbb R} ^N/G'
\rightarrow {\mathbb R} ^N/G$ by $p(\overline{X}^{G'})=\overline{X}^G$. $p$ is continuous
and onto. We need two claims. \\
{\sc Claim 1.} $x_k=p(z_k)$ for all $k$. \\
Indeed, this is true for $k=0$, and if for some $k\ge 0$, $x_k=p(z_k)$
(i.e. for some $X_k\in{\mathbb R} ^N$, $x_k=\overline{X_k}^G$ and $z_k=\overline{X_k}^{G'}$),
then we have that
$$
x_{k+1} = \overline{AX_k+B}^G = p (\overline{AX_k+B}^{G'}) = p(z_{k+1})
$$
which completes the proof of Claim 1.\\
{\sc Claim 2.} The image by $p$ of any dense set in ${\mathbb R} ^N /G'$ is a dense set
in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G$.\\
Let $A\subset {\mathbb R} ^N/{G'}$ be a given dense set. Pick any $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$ and any $\varepsilon >0$.
Since $A$ is dense in ${\mathbb R} ^N/{G'}$, there exists $Y\in {\mathbb R} ^N$ such that $\overline{Y}^{G'}\in A$ and
$$
d(\overline{X}^{G'},\overline{Y}^{G'})=\inf_{g\in G'}||Y-g(X)||<\varepsilon .
$$
It follows that
$$
d(\overline{X}^G,\overline{Y}^G) =\inf_{g\in G}||Y-g(X)|| <\varepsilon
$$
for $G'\subset G$. Since $\overline{Y}^G = p(\overline{Y}^{G'})\in p(A)$ and the
pair $(X,\varepsilon)$ was arbitrary,
this demonstrates that $p(A)$ is dense in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G$. Claim 2 is proved.
Let us complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}. To prove that \eqref{A100} is chaotic, it is sufficient (see \cite{BCDS})
to check that the conditions (C2) and (C3) are fulfilled. We know from Corollary
\ref{cor2} that \eqref{A101} is chaotic. We may therefore pick $X_0\in {\mathbb R} ^N$ so that, setting $z_0=\overline{X_0}^{G'}$, the sequence $\{z_k\} _{k\ge 0}$
defined by \eqref{A101} is dense in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G'$. By Claim 1 and Claim 2, the
sequence $\{x_k\}$ defined by \eqref{A100} and $x_0=\overline{X_0}^G$ is dense
in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G$; that is, (C2) is fulfilled for \eqref{A100}. On the other hand,
the set of periodic points for \eqref{A101} is dense in ${\mathbb R} ^N/G'$, since
(C3) is fulfilled for \eqref{A101}. By Claim 1, any periodic point $z_0$ for
\eqref{A101} gives rise to a periodic point $x_0=p (z_0)$ for \eqref{A100}.
By Claim 2, the set of periodic points for \eqref{A100} is dense in
${\mathbb R} ^N/G$; i.e., (C3) is fulfilled for \eqref{A100}. The proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}
is complete. \hfill$\quad$\qd\par
\begin{exa}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $G=<t_{e_1},t_{2e_2},s>$ where $t_{e_1}(X)=X+(1,0)$,
$t_{e_2}(X)=X+(0,2)$, $s(X_1,X_2)=(X_1,-X_2)$, and $P=[0,1]\times [0,1]$.
Pick $G'=<t_{e_1},t_{e_2}>$, $k=2$, $(g_1,g_2)=(s,id)$ (see Fig. \ref{sym1}).
Finally, pick
$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}-2&0\\0&3\end{array}\right)$ and $B=(0.5, -3.2)$.
Note that $[A,S]:=AS-SA=0$, where
$S=\left( \begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&-1\end{array}\right)$ is the matrix
corresponding to the symmetry $s$.
Then (H1) and (H2) are satisfied, sp$\, (A)=\{-2,3\}$, and by Theorem \ref{thm2}
the dynamical system \eqref{dyn} is chaotic in ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb R} ^2/G$.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\psfig{figure=tiling1,width=10cm}
\caption{$G=<t_{e_1},t_{2e_2},s>$.}
\label{sym1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\item Let $G=<t_{2e_1},t_{2e_2},s_1,s_2>$ where $t_{2e_1}(X)=X+(2,0)$,
$t_{2e_2}(X)=X+(0,2)$, $s_1(X_1,X_2)=(-X_1,X_2)$, $s_2(X_1,X_2)=(X_1,-X_2)
=-s_1(X_1,X_2)$,
and $P=[0,1]\times [0,1]$.
Pick $G'=<t_{2e_1},t_{2e_2}>$, $k=4$, $(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)=(s_1,s_2,s_2\circ s_1,id)$.
(see Fig. \ref{sym2}).
Finally, pick
$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&-3\\4&0\end{array}\right)$ and $B=(-0.2,1.7)$.
Note that $AS=-SA$, where $S$ is as above.
Then (H1) and (H2) are satisfied, sp$\, (A)=\{ \pm 2i\
\sqrt{3} \}$, and by Theorem \ref{thm2} the dynamical
system \eqref{dyn} is chaotic in ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb R} ^2/G$.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=tiling2,width=10cm}
\caption{$G=<t_{2e_1},t_{2e_2},s_1,s_2>$.}
\label{sym2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{enumerate}
\end{exa}
\subsection{Lyapunov exponents}
Let $M$ denote a compact differentiable manifold endowed with a Riemann
metric $<u,v>_m$, and let $f:M\rightarrow M$ be a
map of class $C^1$. The following definition is
borrowed from \cite{Mane}.
\begin{defi}
\label{def2}
A point $x\in M$ is said to be a {\em regular point} of $f$ if there
exist numbers $\lambda _1(x)>\lambda _2(x) >\cdots > \lambda _m(x)$ and
a decomposition
$$
T_xM=E_1(x)\oplus \cdots \oplus E_m(x)
$$
of the tangent space $T_xM$ of $M$ at $x$
such that
$$\lim_{k\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{k}\ln ||(D_x f^k)u||=\lambda _ j(x)$$
for all $0\ne u\in E_j(x)$ and every $1\le j\le m$.
($||v||^2:=<v,v>_x\ \forall v\in T_xM$.) The numbers
$\lambda_j(x)$ and the spaces $E_j(x)$ are termed the
{\em Lyapunov exponents} and the {\em eigenspaces}
of $f$ at the regular point $x$.
\end{defi}
Assume now that the group $G$ is such that each isometry $g\in G$
has no fixed point, i.e. $g(X)\ne X$ for all $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$. Then ${\mathbb H}={\mathbb R} ^N/G$ is a smooth
flat Riemannian manifold. Before investigating the Lyapunov exponents of an affine transformation on
${\mathbb H}$, let us give a few examples.
\begin{exa}
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb T} ^N$, and more generally, ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb R} ^N / G$ where $G$ is as in \eqref{Greseau};
\item ${\mathbb H}={\mathbb R} ^2 /G$ for $G=<t_{2e_1},t_{e_2},t_{e_1}\circ s>$ where $(e_1,e_2)$ is the canonical basis
of ${\mathbb R} ^2$ and $s(X_1,X_2)=(X_1,-X_2)$
(see Fig. \ref{klein}).
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\psfig{figure=klein,width=10cm}
\caption{The regular tiling of ${\mathbb R}^2$ associated with the Klein bottle.}
\label{klein}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
${\mathbb H}$ is then the {\em Klein bottle}. The torus ${\mathbb T} ^2$ and the
Klein bottle ${\mathbb H}$ are the only smooth manifolds obtained in dimension 2. In dimension 3, there are 6 smooth
manifolds (see \cite[Section 3.5.5 p. 117]{Wolf}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{exa}
Consider now an affine transformation $f(\overline{X})=\overline{AX+B}$ of ${\mathbb H}$,
the pair $(A,B)$ fulfilling (H1). Assume also that det $A\ne 0$. Then for any
$k\ge 1$,
$$
f^k (\overline{X}) = \overline{A^k X + A^{k-1} B + \cdots + A B + B }.
$$
Pick a point $X\in \stackrel{\circ}{P}$ such that
$$
A^k X + A^{k-1}B + \cdots + AB + B\in \cup_{g\in G}g(\stackrel{\circ}{P} )
$$
(note that such a property holds for almost every $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$), and an isometry $g\in G$ such that
$$
g(A^k X + A^{k-1}B + \cdots + AB + B )\in \stackrel{\circ}{P}.
$$
For $||U||$ sufficiently small, we also have that
$$
g(A^k (X+U) + A^{k-1}B + \cdots + AB + B )\in \stackrel{\circ}{P}.
$$
Therefore $(D_{\overline{X}} f^k) \overline{U}=\overline{GA^kU}$,
where $G=Dg\in {\mathbb R} ^{N\times N}$. Since $G$ is an orthogonal matrix,
we have that $||\overline{GA^kU}||=||A^kU||$.
Let $\mu _1>\mu _2>\cdots >\mu _m >0$
denote the absolute values of the eigenvalues of $A$, and let
$E_i(x)$ be the direct sum of the generalized eigenspaces
(see \cite{greub}) associated with the
eigenvalues whose absolute value is $\mu _i$, for each
$i\le m$. Then, using the Jordan decomposition of $A$,
we easily see that for any $U\in E_j\setminus \{0\}$
$$\lim_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{k}\ln ||A^k U|| =\ln \mu _j .$$
Observe now that if $\sigma (A)$ does not intersect the circle
$\{ z\in {\mathbb C} ;\ |z|=1 \}$, then $A$ has at least one eigenvalue $\lambda$ with
$|\lambda |>1$ (since the product of all the eigenvalues of $A$ is
$\hbox{\rm det } A\in {\mathbb Z}\setminus\{ 0\}$), hence $f$ admits at least
one {\em positive} Lyapunov exponent.
Therefore, we have proved the following
\begin{prop}
\label{prop3}
Let $(G,P)$ be a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ such that any isometry
$g\in G$ has no fixed point. Let $(A,B)\in {\mathbb R} ^{N\times N} \times {\mathbb R}^N$ be
such that (H1) is satisfied, $\text{\rm det}\ A\ne 0$ and each
eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ satisfies $|\lambda | \ne 1$,
and let $f:{\mathbb H}={\mathbb R} ^N/G \rightarrow {\mathbb H}$ be defined
by $f(x)=Ax+B$. Then almost every point $x\in{\mathbb H}$
is regular for $f$, with Lyapunov exponents
$\ln \mu _1 >\cdots > \ln \mu _m$, where
$\mu _1>\cdots >\mu _m$ are the absolute values of the
eigenvalues of $A$. Furthermore, $\ln \mu _1 >0$.
\end{prop}
Notice that the existence of (at least) one positive Lyapunov exponent is often
considered as a characteristic property of a chaotic motion
\cite{WykSteeb}.
That property quantifies the sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
\subsection{Equidistribution}
In this section, ${\mathbb H}={\mathbb T} ^N$. Let us consider a discrete dynamical system with an output
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
x_{k+1}&=Ax_k +B\\
y_k&=Cx_k
\end{array}
\right.
\label{output}
\end{equation}
where $x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$, $A\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$, $b\in {\mathbb T} ^N$
and $C\in {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}$.
It should be expected that the output $y_k$
inherits the chaotic behavior of the state $x_k$.
However, Devaney's definition of a chaotic system cannot be tested
on the sequence $(y_k)$, since this sequence is not defined as
a trajectory of a dynamical system.
Rather, we may give a condition ensuring that
the sequence $(y_k)$ is equidistributed (hence dense) in ${\mathbb T}$ for a.e. $x_0$,
a property which may be seen as an {\em ersatz} of (C2).
If $X=(X_1, ... ,X_N),Y=(Y_1, ... ,Y_N)$ are any given points in $[0,1)^N$
and $x=\overline{X}$, $y=\overline{Y}$, then we say that $x<y$
(resp., $x\le y$) if $X_i<Y_i$ (resp., $X_i\le Y_i$)
for $i=1,...,N$. The set of points
$z\in {\mathbb T}^N$ such that $x\le z<y$ will be denoted by $[x,y)$.
Let $(x_k)_{k\ge 0}$ be any sequence in ${\mathbb T}^N$.
For any subset $E$ of ${\mathbb T} ^N$, let
$S_K(E)$ denote the number of points $x_k$, $0\le k\le K -1$, which
lie in $E$.
\begin{defi} \cite{KN}
We say that $(x_k)$ is {\em uniformly distributed modulo 1} (or
{\em equidistributed in ${\mathbb T}^N$}) if
$$
\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \frac{S_K([x,y))}{K} =m([x,y))=\prod_{i=1}^N(Y_i-X_i)
$$
for all intervals $[x,y)\subset {\mathbb T}^N$.
\end{defi}
The following result is very useful to decide whether a sequence is
equidistributed or not.
\begin{prop} ({\bf Weyl criterion} \cite{KN}, \cite{Rauzy})
The sequence $(x_k)_{k\ge 0}$ is equidistributed in ${\mathbb T} ^N$ if, and only if,
for every lattice point $p\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$, $p\ne 0$
$$
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{0\le k<K} e^{2i\pi p\cdot x_k}\rightarrow 0
\qquad \hbox{ as }K\rightarrow +\infty .
$$
\end{prop}
The next result shows that under the same assumptions as in Corollary
\ref{cor1} the sequences
$(x_k)$ and $(y_k)$ are respectively equidistributed in ${\mathbb T} ^N$ and ${\mathbb T}$
for a.e. initial state $x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm3}
Let $A\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$, $b\in {\mathbb T} ^N$ and $C\in {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}
\setminus \{ 0\}$.
Assume that $\hbox{\rm det }A\ne 0$ and that $A$ has no roots of unity as
eigenvalues (hence $\Sigma _{A,b}$ is chaotic).
Then for a.e. $x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$ the sequence $(x_k)$ (defined in (\ref{output}))
is equidistributed in ${\mathbb T} ^N$, and the sequence $(y_k)=(Cx_k)$ is
equidistributed in ${\mathbb T}$.
\end{thm}
{\em Proof:\ }
By virtue of Theorem \ref{ergodic}, the map $f(x)=Ax+b$ is ergodic
on ${\mathbb T} ^N$. It follows then from Birkhoff Ergodic Theorem
(see e.g. \cite[Thm 1.14]{Walters}) that for any $h\in L^1({\mathbb T} ^N, dm)$ and
for a.e. $x_0\in {\mathbb T}^N$
$$
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{0\le k < K } h(f^k(x_0)) \rightarrow \int_{{\mathbb T} ^N}h(y)\, dm(y)\qquad
\hbox{\rm as } K\rightarrow +\infty .
$$
Therefore, for every lattice point $p\in {\mathbb Z} ^N$, $p\ne 0$, and for a.e.
$x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$
$$
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{0\le k<K}e^{2\pi i p\cdot f^k(x_0)}
\rightarrow \int_{{\mathbb T} ^N} e^{2\pi ip\cdot y}\, dm(y)=0\qquad
\hbox{ as } K\rightarrow +\infty .
$$
As ${\mathbb Z} ^N\setminus \{ 0\}$ is countable, the same property
holds for a.e. $x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$ and all $p\in {\mathbb Z} ^N\setminus \{ 0\}$.
Therefore, we
infer from Weyl criterion
that the sequence $(x_k)=(f^k(x_0))$ is
equidistributed for a.e. $x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$.
Pick any $x_0\in {\mathbb T} ^N$ such that $(x_k)$ is equidistributed, and let us
show that the output sequence $(y_k)=(Cx_k)$ is also
equidistributed provided that $C=(C_1,...,C_N)\ne (0,...,0)$.
Indeed, for any $p\in {\mathbb Z} \setminus \{ 0\}$
$$
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{0\le k<K} e^{2\pi i py_k}
=\frac{1}{K} \sum_{0\le k<K} e^{2\pi i (pC)\, x_k}\rightarrow 0
\qquad \hbox{ as }K\rightarrow +\infty ,
$$
hence the equidistribution of $(y_k)$ follows again by Weyl criterion.\hfill$\quad$\qd\par
\begin{rem}
For a regular tiling $(G,P)$ of ${\mathbb R} ^N$, even if the sequence
$(x_k)$ is equidistributed in ${\mathbb H}$, the output
$(y_k)$ fails in general to be equidistributed in ${\mathbb T}$. This is clear when
one considers a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^2$ with the triangle
$P=\{ X=(X_1,X_2);\quad X_1\ge 0,\ X_2\ge 0, \ X_1+X_2\le 1\}$ as fundamental tile,
and $C=(1\quad 0)$.
\end{rem}
\section{Synchronization and information recovering}
The aim of this section is to suggest a chaos-based encryption
scheme involving affine transformations on the homogeneous space ${\mathbb H}$ associated
with some regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^ N$.
We shall provide conditions which guarantee a synchronization
with a finite-time stability of the error despite the inherent
nonlinearity of the chaotic systems under study.
\subsection{Encryption setup}
Assume given a regular tiling $(G,P)$ of ${\mathbb R} ^N$ and a pair
$(A,B)\in {\mathbb R} ^{N\times N}\times {\mathbb R} ^N$ fulfilling the assumptions of Theorem
\ref{thm2}. For the sake of simplicity, assume further that ${\mathbb R} ^N/G'={\mathbb T} ^N$,
so that ${\cal T}'=[0,1) ^N$. Let $\varpi : {\mathbb R} ^N\rightarrow {\cal T}$ and
$\varpi ' : {\mathbb R} ^N\rightarrow {\cal T}'$ denote the projections on the fundamental
domains of $(G,P)$ and $(G',P')$, respectively. Set for $k\in {\mathbb N}$ and $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$
\begin{equation}
\label{switch}
\varpi _k(X) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varpi '(X) & \text{ if }\ k\not\in (N+1){\mathbb N} ; \\
\varpi (X) & \text{ if }\ k\in (N+1){\mathbb N}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
At each discrete time $k$, a symbol $m_k \in {\mathbb R}$ (the {\em plaintext})
of a sequence $(m_k)_{k\ge 0}$
is encrypted by a (nonlinear) encrypting
function $e$ which ``mixes'' $m_k$ and $X_k$ and produces a
{\em ciphertext} $u_k=e(X_k,m_k)$. We also assume given a decrypting
function $d$ such that $m_k=d(X_k,u_k)$ for each $k$.
Next, the ciphertext $u_k$ is embedded in the dynamics \eqref{dyn}. We shall consider the following encryption
\begin{equation}
\label{drive1}
(\Sigma _{A,B,M,C}) \qquad \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
X_{k+1}&= \varpi _k \{ A (X_k+M u_k) + B\} \\
Y_k&=C (X_k+M u_k)
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
which corresponds to an embedding of the ciphertext
in both the dynamics and the output.
In (\ref{drive1}),
$A\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$, $M\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times 1}$, and
$C\in {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}$ are given matrices, and $B\in {\mathbb R} ^N$.
$Y_k\in {\mathbb R}$ is the output conveyed to the
receiver through the channel.
$\,$From the definition of the decrypting function $d$, it is clear that
to retrieve $m_k$ at the decryption side we need to recover the pair
$(X_k,u_k)$, which in turn calls for reproducing
a chaotic sequence $(\hat{X}_k)$ synchronized with $({X}_k)$ (i.e.,
such that $\hat{X}_k-X_k\rightarrow 0$). To this end, we propose a mechanism
based on some suitable unknown input observers, inspired from the
ones given in \cite{MilDaf03c,MilDaf04d,RMB04,RMB06}. We stress
that the gain matrices have to be ${\mathbb Z}$-valued here.
For the encryption considered here, the decryption involves
the following observer-like structure
\begin{equation}
\label{response1}
(\hat{\Sigma} _{A,B,M,C}) \qquad \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
{\hat X}_{k+1} &= \varpi_k \{ A {\hat X}_k+L (Y_k-{\hat Y}_k) + B \} \\
{\hat Y}_k&=C{\hat X}_k
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $L\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times 1}$, ${\hat X}_k\in {\mathbb R} ^N$ and ${\hat Y}_k\in {\mathbb R}$
(${\hat X}_0$ being an arbitrary point in ${\mathbb R} ^N$).
Let $\overline{X}$ denote the class of $X$ modulo $G'$, i.e. in ${\mathbb T} ^N$.
Set $e_k=\overline{X_k}-\overline{{\hat X}_k}$ for all $k\ge 0$.
Noticing that for all $X\in {\mathbb R} ^N$
$$
\overline{\varpi _k (X)} = \overline{\varpi '(X)} = \overline{X}\qquad
\text{ for } 1\le k\le N,
$$
we obtain by subtracting (\ref{response1})
from (\ref{drive1}) that the error dynamics reads
\begin{equation}
\label{errordyn}
e_{k+1}=(A -L C )e_k+\overline{(A-L C ) M u_k}, \qquad
1\le k\le N.
\end{equation}
Before proceeding to the design of the observers, we give a few definitions
and a preliminary result.
\subsection{Definitions and preliminary results}
\begin{defi}
A pair $(A ^\flat, C^\flat )$ is said to be in a
{\em companion canonical form} if it takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{companion}
A^\flat =
\left(
\begin{array}{lcccc}
- \alpha ^{N-1} & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
- \alpha ^{N-2} & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
- \alpha ^1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
-\alpha ^0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}
\right), \qquad
C^\flat =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 &
0 &
\cdots &
0 &
0
\end{array}
\right)\cdot
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
It is well known that the characteristic polynomial of
$A^\flat$ reads
$\chi_{A^\flat}(\lambda )
=\lambda ^N+\alpha ^{N-1}\lambda ^{N-1}+\cdots +\alpha ^1\lambda +\alpha ^0$.
\begin{defi}
Two pairs $(A,C)$ and $(A^\flat, C^\flat )$ in
${\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}\times {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}$ are said to be {\em similar over
${\mathbb Z}$} if there exists a matrix $T\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$ with
$\hbox{\rm det }T=\pm 1$ (hence $T^{-1}\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$ too) such that
\begin{equation*}
A=T^{-1}A^\flat T,\quad C=C^\flat T.
\end{equation*}
\end{defi}
The following result provides a sufficient condition for an observable pair
$(A,C)$ to admit a ${\mathbb Z}$-valued gain matrix $L$ such that $A-LC$ is Hurwitz.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop1}
Let $A\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$ and $C\in {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}$ be two
matrices such that $(A,C)$ is
similar over ${\mathbb Z}$ to a pair
$(A^\flat ,C^\flat )\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}\times {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}$ in a companion canonical form. Let us denote by $(-\alpha^{N-1}~\cdots~-\alpha^0)'$ the first
column of $A^\flat$.
Then there exists a unique
matrix $L\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times 1}$ such that the matrix $A-LC$ is
Hurwitz (i.e., $\text{sp}(A-LC) \subset \{ z\in {\mathbb C} ;\ |z|<1\}$), namely
$L=T^{-1}L^\flat$ with $L^\flat=(-\alpha^{N-1}~\cdots~-\alpha^0)'$.
Furthermore, $(A-LC)^N=0$.
\end{prop}
{\em Proof.\ } Write $A=T^{-1}A^\flat T$, $C=C^\flat T$, with
$(A^\flat ,C^\flat )$ as in (\ref{companion}) and $T\in {\mathbb Z}^{N\times N}$
with $\hbox{\rm det }T=\pm 1$. For any given matrix
$L\in {\mathbb Z}^{N \times 1}$, we define the matrix
$L^\flat =(l^{N-1} \cdots \ l^0 )'$ by $L^\flat =TL$. Then,
$A-LC=T^{-1}(A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat)T$ with
$$
A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat =\left(
\begin{array}{lcccc}
- \alpha ^{N-1}-l^{N-1} & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
- \alpha ^{N-2}-l^{N-2} & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
-\alpha ^1-l^1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
- \alpha ^0-l^0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}
\right) .
$$
Its characteristic polynomial reads
$$\chi _{A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat}(\lambda )=
\lambda ^{N}+(\alpha ^{N-1}+l^{N-1})\lambda ^{N-1}+\cdots
+(\alpha ^1+l^1)\lambda
+(\alpha ^0+l^0).$$
If $L$ is such that $A-LC$ is Hurwitz, then $A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat
=T(A-LC)T^{-1}$ is Hurwitz too, hence
we may write
$\chi _{A-LC}(\lambda )=\chi _{A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat}(\lambda )=
\lambda ^p \chi(\lambda )$,
where $p\in \{ 0,...,N \}$
and $\chi \in {\mathbb Z} [\lambda ]$ has its roots $\lambda _1,...,\lambda _{N-p}$ in
the set $\{ z\in {\mathbb C};\ 0<|z|<1\}$. Assume that $p<N$, and denote by $q$
the constant coefficient of $\chi$. Then $q\ne 0$ (since $\chi (0)\ne 0$),
and $|q|=\prod _{i=1}^{N-p}|\lambda _i| <1$, which is impossible, since
$q\in {\mathbb Z}$. Therefore $p=N$ and $l^j=-\alpha ^j$ for any $j\in \{0,...,N-1\}$
(hence $L^\flat$ and $L$ are unique). On the other hand
\begin{equation}
\label{eq100t2}
A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat =\left(
\begin{array}{lcccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}
\right) \cdot
\end{equation}
For this choice of $L$, $\chi _{A-LC}(\lambda )
=\lambda ^{N}$ and $(A-LC)^{N}=0$. \hfill$\quad$\qd\par
It should be emphasized that the above argument shows that
a ${\mathbb Z}$-valued matrix ${\cal N}$
is Hurwitz if and only if it is nilpotent. In other words, the
system $\nu _{k+1}={\cal N} \nu _k$ is {\em asymptotically stable}
if and only if it is {\em finite-time stable}.
We are now in a position to state the second main result of this chapter.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm4}
Let $(G,P)$ be a regular tiling of ${\mathbb R} ^N$, and let
$(A,B)\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}\times {\mathbb R} ^N$ be such that (H1) and (H2)
are fulfilled with ${\mathbb R} ^N/G'={\mathbb T} ^N$. Assume given $C\in {\mathbb Z} ^{1\times N}$ such that
$(A,C)$ is similar over ${\mathbb Z}$ to a pair $(A^\flat, C^\flat )$ in a companion canonical form. Then one can pick two matrices $L\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times 1}$ and
$M\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times 1}$ so that
$(A-LC)M=0$ and $CM=1$. Furthermore
$$
X_k=\hat X_k \text { and } u_k=Y_k-\hat Y_k \qquad \forall k\ge N+1.
$$
\end{thm}
{\em Proof.} Let $T$, $A^\flat$, $C^\flat$, $L$ and
$L^\flat$ be as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop1}. Set
$M^\flat =(1\ 0 \ \cdots 0 )'$ and $M=T^{-1}M^\flat $. Then
$(A-LC)M=T^{-1}(A^\flat -L^\flat C^\flat )T\cdot T^{-1}M^\flat =0$
by \eqref{eq100t2}, and $CM=C^\flat T\cdot T^{-1}M^\flat =1$. On the other hand, it follows from \eqref{errordyn} and the choice of $M$ that
$$
e_{k+1}=(A-LC)e_k \qquad \forall k\in \{ 1, ..., N \}
$$
hence $e_{N+1}=(A-LC)^Ne_1=0$. Since $X_{N+1}$ and $\hat X_{N+1}$ belong
to ${\cal T}'$ by construction, we have that $\hat X_{N+1}=X_{N+1}$.
To complete the proof, it is sufficient to prove the following\\
{\sc Claim.} For any $k\ge 0$, $\hat X_k=X_k$ implies $\hat X_{k+1}=X_{k+1}$.\\
Indeed, using the fact that $(A-LC)M=0$ and $\hat X_k=X_k$ we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat X_{k+1}
&=& \varpi _k (A\hat X_k + L C (X_k + M u_k -\hat X_k ) +B) \\
&=& \varpi _k ( A X_k + A M u_k +B) \\
&=& X_{k+1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm4}. \hfill$\quad$\qd\par
\begin{rem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The projection $\varpi _k(x)$ allows to switch between
the dynamics \eqref{A100} and \eqref{A101} in ${\mathbb R} /G$ and ${\mathbb R} /G'$,
respectively. For a dynamics in ${\mathbb T} ^N$ only ($G'=G$), one can replace
$\varpi _k(x)$ by $\varpi '(x)$ (the projection onto $[0,1)^N$).
\item The result in Theorem \ref{thm4} remains true if we take
$\varpi_k(x)=\varpi '(x)$ for $k\le N$ and $\varpi_k(x)=\varpi (x)$ for $k\ge N+1$.
However, the definition of $\varpi_k(x)$ in \eqref{switch} guarantees that
a finite time synchronization occurs even if the output $Y_k$ is
not transmitted at some times. Such a property may be useful for the secured transmission of video sequences.
\item The output $Y_k=C(X_k+Mu_k)$ may be replaced by $\tilde Y_k=h(Y_k)$,
where $h:{\mathbb R} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ is a nonlinear invertible map. This renders the analysis
of the dynamics of $Y_k$ much more complicated.
\item In practice, when ${\mathbb H} ={\mathbb T} ^N$, the matrices $A,C,L$ and $M$ may be constructed in the following way. Pick any matrix $\hat T =[\hat T_{i,j}]\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times N}$ with $\hat T_{i,j}=0$ for $i>j$ and $\hat T_{i,i}=1$ for all $i$.
We set $T=\hat T'\ \hat T$. Note that $\text{det} \ \hat T=
\text{det} \ T=1$. Next, we pick a pair $(A^\flat, C^\flat )$ in a companion canonical form so that the roots of $\chi _{A^\flat}$ do not belong to
the set $\{ 0\}\cup \{ z\in {\mathbb C};\ |z|=1\}$. Then $A,C,L$ and $M$ are defined by
$$
A=T^{-1}A^\flat T,\quad C=C^\flat T, \quad L=T^{-1}A^\flat (C^\flat )',\quad
\text{ and } \quad M=T^{-1}(C^\flat )'.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
\subsection{Numerical simulations}
This section is borrowed from \cite{RMBpreprint}.
Assume ${\mathbb H}={\mathbb T} ^3$ and consider the dynamical system $(\Sigma _{A,b,M,C})$ with
$$
A=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-19 & 26 & 7\\
-51 & 65 & 17\\
152 & -184 & -47
\end{array}
\right),~~C=(6~-5~-1),~~b=0.
$$
$(\Sigma _{A,b})$ is chaotic by virtue of Theorem~\ref{thm1},
since $\hbox{\rm det } A=3$ (hence det $A\ne 0$) and the eigenvalues of $A$ are
-3, -0.4142, 2.4142 ($A$ has no roots
of unity as eigenvalues). The pair $(A,C)$ is similar over
${\mathbb Z}$ to the pair $(A^\flat,C^\flat )$ in companion
canonical form, where
$$
A^{\flat}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 1 & 0\\
7 & 0 & 1\\
3 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),\
C^{\flat}=(1\ 0\ 0)
\ \hbox{\rm and }
~~T=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
6 & -5 & -1\\
-5 & 10 & 3\\
-1 & 3 & 1
\end{array}
\right) .
$$
According to Proposition~\ref{prop1}, the unique matrix
$L\in {\mathbb Z} ^{N\times 1}$ such that $A-LC$ is Hurwitz is
$L=T^{-1}L^{\flat}$, with $L^{\flat}=(-1\ 7\ 3)^T$. We obtain
$L=(-2\ -6\ 19)^T$. The corresponding matrix
$M\in {\mathbb Z} ^{3\times 1}$ such that $(A-LC)M=0$ and $CM=1$ is
$M=(1\ 2\ -5)^T$.\\
The information to be masked is a flow corresponding to integers
ranging from 0 to 255. The data are scaled to give an
input $u_k$ ranging from 0 to $1$, and are embedded
into the chaotic dynamics of $(\Sigma_{A,b,M,C})$. From a practical point of
view, the transmitted signal $y_k$ cannot be coded with an infinite
accuracy and so it has to be truncated for throughput purpose. The observer
($\hat{\Sigma}_{A,b,M,C}$) is used in order to recover the information.
Numerical experiments bring out that the number of digits of the conveyed
output can actually be limited without giving rise to recovering errors.
The results
reported in Fig.~\ref{fig_1} show a perfect recovering for a number
of digits of $y_k$ equal to 4 (this is the minimum number required for
perfect retrieving).
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{figure=erreur,width=10cm}
\caption{A~: error on the recovered information $u_k-\hat{u}_k$; B~:
state reconstruction error $X_k-\hat{X}_k$}
\label{fig_1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The recovering error reaches zero after 3 steps, a fact which is consistent
with above theoretical results on finite time synchronization ($N=3$).
The figure highlights the fact that even though the state reconstruction may not be
perfect (residual errors due to truncations), a perfect information reconstruction
is nevertheless achieved.
\begin{rem}
Actually, for {\em any} system $\Sigma _{A,B,M,C}$, the numerical computations
can be performed {\em in an exact way}, i.e. without rounding errors, provided that
the number of digits is sufficiently large.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Concluding remarks}
The {\em message-embedding} masking technique studied here
does not originate from the conventional cryptography
(see \cite{Menal96} for a good survey). Nevertheless, it
seems to be highly related to some popular encryption schemes, the so-called
{\em stream ciphers} \cite{Millamigo05a}.
Therefore, it is desirable that the proposed scheme
be robust against both statistical and algebraic attacks. On one hand, the
robustness against statistical attacks follows from the chaotic behavior of the
output. On the other hand, the security against algebraic attacks rests on
the difficulty to identify the parameters of the
system. The identification of the parameters
is here a hard task for two reasons:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The particular {\em structure} of the encryption system
$(\Sigma _{A,B,M,C})$,
that is the {\em dimension} of the matrix $A$ and the tiling of the space
used, is assumed to be unknown;
\item The ciphertext $u_k$ actually results from a mixing between the
plaintext $m_k$ and the state $X_k$ ($u_k=e(X_k,m_k)$).
This generally results in a {\em nonlinear} dynamics
$(\Sigma _{A,B,M,C})$, rendering the parameters hardly identifiable
\cite{LjungGlad94}.
\end{enumerate}
A real-time
implementation has already been carried out on an experimental platform
involving a secured multimedia communication. (For details about the
platform, see e.g. \cite{Milal03}).
|
\section{Introduction}
It is a remarkable fact that the identity of most of the matter in the
Universe is unknown. An abundance of observational evidence allows us
to infer the existence of dark
matter~\cite{Kamionkowski_review,Bertone_review,Bergstrom_review} via
its gravitational influence. However we have as yet no direct
detection and very little information about its corpuscular
properties. In this paper, we focus on one of the fundamental
particle properties of dark matter: its self annihilation cross
section.
If the dark matter were in thermal equilibrium in the early Universe,
the annihilation cross section would determine the relic density in
the Universe today. A velocity averaged annihilation cross section of
$\langle \sigma_A v \rangle_{\textrm{th}} \sim {\rm few} \times
10^{-26}~\textrm{cm}^3 \textrm{s}^{-1}$ is required in order to
produce the relic abundance of $\Omega_{\textrm{DM}} \sim 0.2$.
However, it is not necessary for DM to be a thermal relic, in which
case both (significantly) larger or
smaller cross sections are possible.
Regardless of the thermal history, $\langle \sigma_A v \rangle$
controls the annihilation
rate in DM halos in the Universe today, thus determining the size of
detectable signals emanating from regions of DM concentration. It is
these annihilation fluxes that potentially permit the technique of
indirect detection of dark matter.
Recent cosmic ray positron/electron data from a number of experiments
have led to much excitement about indirect DM detection. Anomalies in
the cosmic ray positron spectra have been reported by the PAMELA,
Fermi and HESS experiments, implying an apparent excess of positrons
beyond those due to conventional astrophysical processes.
PAMELA~\cite{pamela} has observed a rise in the $e^+/(e^- + e^+)$ flux
at energies above approximately 10 GeV, while recent data from Fermi
LAT~\cite{fermi} and HESS~\cite{hess} show an excess in the $(e^- +
e^+)$ flux up to and beyond 1 TeV, respectively. (ATIC~\cite{atic}
and PPB-BETS~\cite{ppbbets} observed a similar excess, however, with
considerably higher uncertainty than Fermi.)
The explanation of these positron excesses is far from clear, and, in
light of these, researchers have been motivated to examine or
re-examine conventional cosmic ray interaction~\cite{Stawarz2009} and
propagation models~\cite{Cowsik2009,Katz2009}, acceleration of
$e^+e^-$ in cosmic ray sources~\cite{blasi, Hu:2009bc, Dado:2009ux},
electron and positron emission from supernova
remnants~\cite{Shaviv:2009bu, Fujita:2009wk}, and the production of
positrons by pulsars~\cite{hooper, yuksel_kistler, profumo,
Malyshev:2009tw, Barger:2009yt, Grasso:2009ma, Mertsch:2009ph,
Malyshev:2009zh}. As an alternative to conventional astrophysical
mechanisms, it has also been speculated that DM annihilation or decay
in the Milky Way may be the source of the excess electrons and
positrons.
Many authors have proposed models in which electron and positron
fluxes arise from DM annihilation~\cite{Cirelli:2008pk,
ArkaniHamed:2008qn, Cholis:2008qq, Harnik:2008uu, Allahverdi:2008jm,
Calmet:2009uz, Shirai:2009fq, Chen:2009mj, Hamaguchi:2009jb,
Okada:2009bz, Fukuoka:2009cu, Bai:2009ka, Shirai:2009wi,
Chen:2009zp, Mardon:2009gw, Demir:2009kc, Hooper:2009gm,
Choi:2009qc, Feldman:2009wv} or decay~\cite{Yin:2008bs,
Hamaguchi:2008rv, Ibarra:2008jk, Nardi:2008ix, Ishiwata:2008qy,
DeLopeAmigo:2009dc, Arvanitaki:2009yb, Buchmuller:2009xv,
Ibarra:2009dr, Chen:2009gd}, either directly or indirectly. (See
also, Ref.~\cite{He:2009ra} and references therein.) Note that, in
contrast to the positron data, the PAMELA antiproton/proton
observations do not indicate an anomalous
contribution~\cite{pamela_antiproton}.\footnote{For completeness, we
mention that both the reality of an anomaly in the PAMELA
$e^+/(e^-+e^+)$ flux and the absence of such in the anti-proton flux
have been questioned~\cite{Katz:2009yd,Kane:2009if}.} Therefore, DM
models which feature significant hadronic annihilation modes are
constrained, while leptonic channels are preferred.
However, in order to account for the observed positron spectra,
$\langle \sigma_A v \rangle$ must be significantly enhanced above the
expected thermal relic value. Such an enhancement could be of
astrophysical origin, e.g., a boost due to significant substructure
throughout the halo or a local clump of dark
matter~\cite{Hooper:2008kv, Brun:2009aj}. Alternatively, it could be
of particle physics origin, e.g., a Breit-Wigner resonant
enhancement~\cite{Feldman:2008xs,Ibe:2008ye, Guo:2009aj,Bi:2009uj} or
the Sommerfeld effect (see, e.g.,
Refs.~\cite{Hisano:2004ds,Cirelli:2008pk, ArkaniHamed:2008qn,
MarchRussell:2008yu}) in which low velocity annihilation (i.e. in
Galactic halos) is enhanced while early Universe freeze-out is
affected to a lesser
degree~\cite{Dent:2009bv,Zavala:2009mi,Feng:2009hw,Backovic:2009rw}.
Several techniques may be used to constrain the production of $e^+$
and $e^-$ within Galactic halos, all of which rely on other
accompanying observational signals.
Charged particle production in a halo is necessarily accompanied by
photon signals, including gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio
waves. These signals are produced via the various energy loss
processes that charged particles undergo, examples of which include
synchrotron emission in Galactic magnetic fields, inverse Compton
scattering of electrons from interstellar radiation field, and
bremsstrahlung.
Charged particle production is also accompanied by {\it internal}
bremsstrahlung radiation~\cite{ib1,ib2,ib3,ib4,bell_jacques}, which is
an electromagnetic radiative correction, and is {\it not} due to
interaction in a medium.
In this work, we shall use the electron energy loss processes to derive
constraints on $\langle \sigma_A v \rangle$. Annihilation channels we
consider include both direct production of monoenergetic $e^\pm$, and
channels in which a spectrum of secondary $e^\pm$ are generated via decays
of primary annihilation products, such as $\overline{q}q$.
Note that, given their identical distributions and radiative
signatures (at the energies under consideration), we shall imply both
electrons and positron when we refer to ``electrons" in this work,
unless explicitly noted otherwise.
Our analysis is distinguished from previous work in this area by the
use of a new synthesis~\cite{Crocker2009} of existing Galactic center
radio data which allows us to derive particularly sensitive
constraints. In addition, we make a careful study of the interplay of
various energy loss processes, and show that a combination of
different techniques leave our final bounds relatively insensitive to
uncertainties in magnetic field amplitude.
A number of astrophysical uncertainties enter our calculations. As
with all indirect detection analyses, we have a sensitivity to the
assumed dark matter halo density profile. In addition we are subject
to uncertainties in the Galactic magnetic field amplitude, the
background light density, and the gas density.
Variation in the assumed magnitudes of these parameters alters the
proportion of electron cooling that takes place via the various energy
loss processes. Higher magnetic field strengths, for example, lead to
greater synchrotron losses, while higher background light density
leads to more inverse Compton scattering. However, while the
astrophysical assumptions control the {\it relative} importance of the
various electron energy loss processes, the eventual {\it total}
energy loss is a constant. (Note that, as we show below, relativistic
electrons in the GC lose their energy -- via whatever exact
combination of processes -- before they are transported out of the
region.) Therefore, while constraints from a single process (say,
synchrotron radiation) are individually quite uncertain, we show that
the combined constraints derived using all energy loss processes are
robust and feature only mild dependence on these astrophysical
parameters.
This paper is structured as follows: in section \ref{AstrInput} we
discuss the radio and $\gamma$-ray data which provide the empirical
constraints on the various DM models we test. We also describe the
physical environment at the GC (magnetic field, ambient hydrogen
number density) which determines how the cooling and subsequent
radiation from relativistic electrons proceeds and the DM profiles we
investigate. Section \ref{DMsignals} describes the distribution of
electrons putatively {\it injected} by DM annihilations and explains
how this injection spectrum is shaped into a steady state distribution
by the various cooling processes. We also set out here our calculation of the
radio and $\gamma$-ray emission by these steady state electron
distributions. In section \ref{DMCnstrnts} we compare predicted
emission from DM annihilation (parameterized in terms of DM
particle mass and velocity averaged cross section) against empirical
data and delineate the regions of parameter space we can thereby
exclude. We also compare our results with bounds existing in the
literature. Section \ref{Conclusion} contains our concluding remarks.
\section{Astrophysical Inputs}\label{AstrInput}
\subsection{Radio Data}
LaRosa {\it et al.}~\cite{LaRosa2005} observed a discrete but diffuse,
non-thermal radio source ({\bf DNS})
covering a roughly elliptical
region around the Galactic centre (GC) of extent 3$^\circ$ semi-major
axis (along the Galactic plane) and 1$^\circ$ semi-minor axis between
74 and 330 MHz. This angular region corresponds, more-or-less, to the
usual definition of the Galactic nuclear bulge~\cite{Ferriere2007}.
Subsequently, the work of Crocker {\it et al.}~\cite{Crocker2009}
assembled archival, interferometric and single-dish radio data that
demonstrates that the DNS radio structure is evident at frequencies up
to 10 GHz and has a non-thermal radio spectrum over the full 74 MHz --
10 GHz range of the data (see Fig.~\ref{fig:DNSRadioSpectrum} for the
spectrum and refer to Table~\ref{table:radioData} for references and
other pertinent information on each radio datum). It should be noted
though that, significantly for the purposes of Crocker {\it et al.},
the spectrum of the DNS can {\it not} be described as a pure power
law, but rather exhibits a spectral down-break at about a GHz. For a
full account of the radio data processing and analysis supporting this
conclusion the reader should refer to~\cite{Crocker2009}, but we
repeat a number of particularly relevant points below.
We also consider the constraints that arise from radio spectrum of the
smaller region defined by $| l | < 0.8^\circ$ and $| b | < 0.3^\circ$.
We refer to this as the HESS region, as it
corresponds to a region for which the gamma ray intensity is reported
by the HESS collaboration.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline\hline
$\nu$ (GHz) & Telescope & Beam & Flux density & Error & Ref. \\
\hline
.074$^*$ & VLA & 2$'$ & 16,200 Jy&1,000 Jy & \cite{LaRosa2005} \\
.330$^\dag$ & Green Bank & 39 & 18,000 Jy& 5\% & \cite{LaRosa2005} \\
1.408 & Effelsberg & 9.4$'$ & 7,300 Jy& 10\% & \cite{Reich1990} \\
2.417 & Parkes & 10.4$'$ & 4,900 Jy& 6\% & \cite{Duncan1995} \\
2.695 & Effelsberg & 4.3$'$ & 4,400 Jy& 10\% & \cite{Reich1984} \\
10.29 & Nobeyama & 2.9$'$ & 1,400 Jy& 7\% & \cite{Handa1987} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Surveys and Observational data used to derive the spectrum for the $6^\circ\times2^\circ$ region centred on the GC. Notes: $^*$At 74 MHz the large-angle Galactic plane synchrotron background/foreground flux contribution is not measured (and hence not accounted for) due to the interferometric nature of the VLA observation. $^\dag$Total flux supplied by Dr Crystal Brogan (private communication).}
\label{table:radioData}
\end{table}
Radio data at 74 MHz~\cite{LaRosa2005} were obtained by the Very Large Array (i.e., an interferometer), while data at all higher frequencies come from single dish instruments. (Because of the problem of free-free absorption along the line-of-sight to the GC~\cite{LaRosa2005} we do not employ the 74 MHz datum as a constraint in our fitting below. At higher frequencies, because of the $\propto \nu^{-2.1}$ dependence of the free-free optical depth, absorption by this process is not a significant factor.)
The radio flux at every frequency under consideration has or might have contributions from i) synchrotron emission by cosmic ray electrons along the line of sight, i.e., both in front of and behind the GC along the Galactic plane; ii) synchrotron emission by cosmic ray electrons gyrating in the GC itself; iii) discrete, astrophysical sources in the GC and along the line-of-sight (these include optically thin and optically thick thermal bremsstrahlung emitters and those with non-thermal spectra); iv) diffuse, large scale HII
regions (i.e., regions of ionized atomic hydrogen that produce thermal bremsstrahlung); and v) (possibly and as investigated in this paper) relativistic electrons and positrons injected following annihilation or decay of putative DM particles.
As detailed in Ref.~\cite{Crocker2009}, the contribution of discrete sources (taken to be emission on angular scales $\lesssim 1.2^\circ$) can be measured in the single dish data by Fourier analysis. (At 330 MHz the contribution of discrete sources was measured directly with the VLA~\cite{LaRosa2005}). This discrete source contribution is at a $<20$\% level at all frequencies under consideration and has been removed from every radio datum we use in our analysis. Otherwise, we remove no other astrophysical contribution and, in considering possible limits on synchrotron emission by relativistic electrons and positrons injected by DM annihilation or decay, we take the conservative approach~\cite{Bertone2009} of requiring that predicted synchrotron emission be no larger than 3$\sigma$ above any radio datum.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1pc}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f1.pdf}
\caption{Radio spectra of the DNS (blue, upper) and HESS (red, lower) regions.\label{fig:DNSRadioSpectrum}}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Gamma-Ray Data}
In addition to synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung and
(sub-dominantly) inverse Compton (IC) emission will inescapably be
generated by any relativistic electron population given the presence
of background gas (mostly molecular hydrogen) and the GC's background
light field.
Electrons with GeV scale energies produce both bremsstrahlung photons
of approximately 100 MeV and synchrotron radiation at GHz frequencies
(given the range of magnetic field amplitude that is physically
plausible for the GC; see below).
This means that $\gamma$-ray observations by the EGRET instrument
(onboard the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory) are particularly
complementary to the radio data introduced above, as both signals are
produced by electrons of the {\it same} energy.
Finally, additional $\gamma$-ray photons are also generated from
neutral meson decay in any scenario involving quark-pair production in
DM annihilation and both $\bar{q}q$ and $e^+e^-$ scenarios generate internal bremsstrahlung $\gamma$-rays.
\subsubsection{EGRET Data}
We claim a conservative upper limit to the integral gamma ray
intensity from the DNS region. This is obtained from Figs. 2(c) and
2(d) of Hunter et al.~\cite{Hunter1997} which, when combined, show a
pedestal in the super-300 MeV intensity of $\sim 3 \times 10^{-4}$
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$, averaging over $|b| < 2^\circ$ and
within the longitude defined by $|l| < 30^\circ$. Given that the DNS
region is much smaller in extent (in longitude) than the pedestal,
and that there are no structures evident in these longitude-dependent
intensity plots on the scale of the DNS, we estimate an upper-limit to
any exotic contribution to the intensity in the DNS region at the
level of twice the largest actual excursion in the intensity above the
pedestal value, viz. $1 \times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$
sr$^{-1}$. We are confident that a more detailed analysis would
produce a more stringent constraint. In any case, results pertaining
to the region from the Fermi (GLAST) telescope are eagerly awaited.
\subsubsection{HESS Data}
Similarly, bremsstrahlung and IC emission by the higher energy members
of the electron population will generate $\sim$TeV gamma rays (as will internal bremsstrahlung and, where applicable, neutral meson decay).
The
{\it differential} intensity in this energy range may be compared with the
(conservative) upper limit obtained from observations by
HESS~\cite{Aharonian2006}. This instrument has detected diffuse
emission over the approximate energy range 300 GeV -- 10 TeV and {\it over the smaller solid angle} defined by $| l | < 0.8^\circ$
and $| b | < 0.3^\circ$. The TeV intensity recorded is $1.4 \times 10^{-20}$ cm$^{-2}$ eV$^{-1}$
s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ with only limited and dimmer diffuse
emission detected outside this region but within the DNS field.
The HESS data analysis does, however, include a background subtraction
from a nearby region, and this must be accounted for in our analysis\citep{bell_jacques,Mack2008}.
Because of this background subtraction, in the case of an NFW profile, a DM scenario may predict an absolute flux of $\gamma$-rays at TeV energies and within the HESS field up to 2 $\times$ the
observed $\sim$TeV intensity.
For the isothermal profile, on the other hand, because of the very flat distribution and the consequently very small relative difference in $\gamma$-ray intensity predicted for the HESS region and the background region, no competitive constraint is proffered by the $\sim$TeV data at all (and we, therefore, do not plot TeV $\gamma$-ray constraint curve for this profile).
\subsection{Ambient Environment}
\subsubsection{Gas Density}
\label{section_GasDensity}
Over the DNS region, the volumetric-average hydrogen number density can be calculated to be about 13 cm$^{-3}$ on the basis of the data presented in Ref.~\cite{Ferriere2007}\footnote{We assume the DNS volume to be an elliptical spheroid with circular cross-section in the Galactic plane (i.e., its greatest line-of-sight extent is equal to its width along the plane). This implies a total volume of $\sim 3.0 \times 10^{63}$ cm$^3$.}. Much of this density can be ascribed to molecular hydrogen found at very high number density ($> 10^{3.5}$ cm$^{-3}$) but small filling factor ($<0.01$) in the cores of the unusually-dense, Galactic center molecular cloud population~\cite{Paglione1998,Ferriere2007}. Quite possibly electrons impinging from outside the dense molecular material may be excluded from it~\cite{Gabici2007,Crocker2007,Protheroe2008}. Excluding this very high density phase ($n_H > 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$) but including hydrogen in relatively low density molecular hydrogen, atomic hydrogen (HI) and `warm' ionized hydrogen (H$^+$) one finds a minimum (path-integrated) $n_H$ for a DNS electron of $\sim$ 2.7 cm$^{-3}$ and $\sim$ 23 cm$^{-3}$. We adopt these values in our calculations henceforth. (The putative `very hot', plasma phase of the DNS, that would have a filling factor of $\sim 85$\%, would have lower number density than this. However, relativistic electrons would not be trapped in this phase~\cite{Higdon2007} and, in any case, the existence of this phases has recently been thrown into considerable doubt: see below.)
\subsubsection{Galactic Magnetic Field}
The amplitude of the GC magnetic field remains uncertain by about two orders of magnitude.
\begin{itemize}
\item On the basis of the 74 and 330 MHz observations of the DNS (nuclear bulge) introduced above, LaRosa et al.~\cite{LaRosa2005} use the equipartition argument to suggest that the field on DNS size scales is only around 6 $\mu$G -- very similar in amplitude to that typical for the Galactic disk -- climbing to only about 10 $\mu$G over the inner $1.^\circ6$ along the Galactic plane. (Coincidentally, the region over which the HESS collaboration measures a diffuse $\sim$ TeV $\gamma$-ray intensity~\cite{Aharonian2006}.) These smaller field amplitudes have recently received support from rotation measures to external galaxies close to the GC~\cite{Roy2008}.
\item A rather stronger field over the DNS region is suggested by the work of Spergel and Blitz~\cite{Spergel1992} who note that the putative ``very hot" (8 keV) X-ray emitting plasma found throughout the GC~\cite{Koyama1989} and the unusually dense and turbulent molecular gas might be in pressure equilibrium (implying near equipartition between these ISM phases). In analogy with conditions local to the solar system~\cite{Webber1998}, it might then be expected that the magnetic field also contribute a roughly equal pressure requiring it to have about 100 $\mu$G amplitude. The existence of the very hot plasma has recently been cast into extreme doubt, however, with the apparently diffuse X-ray emission being, it is contested~\cite{Revnivtsev2009}, essentially ascribable to unresolved, point X-ray sources. This would essentially nullify the Spergel and Blitz argument.
\item Finally, (coincidentally or not) over the HESS field, radio observations of the `non thermal filaments' (synchrotron-emitting radio structures, unique to the inner Galaxy, that run essentially perpendicular to the Galactic plane) suggest that the ambient field might be as strong as 1 mG~\cite{Yusef-Zadeh1987,Morris1989,Morris2007}.
\end{itemize}
The situation regarding the GC magnetic field is entirely unclear, therefore.
Recently this argument has been joined by Crocker et
al.~\cite{Crocker2009}. On the basis of a simultaneous analysis of
the higher-frequency part of the radio spectrum of the DNS radio
structure and $\sim$ GeV $\gamma$-ray data covering the same region
(i.e., the very data described above), these authors have recently
claimed a probable value for the magnetic field in this region of 100
$\mu$G with a lower limit (at 95\% confidence) at 50 $\mu$G.
However, we cannot self-consistently assume this result holds for the
purposes of the current paper. The analysis in Crocker et al. assumes
that the observed radio emission from the DNS region can be attributed
to ``conventional" astrophysical electrons governed by a pure power
law at injection, and that any spectral features detected in the
observed spectrum arise in the cooling of the injection spectrum
(which is initially featureless).
If we allow for the possibility that DM makes an additional
contribution to the electron injection spectrum,
the kinematics of DM annihilation allows for the
possibility of
spectral features in the {\it injection} spectrum of the {\it in situ} electron population,
so the assumption of Crocker et al. that cooling alone introduces spectral features does not necessarily hold.
(E.g., one can find a fit acceptable at better than 2$\sigma$ confidence to the radio spectrum invoking synchrotron emission by a population of relativistic electrons injected following the annihilation of dark matter particles with a mass $\sim$ 30 GeV and assuming the quark hadronization spectrum given below. We certainly do not claim this as a detection!)
This implies we cannot self-consistently adopt the
magnetic field strength inferred in Ref.~\cite{Crocker2009} in this work.
Given the uncertainties explained above, in this paper we investigate
DM constraints across the whole range of magnetic field amplitudes
supported by the existing literature, which we take to be 10 -- 100
$\mu$G for the DNS region and 10 -- 1000 $\mu$G for the HESS diffuse
flux region defined above. However, as we demonstrate below, radio
and $\gamma$-ray data offer complimentary constraints over this range:
radio data provide the more severe restriction on $\langle \sigma_A
v\rangle$ for strong fields, while $\gamma$-ray data are more
constraining for weak fields (because, in the latter case, there is
less synchrotron suppression of the high-energy electrons required for
IC up-scattering of ambient light into $\sim$GeV and $\sim$TeV energy
ranges).
\subsection{Dark matter distribution}\label{DMD}
We employ the usual Navarro-Frank-White (NFW)
distribution~\cite{Navarro:1996gj}
\begin{equation}
\label{NFW}
\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_{\text{h}}}{\frac{r}{r_{\text{h}}}\left(1+\frac{r}{r_{\text{h}}}\right)^2}
\,\,\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\text{h}} = 0.572$ GeV cm$^{-3}$ and $r_{\text{h}}$ = 14
kpc. The above implies a volumetric-average DM density of $3.6 \times
10^{10}$ eV cm$^{-3}$ over the DNS region and $1.2 \times 10^{11}$ eV
cm$^{-3}$ over the HESS region. We employ these volume-average
quantities in our calculations (given we assume a one-zone model).
We also investigate limits in the case that the DM distribution follows a truncated isothermal profile.
Here we assume the parametrization presented in Ref.~\cite{Bertone2009} following Ref.~\cite{Bahcall1980}:
\begin{equation}
\label{ISO}
\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_{\text{s}}}{1+\left(\frac{r}{r_{\text{s}}}\right)^2}
\,\,\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\text{s}} = 1.16$ GeV cm$^{-3}$ and $r_{\text{s}}$ = 5
kpc.
\section{Dark matter signals}\label{DMsignals}
\subsection{Dark matter annihilation and primary electron spectrum}
In typical models with weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs),
the DM masses fall in the GeV-TeV range,
while the DM annihilation cross section is given approximately by the
thermal relic value of $\langle \sigma_A v \rangle_{\textrm{th}} \sim {\rm few}
\times 10^{-26} \textrm{cm}^3\textrm{s}^{-1}$. However, the DM self
annihilation cross section can be much smaller if coannihilations play
a significant role in determining the WIMP freezeout density, as
occurs in many supersymmetric DM scenarios. Conversely, the
Sommerfeld effect can boost the self annihilation cross section
relevant for galactic halos in the Universe today, effectively
resulting in values much larger than the thermal relic expectation.
Moreover, if dark matter was populated via some non-thermal mechanism,
$\langle \sigma_A v \rangle_{\textrm{th}}$ is not relevant to the presently
observed average abundance. It is
thus appropriate to take $\langle \sigma_A v \rangle$ to be a free
parameter, spanning a wide range of possible values. Likewise, we
shall also take the DM mass to be a free parameter. (Indeed, masses
above 1 TeV have been considered in light of recent cosmic ray
positron results and data from Fermi LAT.)
We shall consider two DM annihilation processes: $1.~\chi\chi
\rightarrow \bar{q}q$ and $2.~\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$.
\subsubsection{$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$}
Annihilation to $\bar{q}q$ is taken as a representative prototype of
many DM models, as the resulting electron energy spectrum is a good
approximation to that for many annihilation channels. For example,
the annihilation spectrum for a specific supersymmetric WIMP candidate
may be calculated with the DarkSUSY package~\cite{Gondolo:2004sc}.
However, the annihilation channels $\chi\chi\rightarrow \bar{q}q, ZZ,
W^+W^-$ all lead to essentially the same electron energy spectrum
(while the electron energy spectrum resulting from
$\chi\chi\rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$ is significantly different).
Note that for annihilation to $ZZ$, $W^+W^-$, and $\bar{q}q$,
hadronization or decay of the primary annihilation products leads, via
charged pions and muon intermediaries, to positrons and electrons with
a broad spectrum of energies.
For simplicity, we shall assume full annihilation into $\bar{q}q$. For
this channel, $e^-$ and ($e^+$) will be produced by decaying muons
(anti-muons) produced in charged pion decay. The resulting $e^+$ {\bf
+} $e^-$ spectrum can be written, following Borriello et
al.~\cite{Borriello2009}, in a simple polynomial form of the ratio
$E_e/\mchi$:
\begin{equation}
\label{dNdE}
\der{N_e}{E_e}(E_e)=\frac{2}{\mchi}\sum_{j\in
J}^{}a_j\left(\frac{E_e}{\mchi}\right)^j \, ,
\end{equation}
where $J=\{-\frac{3}{2},-\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{1}{2},2,3\}$ and the
coefficients $a_j$ are listed in Table \ref{tab:ajvalues} taken from~\cite{Borriello2009}.
This analytical expression is a reasonable approximation for $E_e \raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}
1$ GeV. At low energies the analytical expression from~\cite{Borriello2009} has an asymptotic behaviour $\propto E_e^{-1.5}$
while the kinematics of the charged meson and muon decay chains mean
that the actual spectrum has a low-energy cut-off.
Because of the large magnetic fields we sample, our calculated radio
flux from synchrotron emission is potentially sensitive to this effect
at the lowest frequencies considered (cf.~\cite{Borriello2009}).
We therefore explicitly introduce a cut-off by patching on a numerical
description of the low-energy spectrum we have previously
obtained~\cite{Crocker2007} in the context of a numerical treatment of
secondary electron production from hadronic cosmic ray interactions
(where identical kinematical considerations come into play) to
Borriello et al.'s distribution.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{$a_j$ values from \cite{Borriello2009}}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{coefficient} & \textbf{numerical} \\
\hline
$a_ {-3/2}$ & $0.456$ \\
$a_ {-1/2}$ & $-5.37$ \\
$a_ {0}$ & $10.9$ \\
$a_ {1/2}$ & $-6.77$ \\
$a_ {2}$ & $0.969$ \\
$a_ {3}$ & $-0.185$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ajvalues}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$}
We shall also consider direct annihilation to monoenergetic electrons,
for which the electron energy spectrum per annihilation is simply
given by
\begin{equation}
\der{N_e}{E_e}(E_e)= 2 \delta(m_\chi-E_e).
\end{equation}
Note that the injection electron spectra differ from the steady state
electron spectra due to the action of electron cooling, as discussed
below.
\subsection{Steady-state electron distribution}
The injection spectrum of electrons produced in the Galaxy, at position $r$, as a result of Dark Matter annihilation is
\begin{equation} \label{inj1}
Q(E_e,r)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\rho(r)}{m_{\chi}}\right)^2 \sigva
\der{N_e}{E_e}\ .
\end{equation}
In general, the injected electrons loose energy interacting
with the interstellar medium and move away from the production
site. Both these broad processes lead to modifications of the shape of the injection spectrum.
If, however, the transport timescale is much longer than the cooling timescale for electrons in the relevant energy range one is in the
so-called ``thick-target" regime in which case the steady-state (cooled) electron distribution can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d n_e}{d E_e}(E_e, \vec{r}) =
{\int_{E_e}^ {m_\chi c^2} \!\!\!\!\! \,\,\,dE_{e}' \,\,Q(E_{e}',\vec{r}) \over - dE_e(E_e)/dt}
\label{steady}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $dE_e(E_e)/dt$ is the cooling rate, resulting from
the sum of several energy loss processes that affect electrons (described immediately below).
We show in the Appendix that we are justified in adopting the thick target regime for the GC environment.
\subsection{Electron cooling processes}
In the GC environment four cooling processes are potentially important for charged leptons with energies such that they radiate at radio and $\gamma$-ray wavelengths (electrons and positrons suffer essentially identical energy losses over the relevant energy scale and are treated identically). These processes are dominantly (from low to high energy) ionization, bremsstrahlung, and synchrotron and/or IC emission. We show the cooling timescales, as a function of electron (or positron) energy, in Fig.~\ref{f3} for plausible GC environment parameters. In Fig.~\ref{plotSpctrm} we show examples of the {\it shape} of the injected electron (and positron) spectrum together with the steady-state electron distribution after cooling.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plotCooling.pdf}
\caption{Cooling time-scale due to various processes affecting electrons and positrons in the GC environment as a function of energy. Curves are -- {\bf solid}: ionization, {\bf dashed}: bremsstrahlung; {\bf dotted}: synchrotron for (upper) 10 $\mu$G and (lower) 100 $\mu$G; and {\bf dot-dashed}: inverse Compton.}
\label{f3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plotSpctrm.pdf}
\caption{{\it Shape} of the injected electron + positron distribution (green; dashed) and steady state distributions (for various magnetic field amplitudes -- mG (yellow; solid, upper); 100 $\mu$G (purple; solid, center); and 10 $\mu$G (blue; solid, lower). The curves have been normalized to 1 (on an arbitrary scale) at an energy of 10 GeV. Note the low-energy, kinematic cut-off in the injected distribution. The plot assumes $m_\chi = 100$ GeV.}
\label{plotSpctrm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Radiative Processes}
Of the cooling processes listed above, all except ionization lead to
potentially-observable signatures at radio and $\gamma$-ray
wavelengths. The amount of cooling that takes places via either radio
or gamma ray emission -- and the constraints derived on the basis
of that channel -- depend on assumptions made about the
astrophysical inputs. We calculate separate constraints from radio
and gamma ray emission, in each case choosing astrophysical inputs
conservatively. In particular, for the hydrogen density, $n_H$, we
conservatively choose a value which leads to smallest observational
signal for each process considered. The magnetic field strength is
left as a free parameter to be varied, and we shall demonstrate the
our final results are relatively insensitive to this parameter.
In contrast, we fix the ambient hydrogen number density to be
the appropriate minimal value set out in \S \ref{section_GasDensity} (given the consideration that most of the ambient gas is `locked-up' in molecular cloud cores of very high density but extremely low filling factor).
We describe our treatment of each radiative process below.
Representative $\gamma$-ray spectra from each of the relevant process (for a $m_\chi = 1$ TeV DM mass and $\sigva = 10^{-26}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$, with a Borriello et al.~\cite{Borriello2009} $e^\pm$
spectrum) are shown in fig.\ref{plotSampleSpectrum}.
\subsubsection{Synchrotron}
We use standard formulae~\cite{Rybicki1979} to calculate the radio emissivity of relativistic electrons (and positrons) in the Galactic center magnetic field.
\subsubsection{Bremsstrahlung Calculation}
We use standard formulae (see Ref.~\cite{Longair1992}, p.~84 et seq.) to calculate the bremsstrahlung emissivity of relativistic electrons (and positrons) in the Galactic center environment.
\subsubsection{Inverse Compton Calculation}
For inverse Compton cooling and emission calculations we assume the full interstellar radiation field determined for the inner 500 pc of the Galaxy in~\cite{Porter2006}. This has an energy density around 19 eV cm$^{-3}$. We calculate the Compton scattering emissivity of relativistic electrons using the full Klein-Nishina cross section set out in section 2.3.3 of Ref.~\cite{Sturner1997}. For the minimal $n_H$ value we assume, the integrated energy flux (100 MeV+) from IC emission is about 70\% as large as the bremsstrahlung energy flux.
\subsubsection{Gamma-rays from neutral meson decay}
For DM annihilation into $q \bar{q}$ as investigated by Borriello et al., a
$\gamma$-ray signal from the decay of neutral mesons produced in
quark hadronization is inescapable.
The contribution of this process is often dominant for relevant energies and environmental parameters (see fig. \ref{plotSampleSpectrum}). We employ a
parameterization of the numerical results of Bergstr{\"o}m et al.\cite{Bergstrom1998} for the $\gamma$-ray spectra produced by quark hadronization following annihilation of 500 GeV neutralinos (displayed in the their figure 12 and parameterized in terms of the scaling variable $x \equiv E_\gamma/m_\chi$).
A representative distribution is that following $u\bar{u}$ production:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d N_\gamma}{d x} = \exp(-6.8 x) \ x^{-1.5}
\end{equation}
We also assume a branching ratio of 100\% into the maximally massive quark pair allowable given the DM mass (which means either $b\bar{b}$ or $t\bar{t}$ over the range of $m_\chi$ we explore).
\subsubsection{Gamma-rays from internal bremsstrahlung}
DM annihilation to any charged particles is necessarily accompanied by
{\it internal} bremsstrahlung (IB)
radiation~\cite{ib1,ib2,ib3,ib4,bell_jacques}. This is an
electromagnetic radiative correction, and not to be confused with the
regular bremsstrahlung considered in this paper. IB produces hard
gamma rays up to the dark matter mass, with an approximately
model-independent spectrum, largely free from both particle and
astrophysics uncertainties. For the (sub-dominant) contribution of
internal bremsstrahlung we employ the parameterization of Refs.~\cite{ib2,bell_jacques}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d N_\gamma}{d E_\gamma} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi E_\gamma} \left[\ln\left(\frac{s'}{m_e^2}\right) - 1\right] \left[1 + \left(\frac{s'}{s}\right)^2 \right] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $s = 4m^2_\chi$ and $s' = 4m_\chi(m_\chi - E)$.
(This equation has to modified for the case of $q\bar{q}$ production by replacing the electron mass with the effective quark mass, and $\alpha$
with $Q_q^2 \ \alpha$, where $Q_q$ is the electric charge of quark $q$~\cite{ib3}.)
\begin{figure}
\vspace{1pc}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plotSampleSpectrum.pdf}
\caption{Sample $\gamma$-ray spectra of the DNS region for a $m_\chi = 1$ TeV DM mass and $\sigva = 10^{-26}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$, with a Borriello et al.~\cite{Borriello2009} $e^\pm$
spectrum, a plausible ambient field of 100 $\mu$G, and an ambient hydrogen number density of $\sim 3$ cm$^{-3}$.
Curves are: (blue, solid) inverse Compton; (purple,dashed) bremsstrahlung; (yellow,dotted) neutral meson decay (following hadronization); and (green, dot-dash) internal bremsstrahlung.}
\label{plotSampleSpectrum}
\end{figure}
\section{DM Annihilation constraints}\label{DMCnstrnts}
\subsection{Discussion of results}
Figures \ref{qNFW}, \ref{eNFW}, \ref{qIso} and \ref{eIso}, display the
bounds we obtain for the annihilation cross section, as a function of
DM mass. We show results corresponding to our four main scenarios,
namely, the $\chi\chi\rightarrow\bar{q}q$ and $\chi\chi\rightarrow
e^+e^-$ processes, for both NFW and isothermal DM halo profiles. For
each scenario, we show how the constraints depend upon the assumed
magnetic field strength within the plausible range $10-100\mu$G.
Neglecting the $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-ray constraints for the moment,
in each scenario investigated $\gamma$-ray data is the most
constraining at low magnetic field amplitude, and radio the best at
high. Adjusting the magnetic field amplitude alters the proportion of
electron cooling that occurs via synchrotron emission. Thus, for low
(high) $B$ amplitude the radio flux is less (more) constraining.
The total energy loss of the electron population is controlled by a
combination of the available cooling mechanisms, such that reducing
the amount of cooling taking place by synchrotron emission leads to
relatively more gamma rays emission via bremsstrahlung and inverse
Compton scattering.
(Note that any individual electron must eventually loose all its energy
via one mechanism or another, and it is impossible for this energy
loss to occur without the production of detectable signals.)
Therefore while the radio constraints, considered alone, are quite
sensitive to the assumed magnetic field strength, our final results,
being the strongest of either the radio or gamma constraints at a given
$B$ amplitude, are much less sensitive to the assumed value of $B$.
For the NFW profile, we find that the $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-ray
constraint invariably becomes the best for larger values of $m_\chi$.
(As remarked above, because of the background subtraction procedure,
TeV $\gamma$-ray data does not proffer a competitive constraint for
relatively flat profiles like the isothermal).
The $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-ray constraint curve is highly structured as a result of it being a comparison between predicted and observed differential $\gamma$-ray intensities at the nine separate energies the HESS collaboration has listed starting at $\sim$300 GeV in concert with the three (for $e^+e^-$) of four (for $\bar{q} q$) $\gamma$-ray production mechanisms and their different
thresholding effects with respect to the $m_\chi$ parameter.
A somewhat similar effect -- though less pronounced is see in the radio constraints.
In contrast, the EGRET $\gamma$-ray constraints (taken above a single photon energy of 300 MeV in
the integral intensity) define a fairly smooth constraint for each
scenario whereas .
In Fig.~\ref{plotBestConstrntAllFields} we compare the best constraint
obtained (from any modality except for $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-rays) for
plausible magnetic field values, namely 10, 30, 100, 1000 $\mu$G.
We see that the best constraint on $\langle \sigma v \rangle$ varies
by a factor of $< 10$ as $B$ is varied from 10-100 $\mu$G. (This is to
be compared with a larger variation in the radio constraint alone of
$\sim 30$.)
Therefore, when considered in totality, the $\gamma$-ray and radio
data conspire to generate constraints on DM mass/annihilation cross
section that are roughly constant across the reasonable range of
astrophysical parameters (in particular, magnetic field amplitude).
For larger magnetic field amplitude (i.e. $B = 1000 \mu$G, which is at
the upper end of the astrophysically plausible range) synchrotron
emission dominates the cooling, and somewhat stronger constraints are
obtained. This occurs because the field has become strong enough that
the GHz range synchrotron-radiation is sampling lower energy (and
therefore more numerous) electrons.
Comparing the figures for the NFW and isothermal profiles
(e.g. Fig.~\ref{qNFW} with Fig.~\ref{qIso}, or Fig.~\ref{eNFW} with
Fig.~\ref{eIso}) it is evident that the exclusion curves for the NFW
profile are always much more constraining than for the corresponding
isothermal scenario. This is due to the high central DM density of
the strongly peaked NFW profile, in comparison with the low central
DM density of the flatter isothermal profile
Likewise, the radio observation of the HESS region (small solid angle
at the GC) provide more stringent constraints than the radio
observations of the DNS region (larger solid angle) for the peaked NFW
profile.
For the isothermal profile, however, we have something of the opposite situation:
the radio bounds for the DNS regions are often more constraining
than those for the HESS region. This can be understood since, for the
flat isothermal profile, the average DM density is approximately the
same for both regions, while the radio background for the DNS region
is lower than for the HESS region.
With the exception of the HESS $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-ray constraint, the
$\bar{q}q$ injection scenario tends to generate somewhat tighter
constraints than the monoenergetic $e^+e^-$ spectrum, for all values
of $m_\chi$ larger than $\sim$ 100 GeV. In the $\bar{q}q$ case,
electrons and positrons are injected as secondaries from meson decay
following quark hadronization. Therefore, a single $\chi\chi
\rightarrow \bar{q} q$ interaction produces more electrons and
positrons (though of much lower energy) than for the monoenergetic
$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$ case, and thus generally tighter limits.
In addition, the production of $\gamma$-rays from neutral meson decay,
leads to strong MeV gamma ray limits in the case of $\bar{q}q$.
At the lowest energies (below $\sim 100$ GeV), the $e^+e^-$ radio
limits surpass those for $\bar{q}q$, due to the higher average energy
of the injection spectrum.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$; NFW profile; $B= 10 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGBor.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGBor}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$; NFW profile; $B= 30 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS30muGBor.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS30muGBor}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$; NFW profile; $B= 100 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGBor.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGBor}
}
\caption{ Exclusion contours for the DM annihilation cross
section assuming a $\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q} q$ annihilation
channel (with a Borriello et al.~\cite{Borriello2009} $e^\pm$
spectrum) and an NFW DM profile, obtained from DNS radio data (red, solid),
HESS region radio data (blue, dotted), DNS region $\sim$300 MeV $\gamma$-ray data (green, dashed), and HESS region $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-ray data (orange, dot-dashed).
Relevant $\gamma$-ray production processes are neutral meson decay, bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton emission, and internal bremsstrahlung.
Results are displayed for three Galactic magnetic field amplitudes
within a plausible range (a) 10 $\mu$G, (b) 30 $\mu$G and (c) 100
$\mu$G.\label{qNFW}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$; NFW profile; $B= 10 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGMono.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGMono1}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$; NFW profile; $B= 30 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS30muGMono.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGMono2}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$; NFW profile; $B= 100 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGMono.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGMono3}
}
\caption{Exclusion contours for the DM annihilation cross
section, assuming a $\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$ annihilation
channel (mono-energetic $e^\pm$ spectrum) and an NFW DM profile,
obtained from DNS radio data (red, solid), HESS region radio data (blue, dotted),
DNS region $\sim$300 MeV $\gamma$-ray data (green, dashed), and HESS region $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-ray data (orange, dot-dashed).
Relevant $\gamma$-ray production processes are bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton emission, and internal bremsstrahlung.
Results are displayed for Galactic magnetic field amplitudes
(a) 10 $\mu$G, (b) 30 $\mu$G and (c) 100 $\mu$G.\label{eNFW}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$; Isothermal profile; $B = 10 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGBorIso.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGBorIso1}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$; Isothermal profile; $B = 30 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS30muGBorIso.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGBorIso2}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$; Isothermal profile; $B = 100 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGBorIso.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGBorIso3}
}
\caption{
Exclusion contours for the DM annihilation
cross section assuming a $\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q} q$
annihilation channel (with a Borriello et al.~\cite{Borriello2009}
$e^\pm$ spectrum) and an Isothermal DM profile, obtained from DNS
radio data (red, solid), HESS region radio data (blue, dotted), and $\sim$ 300 MeV $\gamma$-ray
data (green, dashed). [For such a flat profile the $\sim$TeV data do not offer a competitive constraint: see the text.]
Results are displayed for Galactic magnetic field amplitudes
(a) 10 $\mu$G, (b) 30 $\mu$G and (c) 100 $\mu$G.\label{qIso}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$; Isothermal profile; $B = 10 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGMonoIso.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS10muGMonoIso}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$; Isothermal profile; $B = 30 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS30muGMonoIso.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS30muGMonoIso}
}
\subfigure[~$\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$; Isothermal profile; $B = 100 \mu$G.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.31\columnwidth]{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGMonoIso.pdf}
\label{plotExclsnCntrsDNS100muGMonoIso}
}
\caption{
Exclusion contours for the DM annihilation cross
section assuming a $\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$ annihilation
channel (mono-energetic $e^\pm$ spectrum) and an Isothermal DM profile,
obtained from DNS radio data (red, solid), HESS region radio data (blue, dotted),
and $\sim$ 300 MeV $\gamma$-ray data (green, dashed).
[For such a flat profile the $\sim$TeV data do not offer a competitive constraint: see the text.]
Results are displayed for Galactic magnetic field amplitudes
(a) 10 $\mu$G, (b) 30 $\mu$G and (c) 100 $\mu$G.\label{eIso}}
\end{figure}
\end{widetext}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{plotBestConstrntAllFields.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the best constraint we find (from any modality except fot $\sim$TeV $\gamma$-rays)
over plausible magnetic field values, assuming a $\chi\chi
\rightarrow \bar{q} q$ annihilation channel and an NFW DM profile.
Curves are: {\bf green} -- $\gamma$-ray constraints for (dashed) 30
$\mu$G and (solid) 10 $\mu$G; and {\bf blue} -- radio constraints
from the HESS region for (solid) 100 $\mu$G field and (dashed) 1 mG
field. Also shown for comparison is the best constraint obtained by
Borriello et al.~\cite{Borriello2009} for this scenario, {\bf
purple, dotted}. }
\label{plotBestConstrntAllFields}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with previous results}
A number of previous works have considered DM annihilation corss
section constraints obtained from Galactic radio and $\gamma$-ray
data. While our analysis is complementary to these prior studies,
distinguished by the use of different GC radio data, it is useful to
compare the strength of the limits obtained on $\langle \sigma
v\rangle$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Of recent work, the most immediately comparable to ours -- as
discussed above -- is that of Borriello et al.~\cite{Borriello2009}
whose NFW profile and electron injection spectrum we adopt (for the
$\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q} q$ process).
Our results are at least one order of magnitude and up to two orders
of magnitude better than those obtained by these authors. The
constraints of Borriello et al.~are obtained from consideration of
all-sky radio data at frequencies between 100 MHz and 23 GHz. These
authors, however, specifically exclude a 15$^\circ \times 15^\circ$
patch of sky centered on the GC (because their calculations are
performed in the limit that only synchrotron cooling is important in
shaping the steady state electron distribution and -- as discussed at
length above -- in the higher gas densities near the GC, this will no
longer be true given the consequent importance of ionization and
bremsstrahlung).
\item Hooper~\cite{Hooper:2008zg} has considered constraints
obtainable from WMAP data~\cite{Spergel2007} at 22, 33, and 61
GHz. His analysis relies on astrophysical {\it
foreground-subtracted} data that putatively reveals a residue,
unexplained ``haze"~\cite{Hooper2007} at all three WMAP frequencies
on scales out to about $20^\circ$ from the GC (and absent
elsewhere). The Hooper analysis, then, is intrinsically less
conservative than the radio analysis presented here where we do not
attempt such subtraction (except for discrete sources in the field
which can be unambiguously identified on angular size
grounds).
While Hooper's constraints are particularly strong, some of the
astrophysical assumptions adopted may be too optimistic. In particular
he assumes a constant 10 $\mu$G field and constant 5 eV cm$^{-3}$
interstellar radiation field energy density over the 30$^\circ$
angular region he investigates, the former being rather stronger and
the latter rather weaker (at least towards the GC) than assumed by
other authors~\cite{Borriello2009,Grajek:2008jb}.
Grajek et al.~\cite{Grajek:2008jb} consider the same
(foreground-subtracted) WMAP data investigated by Hooper. Assuming a
rather weaker (and spatially-varying) magnetic field and a rather
smaller ratio $U_B/(U_B + U_\textrm{rad}) \sim 0.1$,
these authors find correspondingly weaker constraints on the
annihilation cross section, which we surpass.
(Note that the $W^+W^-$ annihilation channel considered by Hooper and
Grajek results in a very similar electron injection spectrum to the
$\bar{q}q$ channel we consider.)
\item Finally, Bertone {\it et al.}\cite{Bertone2009} and Regis and
Ullio~\cite{Regis2009} both also consider constraints arising from
multi-wavelength observations of the GC, including radio and
$\gamma$-rays. These papers tend to focus on observations on much
smaller angular scales around the super massive black at the
Galactic dynamical center than investigated here.
While some of the constraints (and projected constraints) derived are
quite strong, on these small scales it is necessary to assume a particular model for the
evolution of the magnetic field intensity (and the matter density controlling bremsstrahlung and ionization cooling).
Such constraints are also particularly sensitive to the DM density at
extremely small radii, which is highly uncertain.
\end{enumerate}
We now compare with constraints derived using other techniques.
For hadronic annihilation modes, constraints arising from the
antiproton observations have been shown to be of comparable
sensitivity to existing Galactic centre gamma ray and radio limits,
e.g. Refs.~\cite{Pato:2009fn,Catena:2009tm}, for some models.
For the monoenergetic $e^+e^-$ annihilation channel, pure IB
constraints were derived in Ref.~\cite{bell_jacques}. For the NFW
profile, the IB constraints are very strong for $10^3 \raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}} m_\chi \raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}
10^4$ (these arise from HESS gamma ray data near the GC) whereas our
new radio/gamma ray bounds are better at lower mass. (For an
isothermal profile, the IB constraints arising from the HESS data
would be considerable weaker.)
Note that for masses above $\sim 10$ TeV, bounds on the total
annihilation cross section to all final states, derived using neutrino
data, become most constraining~\cite{BBM,YHBA,KS}. For higher masses,
$m_\chi \raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}} 10^2$, TeV the unitarity bound on the total cross section
becomes the most restrictive constraint~\cite{Hui}.
Turning now to {\it non}-Galactic based techniques, a number of
authors have recently considered constraints arising from annihilation
at high redshift. For example,
Refs.~\cite{Belikov:2009qx,Galli:2009zc,Huetsi:2009ex,Cirelli:2009bb,Slatyer:2009yq}
consider the effect of energy deposited by DM annihilation during the
the reionization and recombination epochs.
(Note that these techniques are complementary to those we consider
here, being subject to quite different assumptions and systematics.)
For an NFW profile and an $e^+e^-$ annihilation channel the
reionization limits are broadly comparable to the constraints we have
derived here, with the boost factor required to be $\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}} 10$ at
$m_\chi\sim 100$ GeV.
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{Conclusion}
We have considered DM annihilation in the Galactic center, for
scenarios in which annihilation leads to the production of
relativistic electrons and positrons. Using signals arising from
electron energy loss processes, namely synchrotron emission,
bremsstrahlung and inverse Compton scattering (and, where appropriate,
those due to neutral meson decay and internal bremsstrahlung), we have
derived robust constraints on the velocity-averaged DM self
annihilation cross section $\langle \sigma v\rangle$.
The processes considered were $\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$ which
produces monoenergetic $e^\pm$, and $\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q} q$,
in which a spectrum of $e^\pm$ are generated via the charged pion
decay chain. (The constraints for the later channel are expected to be
very similar to those for other interesting final states, such as
$W^+W^-$ and $ZZ$.)
We have demonstrated that a combination of radio and gamma ray bounds
is relatively insensitive to the assumed magnetic field amplitude
within a plausible range, with the constraint on $\langle \sigma v
\rangle$ varying by a factor of $< 10$ as $B$ is varied from 10 -
100 $\mu$G. (Taken alone, the radio and gamma rays bounds are
individually quite sensitive to the assumed magnetic field amplitude.)
Our analysis is distinct from previous work in this area by the use of
a new synthesis of Galactic center radio data assembled in
Ref.~\cite{Crocker2009}.
Our constraints on velocity-averaged DM annihilation cross sections
are conservative as we {\it (i)}
do not remove (known) astrophysical contributions to the radio
emission and {\it (ii)}
do not include a contribution to the total radio emission from
DM annihilation electrons and positrons along the line-of-sight but
out of the GC.
Despite these conservative assumptions, our results are at least one
order of magnitude and up to two orders of magnitude better than the
most directly comparable previous limit (obtained by Borriello et
al. for the same DM distributions and electron injection spectrum, but
considering all-sky radio fluxes). Moreover, our constraints rule out
a sizable portion of the parameter space that has been invoked to
explain the various positron anomalies. (See,
e.g. Refs.~\cite{Cirelli:2009bb,Meade:2009iu} for recent
determinations of the PAMELA/Fermi perferred regions.)
For an NFW profile and a $\chi\chi \rightarrow \bar{q}q$ annihilation
process, we find the allowed boost factor is $\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}} 1$ at 10 GeV and
$\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}} 100$ at 1 TeV. For $\chi\chi \rightarrow e^+e^-$, the allowed
boost factor is $< 1$ at 10 GeV and $< 1000$ at 1 TeV.
Note that these constraints apply to boost factors generated via
whatever mechanism, be it a Breit-Wigner resonance, the Sommerfeld
effect, or an enhancement due to DM substructure~\footnote{An
interesting exception is the case where we can not reliably
extrapolate between the local DM annihilation rate and that in the
Galactic center, e.g., because of a variation in the dispersion
velocity~\cite{Cholis:2009va} or a local clump of dark matter.}.
\vspace{10mm}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors are indebted to T. Jacques, A. Mazumdar, N. Sahu, and F. Wang for
invaluable discussions on various aspects of dark matter models and
the indirect detection of dark matter signals. This research was
funded in part by the Australian Research Council under Project ID
DP0877916 and DP0988343.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
A truly impressive level of experimental technique,
effort and ingenuity has been applied
to measuring the electromagnetic form factors
of the proton, neutron (nucleon) and pion
\cite{Gao:2003ag,HydeWright:2004gh,Perdrisat:2006hj,Arrington:2006zm}.
These quantities are probability amplitudes
that a given hadron
can absorb a specific amount of momentum and remain in the ground
state,
and therefore should supply information about
charge and magnetization densities.
The text-book interpretation of these form factors is that their
Fourier transforms are measurements of the charge and magnetization
densities.
This interpretation is deeply buried in the
thinking of nuclear and particle physicists
and continues to guide intuition, as it has since the days
of the Nobel prize-winning work of Hofstadter\cite{Hofstadter:1956qs}.
Nevertheless, the relativistic motion of the constituents of the
system causes the text-book interpretation
to be incorrect \cite{Miller:2009sg}.
The preceding statement leads to several questions, the first
being: Is the statement correct? If correct, how fast do the
constituents actually have to move to violate the non-relativistic
interpretation? Why is it that the
motion of the constituents and not that of the entire system that
is relevant?
The answers to these questions are probably
displayed within the existing literature. However,
obtaining general clear answers has been sufficiently difficult that
posing even the first question of this paragraph would not lead to a
unanimous answer. Moreover, there
is another more important question. If the non-relativistic approach
is not correct: What is the correct procedure to determine
model-independent information regarding hadronic charge and
magnetization densities? How should we interpret the beautifully
precise electromagnetic form factor data being produced at Jefferson
Laboratory, Bates, Bonn and Mainz?
The aim of this review is to present and clarify answers to these
questions. The most immediate question is addressed here. The only way to
determine model-independent information about the charge distribution
is to study the transverse charge density $\rho(b)$ \cite{Soper:1976jc}
which gives the
density of a hadron moving at infinite momentum
at a transverse (to the direction of rapid motion) distance $b$
from the
transverse center of momentum. It is only in the infinite momentum
frame that one can define such a center.
Information about the charge density in terms of longitudinal
coordinates is not yet available in a meaningful way.
\subsection{Electromagnetic form factors are not three-dimensional
Fourier transforms of charge densities}
Physicists are trained to believe
that physics is independent of the inertial
reference frame. In non-relativistic
quantum mechanics this invariance allows us to express the wave function
as a product of
a plane-wave factor (that describes the motion of the center of
mass) with a function that depends only on internal relative
coordinates. Thus
for two spinless particles:
\begin{eqnarray}\Psi(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2)=e^{i\vec{P}\cdot\vec{R}}\phi(\vec{r}),
\label{sep1}\end{eqnarray}
where
$\vec{P}$ is the total momentum, $\vec{R}$ is the position of the com, and
$\vec{r}=\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2$. Then the non-relativistic form factor
$F_{NR}(|\vec{q}|)$, which is the probability amplitude for the system
to absorb a momentum $\vec{q}$ and remain in its initial state,
is given by the integral
\begin{eqnarray} F_{NR}(|\vec{q}|)=\int d^3r \Large{|}\phi(\vec{r})\Large{|}^2
e^{i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}/2}, \label{nfrr}\end{eqnarray}
if the
masses of the two constituents are the same. One sees that the square of a
wave function or probability density is being probed.
However the separation appearing in \eq{sep1} is not generally valid.
For
a similar but relativistic system the Minkowski-space,
Bethe-Salpeter wave function
$\Phi(k,P)$ (where $k$ is the relative four-momentum and $P$ is the
total four-momentum) can be written in a compact form if the
interaction kernel is given by a set of
Feynman graphs~\cite{Nakanishi:1969ph,Nakanishi:1988hp},
using the Nakanishi integral representation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bsint}
\Phi(k;P)&=&-{i\over \sqrt{4\pi}}\int_{-1}^1dz\int_0^{\infty}d\gamma
\frac{g(\gamma,z)}{\left[\gamma+m^2
-\frac{1}{4}M^2-k^2-P\cdot k\; z-i\varepsilon\right]^3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $m$ is the mass of each constituent scalar particle and $M$ is the
hadronic mass.
The weight function
$g(\gamma,z)$
itself is not singular, but
the singularities of the BS amplitude are reproduced by using \eq{bsint}
\cite{Carbonell:2008tz}.
The key feature of \eq{bsint} is that the
covariant wave function depends explicitly on the total four-momentum
$P$. Another way of presenting the contents of \eq{bsint}
involves the relativistic boost operator used to obtain the wave function in
a moving frame from one in which
the hadron is at rest.
The Nakanishi representation allows one
to perform the boost merely by changing the value of $P$.
The explicit dependence on $P$
dramatically influences our understanding of
form factors because
the initial and final hadrons have different momentum
and therefore different wave functions.
The presence of different wave functions of the initial and final
nucleons invalidates a naive
probability or density interpretation.
Assuming that only one of the scalar constituents carry charge, the
electromagnetic form factor is obtained by evaluating the impulse
approximation
triangle
diagram, with the result \cite{Carbonell:2008tz}.
\begin{eqnarray} (P+P')^\mu F(Q^2)=i\int {d^4k\over (2\pi)^4}(P+P'+k)^\mu(k^2-m^2)
\Phi({1\over2}P-k,P)\Phi({1\over2}P'-k,P'),\label{feynf}\end{eqnarray}
where $P'=P+q$.
The form factor of \eq{feynf} seems to
differ markedly from the usual non-relativistic
expression \eq{nfrr}, expressed in terms of momentum space wave
functions $\tilde\phi$:
\begin{eqnarray} F^{NR}(|\vec{q}|)=\int {d^3k\over (2\pi)^3}
\tilde{\phi}^*(\vec{k}+\vec{q}/2)\tilde{\phi}(\vec{k}).\label{feynfnr}\end{eqnarray}
It is comforting that in the non-relativistic limit,
defined by the replacement
\begin{eqnarray} x={k^0+k^3\over P^0+P^3}\rightarrow{1\over 2}+{k^3\over2m},\;M-2m\ll2m,\label{nrcond}\end{eqnarray}
the IMF, light-front wave function becomes identical to the rest
frame instant-form wave function \cite{Miller:2009fc}. This means
\cite{Miller:2009sg} that
if the condition \eq{nrcond} is true for a given model, then
\eq{feynfnr}
(and therefore \eq{nfrr})
is obtained from \eq{feynf}. In this case, one may
extract $\rho({\bf r}} \def\bfP{{\bf P}}\def\bfR{{\bf R})\equiv |\tilde{\phi}({\bf r}} \def\bfP{{\bf P}}\def\bfR{{\bf R})|^2$ from a
three-dimensional Fourier transform of $F_{NR}$.
However, the conditions \eq{nrcond} are
not expected to be obtained for hadrons, although they are
valid for nuclei \cite{Miller:2009sg}. Furthermore,
if the charged particles of a given system have different masses, one
obtains (in the non-relativistic limit for all constituents)
\begin{eqnarray} F^{NR}(\vec{q})=\int d^3r\sum_i \rho_i(\vec{r}) e^{-i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}
m_i/M},
\label{nrdensi}\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_i,m_i$ are the charge density and mass of the $i$'th
constituent, and one
can not obtain the charge density from the form factor.
\subsection{What is a transverse charge density?}
A proper determination of a
charge density requires the measurement of a matrix element of a
density operator.
We show here that measurements of the hadronic form factor
directly involve the
three-dimensional charge
density of partons
in the infinite momentum frame, $\hat{\rho}_\infty(x^-,\bfb)$.
Before discussing this quantity we need to provide a brief introduction to
light-cone coordinates.
In the infinite momentum frame IMF the time coordinate $ct=x^0/\sqrt{2}$
is expressed in a frame moving along the negative $z$ direction with a
velocity nearly that of light using the Lorentz transformation as the
variable $x^+=(x^0+x^3)/\sqrt{2}$, with the usual $\gamma$ factor is
absorbed by a Jacobean of an integral over volume
\cite{Susskind:1968zz}.
The
$x^+$ variable is canonically conjugate to the minus-component of the
momentum operator $p^-\equiv(p^0-p^3)/\sqrt{2}$. The longitudinal
spatial variable is $x^-=(x^0-x^3)/\sqrt{2}$ and its conjugate
momentum is $p^+=(p^0+p^3)/\sqrt{2}$. It is this plus-component of
momentum that is associated with the usual Bjkoren variable. The
transverse coordinates $x,y$ are written as $\bfb$ with the conjugate
${\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}$. In the literature,
these transverse coordinates are sometimes written with a
subscript $\perp$, but here we shall simply use boldface to denote the transverse components of position and
momentum vectors. We shall also always use a light-front time quantization which sets $x^+$ and the plus-component of all spatial variables to zero. This means that $x^-$ can be thought of as the longitudinal variable $-\sqrt{2}x^3.$
One extremely useful aspect of using these
variables is that Lorentz transformations to frames moving with different
{ transverse} velocities do not depend on interactions. These
transformations form the kinematic subgroup of the Poincar\'{e} group so
that boosts in the transverse direction are accomplished
using the transverse component of the position operator (as in the
non-relativistic theory).
In the IMF, the electromagnetic charge density
$J^0$ becomes $J^+$ and
\begin{eqnarray} \hat{\rho}_\infty(x^-,\bfb)=J^+(x^-,\bfb)=\sum_q e_q \overline{q}(x^-,\bfb)\gamma^+q(x^-,\bfb)=\sum_q e_q \sqrt{2}
q^\dagger_+(x^-,\bfb)q_+(x^-,\bfb),\label{imfop}\end{eqnarray}
where $q_+(x^\mu)=
\gamma^0\gamma^+/\sqrt{2} q(x^\mu)$, the independent part of the
quark-field operator $q(x^\mu)$.
The
time variable, $x^+$ is set to zero. Note the appearance of
the absolute square
of quark field-operators, which is the signature of a true density.
We are concerned with the relationship between charge density and
the electromagnetic form factor $F(Q^2)$,
determined from the current density via
\begin{eqnarray} F(Q^2)={\langle {p'}^+,{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}'|J^+(0)|p^+,{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}\rangle\over 2p^+},\label{fdef}\end{eqnarray}
where the normalization is
$\langle {p'}^+,{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}'| {p}^+,{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B},\rangle
=2p^+(2\pi)^3 \delta({p'}^+-p^+)\delta^{(2)}({{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}}'-{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B})$. Spin or
helicity dependence is ignored in the present sub-section. We take
the momentum transfer $q_\alpha=p'_\alpha-p_\alpha$ to be
space-like, with
the square of the space-like four-momentum transfer $q^2=-Q^2$
and use the Drell-Yan (DY) frame with
$ (q^+=0,Q^2={\bf q}^2)$. No longitudinal momentum is transferred, so
that initial and final states are related only by kinematic
transformations. Moreover, with this condition the current operator links Fock-state components with the same number of constituents.
The matrix element appearing in \eq{fdef} involves the combination
of creation and destruction operators: $b^\dagger b- d^\dagger d$
for each flavor of quark,
so that the valence charge density is probed.
The form factor $F$ is independent of
renormalization scale because the
vector current $\bar{q}\gamma^\mu q$ is conserved \cite{Diehl:2002he}.
The spatial structure of a hadron can be examined using
states that are transversely localized
\cite{Soper:1976jc,Burkardt:2002hr,Diehl:2002he}
through a linear superposition
\begin{equation}
\left|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}\right\rangle
\equiv {\cal N}\int \frac{d^2{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^2}
\left|p^+,{\bf p} \right\rangle,
\label{eq:loc}
\end{equation}
where
${\cal N}$ is a normalization factor satisfying
$\left|{\cal N}\right|^2\int \frac{d^2{\bf p}_\perp}{(2\pi)^2}=1$.
Wave packet representations can be used to avoid states
normalized to $\delta$ functions
\cite{Burkardt:2000za,Diehl:2000xz},
but this leads to the
same results as using \eq{eq:loc}.
Considering
$2p^+p^--{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}^2=m_\pi^2>0$, (with $p^->0$)
one finds $p^+$ must be very large because the
range of integration over ${\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}$ is large.
Using such an
ultra-large or infinite value of $p^+$, maintains the interpretation
of a pion moving in the IMF with well defined
longitudinal momentum \cite{Burkardt:2000za}.
It is in just such an infinite momentum that
the parton interpretation of a hadron is valid.
Setting
the transverse
center of momentum
to zero, \eq{eq:loc}, allows a meaningful
transverse distance $\bfb$.
A
Fock-space parton
representation of the position of the transverse center of momentum,
$\bfR$, provides a useful relation between longitudinal momentum
fractions and transverse positions \cite{Burkardt:2002hr}:
\begin{eqnarray} \bfR=\sum_i\;x_i\bfb_i,\label{fock}\end{eqnarray}
where the sum is over the finite number of constituents in a given component.
Next we relate the charge density
\begin{eqnarray} {\rho}_\infty(x^-,\bfb)={ \left\langle p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}
\right| \hat{\rho}_\infty(x^-,\bfb)
\left|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}
\right\rangle
\over
\left\langle p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}
|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}
\right\rangle},\end{eqnarray}
to $F(Q^2)$.
In the DY frame no momentum is transferred in the plus-direction, so that
information regarding the $x^-$ dependence of the density is not
accessible.
Therefore we
integrate over $x^-$, using the relationship
$q^\dagger_+(x^-,\bfb)q_+(x^-,\bfb)=
e^{i\widehat{p}^+x^-}e^{-i\widehat{{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}}\cdot\bfb}q^\dagger_+(0)q_+(0)
e^{i\widehat{{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}}\cdot\bfb}e^{-i\widehat{p}^+x^-},
$
to find
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(b)\equiv\int dx^-\rho_\infty(x^-,\bfb)=
\left\langle p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}
\right| \hat{\rho}_\infty(0,\bfb)
\left|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0}
\right\rangle/(2p^+). \label{xmint}
\end{eqnarray}
The use of \eq{fdef} and the expansion
\eq{eq:loc} leads to
the simplification of the right-hand-side of the above equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(b)=\int {d^2q\over (2\pi)^2} F(Q^2={\bf q}^2)
e^{-i{\bf q}\cdot\bfb},
\label{rhob0}\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(b)$ is termed the transverse charge density, giving the charge
density at a transverse position $b$,
irrespective of the value of the longitudinal position or
momentum. The use of a three-dimensional coordinate space density
$\hat{\rho}_\infty(x^-,\bfb)$ to obtain
the transverse density appeared in Ref.~\cite{Miller:2009qu}.
Previous derivations
\cite{Soper:1976jc,Burkardt:2002hr,Diehl:2002he,Miller:2007uy}
used a density operator involving transverse position and longitudinal
momentum variables; see sect.~2.
If the non-relativistic (NR) limit \eq{nrcond} is valid, one finds
that
\cite{Miller:2009sg}
\begin{eqnarray} \rho^{NR}(b)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \rho(r),\label{zint}\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(r)$ is the square of the wave function
obtained from \eq{nfrr}. This, as well as the
integral
over the longitudinal coordinate that appears in \eq{xmint},
illustrates the nature of the transverse density as a
reduction of the three-dimensional density. Moreover,
these integrals
appear in the Glauber theory \cite{Glauber:1970jm} of
high energy scattering in which scattering amplitudes
are expressed in terms of transverse densities. A recent example is found in
\cite{Luzum:2009sb}.
\subsection{Simple example}
It is worthwhile to use a simple example \cite{Miller:2009sg}
in which a scalar particle $\Psi$ is
modeled as a bound state of two different scalar particles
$\xi,\chi$, with a point-like coupling such that the interaction
Lagrangian is $g\Psi\xi\chi$. Then the Bethe-Salpeter wave function is
obtained from \eq{bsint} by replacing $g(\gamma,z)/\sqrt{4\pi}$ by
the simple coupling-constant $g$. The explicit Bethe-Salpeter wave
function can then be obtained by straightforward integration and found
to be proportional to the product of Klein-Gordan propagators.
For this model,
the evaluation of the form factor \eq{feynf} can be performed in
three different ways. One can simply evaluate the Feynman integral,
one can take work in the IMF with $P^3\rightarrow\infty$
\cite{Gunion:1973ex}
or one can
proceed
by first integrating over $k^-$. The resulting form factor is the same
in all three cases \cite{Miller:2009sg}. The form factor
can be expressed in terms of a
three-dimensional integral which involves a light-front wave function:
$\psi(x,\bfkappa)$
\begin{eqnarray} \psi(x,\bfkappa)\equiv g[M^2-{\bfkappa^2+m_1^2\over x}- {\bfkappa^2+m_2^2\over 1-x}]^{-1} \label{wf}
.\end{eqnarray} In that case
\begin{eqnarray} F(Q^2)={1\over 2(2\pi)^3}\int d^2\bfkappa
\int_0^1 {dx\over x(1-x)}\psi^*(x,\bfkappa+(1-x){\bf q})\psi(x,\bfkappa).
\label{2dft}\end{eqnarray}
The relative variables are $x,\bfkappa$ with $x=k^+/P^+$ and
$\bfkappa=\bfkappa_1-\bfkappa_2$.
The function $\psi(x,\kappa)$ can be obtained from $\Phi$ of
\eq{bsint} by
integrating over $k^-$ \cite{Lepage:1980fj,Carbonell:1998rj,Miller:2009fc}.
One can obtain a relation between the form factor and a
coordinate space density, by expressing the light-front wave function
$\psi(x,\bfkappa)$ in terms of the canonically conjugate spatial
variable
$\bfB=\bfb-\bfb_2$, where $\bfb$ is the transverse position operator
of the charged constituent. Then
$\widetilde{\psi}(x,\bfB)=\int {d^2\kappa\over (2\pi)^2}
e^{i\bfkappa\cdot\bfB}\psi(x,\bfkappa),$
and
\begin{eqnarray} F(Q^2)={1\over 4\pi}\int d^2\bfB
\int_0^1 {dx\over x(1-x)}\vert\widetilde{\psi}(x,\bfB)\vert^2
e^{-i\bfB(1-x)\cdot{\bf q}}.
\label{2dfcoord}\end{eqnarray}
We express the form factor in terms of the position of the charged
constituent by
using the condition that the center of transverse momentum is set to
zero (\eq{fock}
with two components): ${\bf R}=0=x\bfb+(1-x)\bfb_2$ so that $\bfB=\bfb/(1-x)$.
Expressing the form factor in terms of ${\bf b}$ gives
\begin{eqnarray} F(Q^2)={1\over 4\pi}\int d^2\bfb
\int_0^1 {dx\over x(1-x)^3}\vert\widetilde{\psi}(x,{\bfb\over 1-x})\vert^2
e^{-i\bfb\cdot{\bf q}}.
\label{2dfcoord2}\end{eqnarray}
Comparing with \eq{rhob0} allows us to identify the transverse density
as
\begin{eqnarray} \rho(b)=\pi\int_0^1 {dx\over
x(1-x)^3}\vert\widetilde{\psi}(x,{\bfb\over 1-x})\vert^2,\label{tdt}\end{eqnarray}
which for the present model is evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray} \rho(b)=
{g^2\over2(2\pi)^3}\int_0^1 dx{x \over
(1-x)} K_0^2(\sqrt{m^2-M^2x(1-x)}\;{b\over1-x}).\end{eqnarray}
The mass $M$ must be less than $2m$ for the hadron $\Psi$ to be
stable.
We define a positive binding
fraction $\epsilon$, so that $M=2m-\epsilon m$ ($0<\epsilon<2$). Small
values of $\epsilon$ correspond to the applicability of the
non-relativistic limit.
The transverse densities of \eq{tdt}
results are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure1}, for $\epsilon=0.01 $ and 0.1.
As expected from non-relativistic intuition, the smaller value of the
binding energy corresponds to a greater spatial extent.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=MillerFig1.eps,height=15pc}}
\caption{$b\rho(b)$ for the model of \eq{tdt}.
Solid $\epsilon=0.01$,dashed $\epsilon=0.1$.}
\label{figure1}
\end{figure}
\section{ZOO OF NUCLEON DISTRIBUTIONS AND DENSITIES }
The vast literature concerning
the distribution functions that are used to
describe nucleon structure includes
generalized parton distributions GPDs \cite{Mueller:1998fv,Ji:1996nm,
Radyushkin:1997ki,Collins:1996fb,Ji:1998pc,Radyushkin:2000uy,Goeke:2001tz,
Diehl:2003ny,Ji:2004gf,Belitsky:2005qn,Hagler:2004yt,Boffi:2007yc}
and transverse momentum distributions
\cite{Collins:1981uw,Ralston:1979ys,Belyaev:1988xu,Anselmino:1994gn,Mulders:1995dh,Chibisov:1995ss,Pasquini:2009eb}.
The relationship
between GPDs, transverse charge densities and TMDs is discussed in
the present section.
We begin by discussing generalized parton distributions, GPDs
and follow the discussion of Burkardt
\cite{Burkardt:2002hr}.
Deep-inelastic scattering experiments allow
the determination of parton distribution functions
(PDFs), which give the probability that quarks carry a given fraction $x$ of the nucleon longitudinal ($+$)momentum in the
infinite momentum frame (IMF).
PDFs are the forward matrix element of
a light-like correlation function,
\begin{eqnarray}
q(x) &=&\left\langle P,S\left|
\hat{O}_q(x,{\bf 0})
\right|P,S\right\rangle
\label{eq:pd}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\hat{O}_q(x,{\bf 0})
\equiv \int\!\! \frac{dx^-}{4\pi}
\bar{q}(-\frac{x^-}{2},{\bf 0})
\gamma^+ q(\frac{x^-}{2},{\bf 0})
e^{ix{p}^+x^-},\label{eq:0perp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $|P,S\rangle$ represents the wave function.
Here we use the light-cone gauge
$A^+=0$.
The use of the canonical field expansion for the quark field-operators
shows explicitly that
PDFs give the probability that the quarks carry a longitudinal
momentum fraction $x$. We do not display the
scale dependence of the PDFs to simplify the notation.
Generalized parton distributions (GPDs)\cite{Mueller:1998fv,Ji:1996nm,
Radyushkin:1997ki,Collins:1996fb,Ji:1998pc,Radyushkin:2000uy,Goeke:2001tz,
Diehl:2003ny,Ji:2004gf,Belitsky:2005qn,Hagler:2004yt,Boffi:2007yc}
which describe the scaling limit in
real and virtual Compton scattering experiments,
are defined by allowing the momenta and spins of the initial and final nucleons
to differ:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\langle P^\prime,S^\prime|
\hat{O}_q(x,{\bf 0}_\perp)
|P,S\rangle \label{eq:gpd}\\
& &= \frac{1}{2\bar{p}^+}
\bar{u}(P^\prime,s^\prime)\left(\gamma^+
H_q(x,\xi,t)
+ i\frac{\sigma^{+\nu}\Delta_\nu}{2M} E_q(x,\xi,t)
\right)u(P,s)
\end{eqnarray}
with $\bar{p}^\mu = \frac{1}{2}\left( P^\mu
+P^{\prime \mu}\right)$ being the mean momentum
of the target,
$ \Delta^\mu = P^{\prime \mu}-P^\mu$ the four
momentum transfer, and $t=\Delta^2$ the invariant
momentum transfer. The skewedness parameter
$\xi = -\frac{\Delta^+}{2\bar{p}^+}$ represents
the change in the longitudinal component of the nucleon momentum.
GPDs allow for a unified description of a number of hadronic
properties. If $P'=P$, the forward limit, they reduce to conventional
parton distribution functions $H_q(x,0,0)=q(x)$. The integral over $x$
causes the $x^-$ coordinate to vanish, so that the operator
$\hat{O}_q$ is converted into
a local current operator and results
in the appearance of the usual Dirac form factors of the nucleon
\begin{eqnarray} \sum_qe_q\int dx H_q(x,\xi,t)=F_1(t)\label{f1}\\
\sum_q e_q\int dx E_q(x,\xi,t)=F_2(t)\label{f2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The next step is to define impact parameter parton distributions
\cite{Burkardt:2002hr}. One localizes the nucleon in the
transverse direction using the superposition
\eq{eq:loc} but with light-cone helicity states \cite{Kogut:1969xa}
$|P^+,{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B},\lambda\rangle=|P,S\rangle$.
For a transversely localized state
$|p^+, {\bf R_\perp}= {\bf 0_\perp},\lambda \rangle$, Burkardt's
impact parameter dependent PDF is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!q(x,\bfb) \equiv
\quad \left\langle p^+,
{\bf R_\perp}= {\bf 0_\perp},\lambda \left|
\hat{O}_q(x,\bfb )\right|p^+,{\bf R_\perp}
= {\bf 0_\perp},\lambda\right\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
The operator $ \hat{O}_q(x,\bfb )$ is obtained by a translation of the
operator appearing in \eq{eq:0perp} in the transverse plane
\begin{eqnarray} \hat{O}_q(x,\bfb )=
\int\!\! \frac{dx^-}{4\pi}
\bar{q}(-\frac{x^-}{2},{\bf b})
\gamma^+ q(\frac{x^-}{2},{\bf b})
e^{ix{p}^+x^-}.\label{eq:1perp}
\end{eqnarray}
The function $q(x,\bfb)$ gives the probability density that a quark of
momentum fraction $x$ is located at a transverse position $\bfb$.
Burkardt \cite{Burkardt:2002hr}
used the transversely localized states of the same helicity to show that
$q(x,{\bf b})$ is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the GPD $H_q$:
\begin{eqnarray} q(x,{\bf b})=\int
{d^2q\over (2\pi)^2}e^{-i\;{\bf q}\cdot\bfb}H_q(x,t=-{\bf q}^2).\label{ft1}
\end{eqnarray}
Integration over $x$ using \eq{f1} and \eq{rhob0} shows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(b)=\int dx \sum_q e_q \; q(x,\bfb)=\int {d^2q\over (2\pi)^2}F_1(t=-{\bf q}^2)
e^{-i\;{\bf q}\cdot\bfb}.\label{rhoblong}\end{eqnarray}
This means that the transverse density can be obtained either as an integral
over $x$ of $q(x,b)$ or as an integral over $x^-$ of the three
dimensional coordinate space density, as in Sect.~1.2.
This equality of an integral over a momentum with one over a distance
is an
example of Parseval's
theorem. In either case, model-independent information regarding the longitudinal coordinate is not available because the probe momentum is transverse. That is $q^+=0$.
In the model of Sect. 1.3 (scalar hadron made of two scalar
constituents),
$q(x)$ can be obtained from the integrand
of \eq{tdt} as
\begin{eqnarray} q(x,b)={\pi\over
x(1-x)^3}\left|\tilde\psi(x,{\bfb\over1-x})\right|^2.\label{exqxb}\end{eqnarray}
One sees, for large values of $x$ approaching unity, that the
transverse extent is very narrow because this corresponds to very
large values of the relative transverse separation $\bfB=\bfb/(1-x)$ for finite
values of $\bfb$. Thus the transverse spatial extent depends explicitly on the value of $x$. In particular, large values of $x$ are associated with small values of $b$.
Transverse momentum distributions TMDs are
another generalization of parton distribution functions.
These, which contain probability distributions regarding both the
longitudinal momentum
fraction
$x$ and transverse momentum ${\bf k}$ carried by the quarks, are given
by
\cite{Collins:1981uw,
Ralston:1979ys,Mulders:1995dh}
\begin{eqnarray} \Phi_q^\Gamma(x={k^+\over P^+}, {\bf k})=\langle P,S|
\int{d\zeta^-d^2{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}}\over 2(2\pi)^3}\;
e^{i(k^+\zeta^--{\bf k}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}}) }\;\bar{q}(0)\Gamma
q(\zeta^-,\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$})|P,S\rangle,\label{tmd}
\end{eqnarray}
where the time separation $\zeta^+=0$.
Here the quark field operators are the gauge invariant operators in
gauges for which the gauge potentials vanish at space-time infinity
\cite{Ji:2003ak,Belitsky:2002sm}. These operators are necessary for
non-zero transverse spatial separations, $\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}$.
The operator $\Gamma$ is a Dirac matrix that defines
the quark density.
The initial and final states appearing in \eq{tmd} have the
same momentum; the major difference between TMDs and
GPDs. Another major difference is that GPDs involve densities in transverse coordinate space, but TMDs involve densities in transverse momentum space. However, one can use Wigner distributions \cite{Ji:2003ak}
to show that GPDs and TMDs are obtained from different manipulations on
the same operator. We define the
reduced Wigner distribution as
\begin{eqnarray} W_q^\Gamma(\zeta^-,{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}},k^+,{\bf k})={1\over4\pi}
\int d\eta^-d^2\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$} e^{ik^+\eta^--i
{\bf k}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}}\bar{q}
(\zeta^--\eta^-/2,\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}-\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}/2)\Gamma
q(\zeta^-+\eta^-/2,\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}+\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}/2).
\end{eqnarray}
GPDs are obtained by taking the matrix element of
$W_q^\Gamma(\zeta^-=0,{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}}={\bf0},k^+,{\bf k})$ between states of
different
momentum and then integrating over {\bf k} as in
\begin{eqnarray}
H_q(x,\xi,t)=\langle P',S|\int
{d^2{\bf k}\over
(2\pi)^2}W_q^{\gamma^+}(\xi^-,{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}},k^+,{\bf k})|P,S\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
and TMDs are obtained by taking the matrix element of
$W_q^\Gamma(\zeta^-,{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}},k^+,{\bf k})$ between states of the very same
momentum:
\begin{eqnarray} \Phi_q^\Gamma(x, {\bf k})=\langle P,S|\int {d\zeta^-
\over
(2\pi)^2}W_q^{\Gamma}(\zeta^-,{\mbox{\boldmath$\zeta$}},k^+,{\bf k})|P,S\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{$x$-Sum rules, the connection to the equal time
formalism, and lattice calculations}
The integral of a GPD over all values of $x$ as in \eq{f1} and \eq{f2}
converts the non-local bilinear appearing in \eq{eq:1perp} into a
local operator. More generally, the GPD is a correlation function of
quarks at the same light cone time $x^+=0$. The integral over $x$
gives also $x^-=0$, so that both the time $t$ and spatial
$z$ separations vanish. Thus one can compare matrix elements involving the
integral over $x$ with related matrix elements computed using the
equal time formalism, $t=0$. Moreover, performing the $x$ integral
allows a connection with lattice QCD calculations.
The lattice formulation is built using covariant Euclidean
space. If one sets $it$ and $z$ to 0 in a lattice calculation one
obtains a quantity that depends on transverse coordinates
suitable for comparison with a relevant transverse experimentally
measured quantity. This relation has been pointed out in connection
with transversity observables in
Ref.~\cite{Broniowski:2009dt} and used in
Refs.~\cite{Alexandrou:2008bn,Alexandrou:2009hs,Diehl:2005jf,Gockeler:2006zu}.
A similar connection \cite{Miller:2007ae}
between the light-front and equal time formalism
occurs when using TMDs. A TMD \eq{tmd} gives the probability that a
quark has a three momentum characterized by $(x,{\bf k})$. The relevant
matrix element involves quarks separated at the same
light-cone time $\zeta^+=0$.
Integration over $x$ sets also $\zeta^-$ to 0, so one obtains a
density evaluated using quarks at the same time.
\section{ SINGULAR PIONIC TRANSVERSE CHARGE DENSITY }
Understanding the pion is necessary to learn how QCD
describes the interaction and existence of
elementary particles.
As a nearly massless excitation of the QCD vacuum with
pseudoscalar quantum numbers, the pion plays a central role in
nuclear and particle
physics as the carrier of the longest ranged force between nucleons
and
as a harbinger of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Computing the electromagnetic form factor of the pion,
$F_\pi(Q^2)$, at asymptotically large values of $Q^2$
from first principles was one of the early challenges to
using perturbative QCD in exclusive processes
\cite{Lepage:1979zb,Farrar:1979aw,Chernyak:1980dk,Efremov:1978rn}.
Such calculations have been extended
\cite{Chernyak:1983ej,Li:1992nu,Braaten:1987yy,Miller:1994uf} by
including effects of higher order in the strong coupling constant
and higher twist effects. The
lowest order results are about a factor of three smaller than existing
data,
and higher
order and
higher twist effects are not small at currently available values of $Q^2$
\cite{Miller:1994uf}.
It is widely
believed that at large enough values of momentum transfer $Q^2$
the leading-order perturbative formula will be correct,
but these large values may be very large indeed \cite{Radyushkin:1990te}.
As a result
there is considerable experimental interest in determining the transition
to the region where perturbative QCD can be applied. New
measurements
\cite{Blok:2008jy,Huber:2008id} have been performed and more are
planned \cite{pi12}. Here we review
the first analysis \cite{Miller:2009qu}
that provided a model-independent pionic transverse charge density.
Recent pion data \cite{Blok:2008jy,Huber:2008id}
provide a very accurate measurement of the longitudinal part of the
electroproduction cross section and the related
pion form factor up to a value of $Q^2 $ = 2.45 GeV$^2$.
The result is that
existing data for the pion form factor are
well represented by the monopole form
\begin{eqnarray} F_\pi(Q^2)=1/(1+R^2Q^2/6),\label{fit}\end{eqnarray}
with $R^2=0.431 \;{\rm fm}^2$.
The expression \eq{fit} allows one to determine the transverse density
from \eq{rhob0}
with the result:
\begin{eqnarray} \rho(b)=\frac{3 K_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{6} b}{R}\right)}{\pi R^2},
\label{rhobt}\end{eqnarray}
where $K_0$ is modified Bessel function of rank zero.
For small values of $b$ this function
diverges as $\sim \log(b)$, hence
the transverse density is singular and infinite at the origin. This
infinity is not to be ``cured'' by a renormalization procedure because
the charge density under consideration
is the matrix element of a valence quark operator
between eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian.
Furthermore, divergences of quark distribution
functions that occur at small values of Bjorken $x$ do not occur
here because transverse charge density involves the difference between
quark and anti-quark densities.
Many field theory models, derived even before QCD was established
\cite{Goldberger:1976vd}
obtain a form factor that corresponds to
a divergent transverse density.
Note also that {any} model, such as
vector meson dominance or holographic QCD
\cite{Brodsky:2007hb,Kwee:2007dd,Grigoryan:2007wn} yielding
a monopole form factor has a central density with a
logarithmic divergence. Thus holographic QCD does not supply a
representation of the soft component \cite{Radyushkin:1990te}
of the pion wave function.
Intuition regarding a possible singularity in the central
charge density may be gained from other
examples.
Suppose that the non-relativistic (NR) limit in which the quark
masses are heavy is applicable. Then
the pion would be a pure $q\bar{q}$ object and
the charge density would be the Fourier transform of the form factor
(Sect.~1.1).
Given the form factor of \eq{fit}
the NR three-dimensional density would be uniquely given by
\begin{eqnarray} \rho_{\rm NR} (r) = \frac{3}{2\,\pi \,r\,R^2}\,
e^{\frac{{-\sqrt{6}}\,r}{R}},\,\end{eqnarray}
where $r$ is the distance relative to the pion center of mass. This
density diverges at $r=0$.
If one takes
$r=\sqrt{b^2+z^2}$ as demanded by the rotational invariance of the
non-relativistic wave
function,
then one finds from \eq{zint} that the non-relativistic transverse
charge density takes the form of
$\rho(b) $ of \eq{rhobt}.
The divergence of the central transverse charge density encountered
here may be the consequence of using a simple
parametrization, presently untested by measurements at larger
values of $Q^2$. Thus we examine
other approaches. Consider first
perturbative QCD (pQCD),
which provides a prediction \cite{Lepage:1979zb}-\cite{Efremov:1978rn}
for asymptotically large values of $Q^2$ that
\begin{eqnarray} { \lim}_{Q^2\to\infty}F_\pi(Q^2) =16 \pi \alpha_s(Q^2)f_\pi^2/Q^2,\end{eqnarray}
with the pion decay constant $f_\pi=93 $ MeV, and in leading order:
\begin{eqnarray} \alpha_s(Q^2)={4\pi\over( 11-{2\over 3}n_f)\ln {Q^2\over
\Lambda^2}},\label{pqcd}\end{eqnarray}
with $n_f$ the number of quarks of mass smaller than $Q$ and $\Lambda$
is a parameter fixed by data. The $\log Q^2$ term
in the denominator does not lead to a non-singular behavior of $\rho(b)$
for small values of $b$ because
$\rho(b)\sim \log\log{1\over b}$ and
the pQCD form factor corresponds to a singularity at
short distance.
This singularity would arise in any model form factor even one based on
sum rules {\it e.g} \cite{Radyushkin:1990te}
that approaches the pQCD asymptotically.
Chiral quark models (see the review \cite{Broniowski:2008tg})
present other models \cite{RuizArriola:2003bs,Broniowski:2003rp}
of transverse charge densities that are
singular at the center as $\log b$ because
the pion form factor takes the monopole form.
It is nevertheless interesting to note that each and every
observable quantity, including $f_\pi$ and structure functions, is
computed to be finite.
\begin{figure
\centerline{\psfig{figure=MillerFig2.ps,height=15pc,angle=90}}
\caption{Pion form factor data as
plotted in \cite{Huber:2008id}. The data labeled Jlab are from
\cite{Huber:2008id}.
The data Brauel {\it et al.} \cite{Brauel:1979zk} and that of
Ackermann {\it et al.} \cite{Ackermann:1977rp} have using the method
of \cite{Huber:2008id}. The Amendola data {\it et al.} are from \cite{Amendolia:1986wj}
The data point labeled PionCT is from \cite{Horn:2007ug}. The (red) dashed curve uses the monopole fit \eq{fit} and the (black) solid line the constituent
quark model of \cite{Hwang:2001hj}. $b\rho(b)$ for the model of \eq{tdt}.
Reprinted from
Ref.~\cite{Miller:2009qu}
with permission of the APS.}
\label{figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\label{figure3
\unitlength1.cm
\centerline{\psfig{figure=MillerFig3.ps,height=15pc}}
\caption{ $\rho(b)$ corresponding to the two models
shown in Fig.
\ref{figure2}. The (red) dashed curve represents the transverse
density obtained from the monopole fit and the (blue) solid-line is
obtained using the relativistic
constituent
quark model of\cite{Hwang:2001hj}. Reprinted from
Ref.~\cite{Miller:2009qu}
with permission of the APS.
\end{figure}
Gaussian models with generalized parton distributions
$H(x,0,Q^2)$ (see \eq{f1}) dominated by behavior
near $x=1$ present a set of examples that also
yield a form factor with a $1/Q^2$ asymptotic behavior,
and have a impact parameter distribution that is well behaved at each
value of $x$
for all $b$. The
key asymptotic features are captured in the simple formula
\cite{Radyushkin:1998rt,Burkardt:2003mb}:
$
H(x,0,Q^2)_{x\to 1}=(1-x)^{n-1}e^{-a(1-x)^n Q^2},$ with $ n>2$
so that
$q(x,b)_{x\to1}={1\over2\pi a(1-x)}e^{-b^2/(4a(1-x)^n)}$.
This form shows that $q(x,b)$ is well behaved for all values of $b$
and for each value of $x$, but
the integral over $x$ contains a logarithmic divergence.
Relativistic light-front constituent quark models
\cite{Chung:1988mu,Frederico:1992ye,Hwang:2001hj}
that describe existing form factor data have a
non-singular central charge density.
These models can be most simply derived \cite{Frederico:1992ye} by
using the impulse approximation (evaluating the
triangle diagram).
One starts by evaluating the integral over the
minus component of the loop momentum $k^\mu$,
and then cuts off the remaining integral over $x=k^+/p^+,k_\perp$
using a phenomenological wave function.
The
wave function
of Ref.~\cite{Hwang:2001hj} is chosen to be a power-law form,
and the resulting
model describes
the existing form factor data in the space-like
region, $f_\pi$, and the transition form factor $f_{\pi\gamma}$ in
which a virtual photon transforms a real pion into a real photon.
The model form factor of \cite{Hwang:2001hj} and the monopole fit
of \eq{fit} are shown along with the measured data in
Fig.~\ref{figure2}.
Both the fit and the model provide a good fit to the data,
but present very different
predictions for larger values of $Q^2$ where measurements remain to
be done. The corresponding versions of $\rho(b)$ are shown in
Fig.~\ref{figure3}.
The singularity of \eq{rhobt} is manifest as a rapidly rising
function as $b$ approaches zero, but the relativistic constituent quark
model provides a smooth function $\rho(b)$.
The planned experiment \cite{pi12} aims to achieve results up to
$Q^2=6\;$ GeV$^2$. This should be large enough to resolve the
differences between the model \cite{Hwang:2001hj} and the monopole
fit,
or rule both out. However,
this will probably not be sufficient to reach the
regime where pQCD might be valid \cite{pi12}.
The model \cite{Hwang:2001hj}
represents one useful
phenomenology, but
other interesting models exist.
Computing the transverse density in those models
would be useful.
\section{ NUCLEON TRANSVERSE CHARGE DENSITIES}
In previous sections we have emphasized that
a proper determination of a nucleon
charge density requires a
relation with
the square of a field operator, and that this
can be achieved through the transverse charge density
\cite{Soper:1976jc,Burkardt:2002hr,Diehl:2002he,Miller:2007uy,Carlson:2007xd},
$\rho(b)$,
given by \eq{rhoblong} . We review
the first
phenomenological analysis of existing data that determined
$\rho(b)$ for the neutron and proton \cite{Miller:2007uy}.
The neutron results
contradict the ancient idea, obtained from
both meson-cloud and gluon-exchange models
\cite{Thomas:1981vc,friar72,Carlitz:1977bd,Isgur:1980hh} regarding the
positive value of the non-vanishing charge density
at the center of the neutron. The meson-cloud idea is that
the neutron sometimes undergoes a spontaneous quantum
fluctuation into heavy proton surrounded by a negatively
charged pionic cloud, leaving
a positive central density\cite{Thomas:1981vc}.
The quark-model mechanism
\cite{friar72,Carlitz:1977bd,Isgur:1980hh}
involves the repulsive nature of the one gluon
exchange interaction between two $d$ quarks.
These well-motivated physical considerations concern statements about the
three-dimensional Fourier transform of the neutron's electric form
factor
$G_E^n(Q^2)$. However, such a transform is not the charge density. The
only model-independent charge density is $\rho(b)$.
To proceed, recall the definitions of the form
factors. With
$J^\mu(x)$ as the electromagnetic current operator, in units of the proton
charge, the nucleon form factors are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle p',\lambda'| J^\mu(0)| p,\lambda\rangle =\bar{u}(p',\lambda')\left(\gamma^\mu F_1(Q^2)+i{\sigma^{\mu\alpha}\over 2M}q_\alpha F_2(Q^2)
\right) u(p,\lambda),\end{eqnarray}
where the momentum transfer
$q_\alpha=p'_\alpha-p_\alpha$ is taken as space-like, with $q^+=0$,
so that
$Q^2\equiv -q^2={\bf q}^2>0.$ The nucleon polarization states are chosen to be those of
definite light-cone helicities $\lambda,\lambda'$
\cite{Kogut:1969xa}
The charge (Dirac) form factor is $F_1$, normalized such that $F_1(0)$ is the
nucleon charge, and the magnetic (Pauli) form factor is $F_2$,
normalized such that $F_2(0)$ is the
anomalous magnetic moment. The Sachs form factors\cite{Sachs:1962zzc}
\begin{eqnarray}
G_E(Q^2)\equiv F_1(Q^2)-{Q^2\over 4M^2}F_2(Q^2),\; G_M(Q^2)\equiv F_1(Q^2)+F_2(Q^2),\label{sachsff}\end{eqnarray}
were introduced so as to
provide an expression for the electron-nucleon cross section
(in the one photon exchange approximation)
that depends on the quantities $G_E^2$ and $G_M^2$, but not
the product $G_E\;G_M$.
In the Breit frame, in which
${\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}=-{\bf p}} \def\bfq {{\bf q}}\def\bfb{{\bf b}}\def\bfB{{\bf B}'$, $G_E$ is the nucleon helicity flip matrix element of
$J^0$.
Furthermore,
the scattering of neutrons from the electron cloud of atoms measures
the derivative $-d G_E(Q^2)/dQ^2$ at $Q^2=0$,
widely interpreted as six times
the mean-square charge radius of the neutron. However,
any probability or density interpretation of $G_E$
is spoiled by a non-zero value of $Q^2$,
no matter how small. This is because
the momentum difference between the
initial and final states
appears via the use of derivatives
of momentum-conserving delta functions in the moments computed by
Ref.~\cite{Sachs:1962zzc}.
Any attempt to analytically incorporate relativistic corrections in a
$p^2/m_q^2$ type of expansion would be doomed, by the presence of the
quark mass, $m_q$, to be model-dependent. This is explained more
thoroughly in Ref.~\cite{Rinehimer:2009yv}.
We
exploit \eq{rhoblong} by using measured form factors
to determine $\rho(b)$.
Recent parametrizations
\cite{Bradford:2006yz,Kelly:2004hm,Arrington:2003qk,Arrington:2007ux,Alberico:2008sz}
of $G_E$ and $G_M$ are very useful, so we use \eq{sachsff} to
obtain $F_1$ in terms of $G_E,G_M$. Then
$\rho(b)$ can be expressed as a simple integral
of known functions:
\begin{eqnarray} \rho(b)= \int_0^\infty\; {dQ\;Q\;\over 2 \pi}J_0(Q b) {G_E(Q^2)+\tau G_M(Q^2)\over 1+\tau},\label{use}\end{eqnarray}
with $\tau={Q^2\over 4M^2}$ and $J_0$ a cylindrical Bessel function.
\begin{figure}\label{figure4}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=MillerFig4.eps,height=20pc}}
\caption{Nucleon $\rho(b)$ Upper panel: proton transverse charge density.
Lower panel: neutron transverse charge density.
These densities are obtained using
the parametrization of \cite{Alberico:2008sz}.
\end{figure}
A straightforward application of \eq{use} to the proton
using the parametrizations of Ref.~\cite{Alberico:2008sz}
yields the results shown in the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{figure4}.
The curves obtained using the two different parametrizations
overlap.
Furthermore, there seems to be
negligible sensitivity
to form factors at very high values of $Q^2$ that are currently
unmeasured.
The density is peaked
at low values of $b$, but has a long positive tail, suggesting a long-ranged, positively charged
pion cloud.
The neutron results
are shown in the lower panel of
Fig.~\ref{figure4}.
The curves obtained using the two different parametrizations seem to overlap,
The surprising result
is that the central
neutron charge density is negative.
The values of the integral of \eq{use} are somewhat sensitive to the
regime $8<Q^2<16 $ GeV$^2$ for which $G_E$ is as yet unmeasured.
About 30\% of the value of
$\rho(0)$ arises from this region.
That
$\rho(b=0)<0$ was confirmed in
Refs.~\cite{Pasquini:2007iz,Carlson:2007xd,Boffi:2009sx,Hwang:2008gh}.
\begin{figure}\label{figure5}
\centerline{\psfig{figure=MillerFig5.eps,height=15pc}}
\caption{Neutron $F_1$ and $b\rho(b).$ Upper panel: $F_1(Q^2)$.
Lower panel: $b \rho(b)$ . The
solid curves are obtained using Fit 1 and and the dashed curves with
Fit 2 of \cite{Alberico:2008sz}. }
\end{figure}
The negative central density deserves further explanation. See
Fig.~\ref{figure5}
in which
the upper panel shows $F_1$ for the neutron from
two parametrizations of Ref.~\cite{Alberico:2008sz}.
In both
cases
$F_1$ is negative (because of the dominance of the $G_M$ term of \eq{use})
for all values of
$Q^2$. This along with taking $b=0,\;J_0(Qb)=1$ in \eq{use}
leads immediately to the central negative result. The long range
structure
of the charge density is captured by displaying the quantity
$b\rho(b)$ in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{figure5}.
At very large distances from the center, $b\rho(b)<0$
suggesting the existence of the long-ranged pion cloud.
Thus the neutron transverse charge density has an unusual behavior in
which the positive charge density in the middle is sandwiched by
negative charge densities at the inner and outer reaches of the
neutron.
A simple
model in which the neutron fluctuates into a proton and a $\pi^-$
parametrized to reproduce the negative-definite nature of the
neutron's
$F_1$ \cite{Rinehimer:2009sz} reproduces the negative transverse central
density. In this case, the negative nature arises from pions that
penetrate to the center. The change from the nominal positive value
obtained from $G_E$ can be understood as originating in the boost to
the infinite momentum frame \cite{Rinehimer:2009yv}.
One can gain information about the individual $u$ and $d$ quark
densities by invoking charge symmetry (invariance under a rotation by
$\pi$ about the $z$ (charge) axis in isospin space)
\cite{Miller:1986mk,Miller:1990iz,Miller:1997ya,Miller:2006tv} and
neglecting effects of $s\bar{s}$ pairs \cite{Acha:2006my}.
Model independent information about nucleon structure
is
obtained,
with the particular surprise that the central
density of the neutron is negative.
Future measurements
of neutron electromagnetic form factors could
render the present results more precise, or potentially modify
them considerably. Obtaining a quantitative
and intuitive understanding of these results presents a challenge
to lattice QCD and to model builders.
\subsection{Meaning of central density $b=0$}
The transverse coordinate $b=0$ is the transverse center of the
nucleon. It is of interest to note that, in the infinite momentum
frame, this position is also the
center of the nucleon. In that frame the nucleon has no
longitudinal extent. This can be seen by considering a light cone
wave function $\psi{(x,\bfkappa)}$. The canonically conjugate coordinate to
$x=k^+/P^+$ is $P^+x^-$, \cite{Pirner:2004qd}
so that the coordinate-space wave function
would depend on the product $x^-P^+$. Thus when $P^+$ is infinite,
the
coordinate-space wave function will
vanish unless $x^-=0$. This means that in the infinite momentum frame, the
longitudinal density appears as a delta function and the position
$b=0$ is the true nucleon center \cite{Miller:2009sg}.
\subsection{Inclusive-exclusive Connection
Interpretation of the negative neutron charge density}
Generalized parton distributions (GPDs) contain
information about the longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ as well as the
transverse position $b$. Information regarding these dependence's is
obtained from experiment via GPDs that reproduce both deep inelastic
scattering and elastic scattering data. Miller \& Arrington
\cite{Miller:2008jc}
used this inclusive-exclusive
connection to interpret the central neutron charge density, with the
finding that the center of the neutron is dominated by negatively
charged $d$ quarks.
Their argument is reviewed here.
The quantities $q(x,b)$
are not measured
directly, but have been obtained from models that incorporate fits to parton
distributions and electromagnetic nucleon form
factors
\cite{guidal:2004nd,diehl:2004cx,ahmad:2006gn,tiburzi:2004mh}.
Form
factor sum rules \eq{f1}, \eq{f2} at zero skewness are exploited to model
valence quark GPDs, $H^q_v\equiv H^q-H^{\bar{q}}$.
This yields the net contribution to the form factors from quarks and
anti-quarks. Possible effects of strangeness are
neglected in these fits.
Each parametrization used
\cite{guidal:2004nd,diehl:2004cx,ahmad:2006gn} incorporates
the Drell-Yan-West \cite{Drell:1969km,West:1970av}
relationship between the behavior of the
structure function $\nu W_2(x)$ function near $x=1$, measured in
inclusive reactions and the behavior of the electromagnetic
form factor at large values of $Q^2$, measured in the exclusive
elastic scattering process. In particular, for a system of
$n+1$ valence quarks, described by a power-law wave function
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{x\rightarrow1}\nu W_2(x)=(1-x)^{2n-1} \to
\lim_{Q^2\rightarrow\infty}F_1(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^{2n}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The value of $n$ that defines the high-$x$
behavior of the structure function also defines the high-$Q^2$ behavior
of the form factor. This relation associates
the behavior of large values of $x$
with large momentum transfers, $Q^2={\bf q}^2$, which in turn corresponds to small
values of $b$. There is a further connection between large values of
$x$ and small values of $b$ which emerges from \eq{fock} and was seen
in the example of Sect.1.3 (and \eq{exqxb}). If a single quark carries
momentum fraction $x$ very near unity, only one term in the sum of
\eq{fock} survives and the restriction of this term to zero, causes
the corresponding transverse coordinate to vanish. This interesting
connection
between different components of the position and momentum vectors
is not associated with the uncertainty principle.
Given that the $d$ quark dominates the large $x$ quark-distribution
function of the
neutron,
see {\it e.g.} \cite{Pumplin:2002vw}, and that
the central charge density of the neutron is negative, it is natural to conclude that the central charge density of the neutron arises from the predominance of $d$ quarks at the center. This is shown in
Fig.~6.
One sees that for large values of $x$, $b$ must be small to have a
non-zero value of $\rho_n(x,b)$, and these non-zero values are negative.
\begin{figure}\label{figure6}
\begin{picture}(14,8.2)(2.5,-1.9)
\special{psfile=MillerFig6.eps angle=0 hscale=100 vscale=100}
\end{picture}
\caption{Neutron impact parameter charge distributions,
${\rho}_n(x,b)$ as a function of $b$.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Magnetization Density}
We now try use transverse densities to obtain the nucleon magnetization density in the infinite momentum frame
\cite{Miller:2007kt}
in terms of a magnetization density. This quantity is closely related to the transverse charge density for a polarized nucleon obtained by
Carlson and Vanderhaeghen \cite{Carlson:2007xd}.
Our starting point is
the relation that $\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}\cdot{\bf B}$ is the matrix element of
$\vec{J}\cdot\vec {A}$ in a definite state, $\vert X\rangle$.
Take the rest-frame magnetic field
to be a constant vector in the $1$ (or $b_x$)
direction, and the corresponding vector
potential as
${\bf A}= B b_y \hat{{\bf z}}$. Then consider the
system in a
frame in which the plus component of the momentum
approaches infinity so that ${\bf J}\cdot {\bf A}\rightarrow
J^+A^-.$
The anomalous magnetic
moment may be extracted
by taking the matrix element of $\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}\cdot\bfB$ in the state
\begin{eqnarray} \vert X\rangle\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0},
+\right\rangle+\left|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0},
-\right\rangle\right],\end{eqnarray}
where $\left|p^+,{\bf R}= {\bf 0},+\right\rangle $ represents a
transversely localized state of definite $P^+$ and light-cone helicity.
The state $\vert X\rangle$ \cite{Burkardt:2002hr}
may be interpreted as that of
a transversely polarized target \cite{Burkardt:2005hp}.
The resulting anomalous
magnetic moment $\mu_a$ is given by \cite{Miller:2007kt}
\begin{eqnarray} \mu_a=
{\langle X\vert\int d^2b \;b_y\;{q}_+^\dagger(0,\bfb)q_+(0,\bfb)\vert X\rangle},\label{mua}\end{eqnarray}
where $q(x^-,\bfb)$ is a quark-field operator, and $q_+=\gamma^0\gamma^+q$.
This matrix element is the anomalous magnetic moment
because the use of the transversely localized state $|X\rangle$ and
the
factor $b_y$ suppresses the Dirac contribution \cite{Burkardt:2005hp}.
In Ref.~\cite{Miller:2007kt} $\mu_a$ was evaluated by using
Burkardt's \cite{Burkardt:2002hr} impact parameter distribution
and then integrating by parts. The result was
\begin{eqnarray} \mu_a={1\over2M}\int d^2b \;\rho_M(b), \label{resultm} \end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_M(b)=\int\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} F_2(t=-{\bf q}^2)e^{-i {\bf q}\cdot
\bfb},
\label{mdensx}\end{eqnarray}
and the subscript $M$ denotes the
anomalous magnetic moment.
The expression (\ref{mdensx})
has an appealing simplicity. However, the directly-obtained
\eq{mua} can also be evaluated immediately.
We pursue this here to find
\begin{eqnarray} \mu_a= {-1\over2M}\int d^2b \;b_y{\partial\rho_M(b)\over\partial
b_y},\label{resultm1}
\end{eqnarray}
so that the quantity $-b_y{\partial\rho_M(b)\over \partial b_y}\equiv
\tilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$ also
has an interpretation as an anomalous magnetization density.
The two integrals appearing in \eq{resultm} and \eq{resultm1} the same
value.
Ref.~\cite{Miller:2007kt} rejected the use of $\tilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$
as a magnetization
density because of the appearance of an explicit direction
$y$. However,
this direction has a general interpretation as the transverse direction
orthogonal
to that of the transverse magnetic field. We evaluate
$\tilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$
in terms of $F_2(Q^2)$ to find
\begin{eqnarray}\widetilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)=\sin^2\phi
\;b \int _0^\infty{q^2\;dq\over 2\pi}J_1(qb)F_2(q^2),\label{rhotilde}\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi$ is the angle between the direction of $\bfb$ and that of
the transverse magnetic field, which is also the direction of the
nucleon polarization. Thus the physical direction of the polarization
or magnetic field provides a definite spatial direction.
Indeed the magnetization density $\widetilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$ is largest in
directions perpendicular to the direction of the nucleonic
polarization (or magnetic field),
as shown in Fig.~7.
The largest values occur for $\phi=\pi/2$, and the magnetization
density peaks at about 0.5 fm.
Furthermore $\widetilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$ vanishes if $b=0$ or if
$\phi=0$. These features are in accord with the expectations of
classical physics.
A current in the $z$ direction causes a magnetic dipole density $\sim
{\bf r}} \def\bfP{{\bf P}}\def\bfR{{\bf R}\times\vec{J}$
in the $x-$direction for positions ${\bf r}} \def\bfP{{\bf P}}\def\bfR{{\bf R}$ along the $y$-direction.
Therefore we conclude here that the quantity $\widetilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$
is the preferred expression for the magnetization density.
Hoyer \& Kurki have computed the transverse density of the electron \cite{Hoyer:2009sg}.
Using their expression for the electron $F_2$ in \eq{resultm1} leads
to the correct result for the electron's anomalous magnetic moment,
$\mu_a^e$. Furthermore the presence of the $\sin^2\phi$ term is
consistent
with their physical interpretation of the sign of $\mu_a^e$
as caused by currents in the positive (negative) $z-$
direction for positive (negative)
values of $y$. Computing the cross product
between $\bfb$ and those currents gives magnetization in the
$x$-direction for both positive and negative values of $y$.
To better understand
this new magnetization density, consider the moments of both densities.
Define the $n$th moment of $\rho_M$ as
\begin{eqnarray} \langle b^{2n}\rangle_M\equiv \int d^2b b^{2n}\rho_M(b).\end{eqnarray}
These quantities are related to the $n$th derivative of $F_2(q^2)$. Similarly the $n$th moment of $\widetilde{\rho}_M$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray} \langle b^{2n}\rangle_{\widetilde{M}}\equiv -\int d^2b
b^{2n}b_y{\partial\rho_M(b)\over \partial b_y}.\end{eqnarray} Then use of
\eq{mdensx} and
integration by parts shows that
\begin{eqnarray}\langle b^{2n}\rangle_{\widetilde{M}}=(n+1)\langle b^{2n}\rangle_M
.\end{eqnarray}
The $n=0$ moment corresponds to the anomalous
magnetic moment which is the same for the two densities.
The case $n=1$ which defines the mean-square magnetic radius is more interesting.
Ref.~\cite{Miller:2007kt} showed that $\langle b^2 \rangle_M$ was
slightly larger than $\langle b^2 \rangle_{Ch}$ (which is obtained
from $F_1$).
However $\langle b^2 \rangle_{\widetilde{M}}$ is
twice as large as $\langle b^2 \rangle_M$ and therefore is much larger than
$\langle b^2 \rangle_{Ch}$! This clearly shows that the proton's
magnetization density extends much further than its charge density, a
conclusion obtained in Ref.~\cite{Miller:2007kt}. This is surprising
because it contradicts simple naive intuition gained from the rapid fall of
the ratio $G_E/G_M$ with increasing momentum transfer
\cite{Perdrisat:2006hj}, if one assumes that $G_E$ ($G_M$)
is related to the spatial extent of the charge (magnetization) density.
\begin{figure}\label{figure7}
\unitlength1.cm
\begin{picture}(14,8.2)(.5,.4)
\special{psfile=MillerFig7.eps angle=0 hscale=90
vscale=90}
\end{picture}
\caption{Upper panel: $\tilde{\rho}_M(\bfb=(b,\phi=\pi/2))$ as a function of $b$. Lower panel: Density plot of $\tilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$ .
The horizontal axis is the direction of the applied magnetic
field. The largest (smallest) values of $\tilde{\rho}_M$ are denoted by the
brightest (darkest) areas. This figure is obtained using a dipole
parametrization for $F_2$ of the proton. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non-cylindrically symmetric transverse charge density and
shape of the nucleon}
Carlson and Vanderhaeghen \cite{Carlson:2007xd} computed the
transverse charge density$\rho^N_T(\bfb) $ in a given state of
transverse polarization
For the case that
the polarization is in the $x$ direction their result is expressed
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^N_T(\bfb) =\rho(b)+\sin\phi\int_0^\infty
{dQ\over 2\pi}{Q^2\over 2M}J_1(bQ)F_2(Q^2), \label{cv}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(b) $ is obtained from \eq{rhoblong}. The sign of the second
term of \eq{cv} is obtained using the definition that ${\bf q}$ is the
momentum absorbed by the target nucleon. Their results for the proton
are shown in Fig.~\ref{figure8}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width =7.7cm]{MillerFig8top.eps}
\end{center}
\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[width =7.5cm]{MillerFig8bot.eps}
\caption{Quark transverse charge densities in the proton, after
\cite{Carlson:2007xd}, figure provided courtesy of M. Vanderhaeghen.
The upper panel shows the density in the transverse plane for a
proton polarized along the $x$-axis. The light (dark) regions correspond with
largest (smallest) values of the density.
The lower panel compares the density along the $y$-axis
for an unpolarized proton (dashed curve),
and for a proton polarized along the $x$-axis (solid curve).
The proton form factors are from
Arrington {\it et al.}~\cite{Arrington:2007ux}. The momentum
transfer {\bf q} is the momentum added to the target proton.}
\label{figure8}
\end{figure}
The magnetization density $\tilde{\rho}_M(\bfb)$ presented here and
the transverse charge density of Ref.~\cite{Carlson:2007xd}
each depend on the direction of $\bfb$, thus indicating a
non-spherical shape of the nucleon or the violation of cylindrical
symmetry. These violations of cylindrical symmetry should not be
confused with those present in earlier papers on the
shape of the nucleon
Refs.~\cite{Miller:2003sa,Kvinikhidze:2006ty,Miller:2007ae} that
define a shape via the matrix elements of a spin-dependent density
operator.
The
transverse
charge densities that are the main subject of this article are matrix
elements
of currents that are local in transverse coordinate space and are
related to
GPDs. In contrast, those shapes of
\cite{Miller:2003sa,Kvinikhidze:2006ty,Miller:2007ae}, computed from
momentum-space wave functions and probabilities are matrix
elements of
quark densities for given values of transverse momenta and are
related to TMDs. It should also be noted that the first example of
\cite{Miller:2003sa} is presented in coordinate space. The infinite
momentum frame version of the spin-dependent density operator is
$q_+^\dagger(0,\bfb) {1\over2}(1+{\bf n}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$})q_+(0,\bfb)$,
where ${\bf n}$ is an arbitrary transverse direction
\cite{Diehl:2005jf}. Evaluating the matrix element of this quantity
produces the spin-dependent density, which can be thought of as
the $x^-$ integrated version of the coordinate space results of
\cite{Miller:2003sa}.
The proton is non-spherical if the function $\tilde{A}''_{T10}$ of
\cite{Gockeler:2006zu} is non-vanishing, as recent lattice
calculations show \cite{Schierholz:2009xx}.
One can also examine several different
generalized densities $q_+^\dagger(0,\bfb) \Gamma q_+(0,\bfb)$,
with operators $\Gamma$ denoted in
\cite{Diehl:2005jf}.
\section{TRANSVERSE TRANSITION CHARGE DENSITIES}
There is much experimental interest in measuring transition
form factors that represent
probability amplitudes for a nucleon undergoing electron scattering
to make a transition to a given baryon resonance. Substantial
experimental efforts are underway at electron-scattering
laboratories such as Jefferson
Laboratory,
ELSA in Bonn, and MAMI in Mainz. Moreover, there is considerable
interest in using lattice techniques to make QCD
calculations of these transition amplitudes.
Carlson \& Vanderhaeghen \cite{Carlson:2007xd} used empirical
information regarding the $N\to\Delta$ transition form factors to map
out the transition charge density.
This, in a transversely polarized N and
$\Delta$, contains monopole, dipole and quadrupole patterns.
The latter corresponds to a deformation of the nucleon
and $\Delta$ transverse charge density. Substantial deformations are observed.
Lattice QCD calculations have been applied to these very same
transition densities
\cite{Alexandrou:2008bn,Alexandrou:2009hs}. The $\Delta^+$ charge density
is found to be elongated along the axis of the spin and the quadrupole
moment is larger than the value characterizing a point particle. This
means the the $\Delta^+$ is prolately deformed.
Tiator \& Vanderhaeghen \cite{Tiator:2008kd}
used recent experimental data to
analyze the electromagnetic transition from the nucleon to the
$ P_{11}(1440) $
resonance, which is often believed
to be the first radial excitation of the proton.
They used the empirical transition form factors to
find
that the transition from the proton to the
$ P_{11}(1440) $
is dominated by up quarks in a central region of width of about 0.5
fm
and by down quarks in an outer band which extends up to about 1 fm.
Tiator {\it et al.} \cite{Tiator:2009mt}
are extending the study of transition transverse
densities to the $S_{11}$ and $D_{13}$ resonances.
\section{NUCLEAR TRANSVERSE CHARGE DENSITIES}
The very same infinite momentum frame formalism can be applied to the
analysis of nuclear form factors. The non-relativistic approximation
of \eq{nrcond} is generally applicable for existing measurements of
nuclear form factors \cite{Miller:2009sg}. However, meson exchange
currents are known to be important for $Q^2>2 $ GeV$^2$
\cite{Riska:1979hz}. In
that case, the charged constituents have
different masses (see \eq{nrdensi}), the pion moves
relativistically, and
the charge density is not a
three-dimensional
Fourier transform of the electromagnetic form factor. Moreover,
Jefferson Laboratory plans to considerably
extend the available range of momentum transfer for light nuclear form
factors.
Hence transverse charge densities which supply model independent
information are of considerable relevance for nuclear physics.
Carlson \& Vanderhaeghen \cite{Carlson:2008zc} made the first
computation of a nuclear
transverse density in their analysis of the deuteron empirical
transverse charge densities \cite{Abbott:2000ak}. The
charge densities are characterized by monopole, dipole and
quadrupole patterns because the deuteron has a spin of unity.
Ref.~\cite{Carlson:2008zc} observes
a dip in the center-of-charge
density for helicity-zero deuterons. This central depression is in
accord with standard nuclear force model calculations \cite{Forest:1996kp}
and is
a simple consequence of the deuteron $D$-state.
We note that the deuteron is a non-relativistic
system in the sense defined by Ref.~\cite{Miller:2009sg}. Thus these
densities can, with a high degree of accuracy, be thought of as an
integral over $z$ of the corresponding non-relativistic density; see
\eq{zint}. The dip is an important finding, because it
is model independent.
Ref.~\cite{Carlson:2008zc} also finds that
transversely polarized deuterons show dipole
and quadrupole structure in the charge densities.
Their electric dipole and quadrupole moments only depend
on the spin-1 particle's anomalous magnetic dipole
moment and its anomalous electric quadrupole moment,
arising from its internal structure.
Nuclei are non-relativistic systems \cite{Miller:2009sg} so that for
presently available data the principle distinction between transverse
densities and the usual three-dimensional Fourier transform is that
the former is an integral \eq{zint} over the latter. However,
existing nuclear
data extend only to about $Q^2=1$ GeV$^2$
\cite{Amroun:1994qj,Sick2001245,Sick:2008zza}. In this case the motion of
the nucleons within the nucleus is just barely relativistic. If, as
expected, data are taken at higher values of $Q^2$ relativistic effects
can be expected to be important. One example is the nuclei with
$A=3$ and mass $M_3$ and Sachs electric and magnetic form factors
$F_C,F_M$ \cite{Amroun:1994qj}.
If $Q^2/4M_3^2$ is of order unity, the
distinction between $F_1 =F_C-Q^2/4M_3^2F_M$ and $F_C$ will become
important and the role of transverse densities may become very important.
\subsection{Other Applications}
Transverse momentum densities, giving the momentum density of
hadrons, have also been studied \cite{Abidin:2008sb,Selyugin:2009ic}.
The spatial distribution of the momentum component $P^+$ is found to
be related to Fourier transforms of gravitational form factors
\cite{Abidin:2008sb}
which in turn are related to experimentally observed
data. This is because gravitational form factors
are matrix elements of the energy-momentum tensor obtainable as
second Mellin moments of GPDs \cite{Ji:1996ek,Ji:1996nm,Abidin:2008ku}.
The proton momentum density in the transverse plane
plane was found to be more compact than its charge density
\cite{Abidin:2008sb}.
Any charge density will deform when subjected to an external electric field;
related measurable quantities are called polarizabilities.
Gorchtein {\it et al.} \cite{Gorchtein:2009qq}
extended the transverse charge density
formalism to extract light-front quark charge densities
related to polarizabilities
and showed that the resulting induced
polarizations can be
extracted from proton generalized polarizabilities
\cite{Guichon:1995pu,Drechsel:1997xv}. The available
data for the
generalized electric polarizabilities of the proton yield a transverse
density that shows an usual oscillatory pattern.
\section{SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS}
Transverse charge densities are a new tool for analyzing
electromagnetic form factors of systems composed of constituents that
move relativistically. These quantities are hadronic charge
densities as seen in a reference frame
moving with infinite momentum. One of the
main advantages of the infinite momentum framework is that boosts in
the transverse direction form
a kinematic sub-group of the Poincar\'{e} group, so that
transformations to frames moving in a direction transverse to that of
the infinite momentum are carried out using the transverse position
operator. This is just like the usual
non-relativistic Galilean transformation. Thus the two-dimensional
Fourier transformation of electromagnetic form factors provides a
rigorous way to study charge and magnetization densities.
Transverse charge densities involve matrix elements of local operators
$q_+^\dagger(t=0,z=0,\bfb) \Gamma q_+(t=0,z=0,\bfb)$, computable using
any of the
light-front, equal-time or lattice techniques.
The use of transverse momentum densities has led to some
very interesting findings. Examples include the negative
nature of the central neutron charge density
\cite{Miller:2007uy} as caused by the dominance of $d$ quarks at the
center \cite{Miller:2008jc}, the seemingly singular nature of the
density at the center of the pion
\cite{Miller:2009qu}, the spatial extent of the proton's magnetization
density is greater than that of
its charge density \cite{Miller:2007kt},
and the deformation of the nucleon
\cite{Miller:2003sa,Schierholz:2009xx}
and
the $\Delta$ baryon
\cite{Carlson:2007xd} is substantial.
The positive sign of the electron anomalous magnetic moment is
explained \cite{Hoyer:2009sg}.
Transverse densities
have been used to analyze other baryon transitions
\cite{Tiator:2008kd},
nuclear charge densities \cite{Carlson:2008zc}
momentum densities \cite{Abidin:2008ku} and generalized
polarizabilities \cite{Gorchtein:2009qq}.
Measurements of form factors at larger values of $Q^2$ than are
presently available is needed to test
the singularity of the pionic transverse density and the inner core of
the neutron transverse density.
It also seems likely that the use of transverse charge
densities will become the chosen tool to analyze nuclear charge
distributions once very high-momentum transfer data become available.
Transverse
densities are relevant whenever matrix elements of an operator
$q_+^\dagger(t=0,z=0,\bfb) \Gamma q_+(t=0,z=0,\bfb)$
appears. Thus one may expect to
see a host of interesting, informative and
important future applications of transverse densities.
\section{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
This work is partially supported by the USDOE. I thank
J. Arrington, A. Bernstein,
M. Burkardt, C. Carlson, I. Clo\"{e}t, P. Hoyer,
E. Piasetzky, G. Ron, A. Radyushkin, J. Rinehimer,
B. Tiburzi, M. Vanderhaeghen and L. Zhu for useful discussions
regarding
transverse charge distributions.
\bibliographystyle{arnuke_revised.bst}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent works on statistical methods for spatial point pattern makes parametric inference feasible for a wide range of models, see \cite{R-Mol08} for an overview of this topic and more generally the books of \cite{B-DalVer88}, \cite{B-StoKenMecRus87} \cite{B-MolWaa03} or \cite{B-IllPenSto08} for a survey on spatial point processes. The question is then to know whether the model is well-fitted to data or not. For classical parametric models, this is usually done via the inspection of residuals. They play a central role in parametric inference, see \cite{B-Atk85} for instance. This notion is quite complex for spatial point processes and has been recently proposed by \citeauthor{A-BadTurMolHaz05} \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05}, following ideas from a previous work of \citeauthor{A-StoGra91} \cite{A-StoGra91}.
The definition of residuals for spatial point processes is a natural generalization of the well-known residuals for point processes in one-dimensional time, used in survival analysis (see \cite{B-FleHar91} or \cite{B-AndBorGilKei93} for an overview). For example, a simple measure of the adequacy of a one-dimensional point process model consists in computing the difference between the number of events in an interval $[0,t]$ and the conditional intensity (or hazard rate of the lifetime distribution) parametrically estimated and integrated from 0 to $t$. The extension in higher dimension requires further developments due to the lack of natural ordering. It may be done for point processes admitting a conditional density with respect to the Poisson process. These point processes correspond to the Gibbs measures.
The equilibrium in one dimension between the number of events and the integrated hazard rate may be replaced in higher dimension by the {\it Campbell equilibrium} equation or {\it Georgii-Nguyen-Zessin} formula (see \cite{A-Geo76}, \cite{A-NguZes79b} and Section~\ref{sec-desc}), which is the basis for defining the class of $h-$residuals where $h$ represents a test function. In particular, \citeauthor{A-BadTurMolHaz05} \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05} consider different choices of $h$ leading to the so-called raw residuals, inverse residuals and Pearson residuals, and show that they share similarities with the residuals obtained for generalized linear models.
Thanks to various diagnostic plots developped in the seminal paper \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05} and implementation within the \texttt{R} package \texttt{spatstat} \cite{A-BadTur05}, residuals appear to be a very convenient tool in practice. Some properties of the residuals process are exhibited in \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05} and \cite{A-BadMolPak08}, including a conditional independence property and variance formulae in particular cases. In these two papers, the authors conjecture that a strong law of large numbers and a central limit theorem should hold for the residuals as the sampling window expands.
Our paper addresses this question for $d-$dimensional stationary marked Gibbs point processes. We obtain the strong consistency and the asymptotic normality in several contexts for a large class of test functions $h$. The $h-$residuals crucially depend on an estimate of the parameter vector. We consider the natural framework where the estimate is computed with the same data over which the $h-$residuals are assessed. The assumptions are very general and we show that they are fulfilled for several classical models, including the area interaction point process, the multi-Strauss marked point process, the Strauss type disc process, the Geyer's triplet point process, etc. The assumptions on the estimator are quite natural and we show that they are fulfilled in particular by the maximum pseudolikelihood estimator (in short MPLE) (see \cite{A-BadTur00} for instance), for which asymptotic properties are now well-known (see \cite{A-JenMol91}, \cite{A-JenKun94}, \cite{A-BilCoeDro08}, \cite{A-DerLav09} and \cite{A-CoeDro09}).
Moreover, based on these asymptotic results, we propose statistical goodness-of-fit tests for which the Type-I error is asymptotically controlled. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt in this direction. Such tests exist for rejecting the assumption of a homogeneous or inhomogeneous Poisson point process, but for general marked Gibbs point processes, the existing validation methods are either graphical (for example by using the QQ-plot proposed by \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05}) or rely on Monte-Carlo based simulations. We present two tests based on the computation of the residuals on different subdomains of the observation window. They extend in a very natural way the quadrat counting test for homogeneous Poisson distributions (see \cite{B-Dig03} for instance). Besides, we present a test which combines several different $h-$residuals (associated to different functions $h$), computed on the entire observation window. The next step will be to implement these testing procedures to assess their power, compare them and reveal their limits. A thorough study will require extensive simulations and should deserve a separate paper.\\
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec-prel} gathers the main notation used in this paper and briefly displays the general background. The definition of marked Gibbs point processes is given. They depend exclusively on the choice of an energy function or equivalently, of a local energy function. All the assumptions are based on this function. The {\it Georgii-Nguyen-Zessin} formula is recalled, leading to the definition of the $h-$innovations and $h-$residuals. Some examples are presented including the classical residuals considered by \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05} and new ones connected to the well-known empty space function (or spherical contact distribution), denoted in the literature by $F$, see \cite{B-MolWaa03} for instance.
Section~\ref{sec-asymp} deals with asymptotic properties and presents our main results. A parametric stationary $d$-dimensional marked Gibbs point process is observed in a domain, denoted by $\Lambda_n$, assumed to increase up to $\RR[d]$. Sufficient conditions expressed in terms of the test function and the local energy function are given in order to derive the strong consistency result. We also propose an asymptotic control in probability of the departure of the $h$-residuals process from the $h$-innovations through the departure of the estimate from the true parameter vector (see Proposition~\ref{prop-equiv}). This allows us to deduce asymptotic normality results. Two different frameworks are considered: for the first one, the initial domain is splitted into a fixed finite number of subdomains (with volumes aimed at converging to $+\infty$) and we consider the vector composed of the $h-$residuals computed on each subdomain.
For the second framework, we consider the vector composed of the $h_j-$residuals (for $j=1,\ldots,s$) computed on the same domain $\Lambda_n$, where $h_1,\ldots,h_s$ are different test functions.
The asymptotic normality results depend on unknown asymptotic covariance matrices. The important question of estimating these matrices is addressed in Section~\ref{sec-estMat}. We give a general condition under which these matrices are definite-positive and propose a consistent estimate.
Section~\ref{sec-gof} exploits the asymptotic results obtained before. Some goodness-of-fit tests are proposed, based on normalized residuals computed in the two previous frameworks. They are shown to converge to some $\chi^2$ distribution. Framework 1 leads to a generalization of the quadrat counting test for homogeneous Poisson distributions. Framework 2 yields a test which combines the information coming from several residuals, as for instance residuals coming from the estimation of the empty space function at several points.
The different assumptions made in the previous sections to obtain asymptotic results are discussed in Section~\ref{sec-disc}. When considering classical test functions, exponential family models and the MPLE, the regularity and integrability type assumptions are shown to be satisfied for a wide class of examples. The testing procedures require moreover an identifiability condition to provide a proper normalization.
Proposition~\ref{prop-lInn} shows that this condition is easy to check for the first proposed test and appears to be not restrictive in this case. For the other tests, checking this condition depends more specifically on the model and the test function. We show, in Proposition~\ref{prop-exemples}, how this condition can be verified on two examples of models with several choices of test functions.
In Section \ref{non-hereditary}, the very special situation where the energy function is not hereditary is considered. The GNZ formula is not valid any more in this setting but, provided a slight modification, it has been recently extended in \cite{A-DerLav09}. This leads to a natural generalization of the residuals to the non-hereditary setting.
Proofs of our main results are postponed to Section~\ref{sec-proofs}. The main material is composed of an ergodic theorem obtained by~\cite{A-NguZes79} and a new multivariate central limit theorem for spatial processes. Our setting actually involves some non stationary conditional centered random fields. A general central limit theorem adapted to this context has been obtained in \cite{A-ComJan98} for self-normalized sums (see also \cite{A-JenKun94} in the stationary case and without self-normalization). But, contrary to these papers where the observation domain is assumed to be of the form $[-n,n]^d$, we consider domains that may increase continuously up to $\RR[d]$. This particularity, which seems more relevant, requires an extension of the results in \cite{A-ComJan98} and \cite{A-JenKun94} to triangular arrays. This new central limit theorem is presented in Appendix~\ref{annexe-tcl}.
\section{Background on marked Gibbs point processes and definition of residuals}\label{sec-prel}
\subsection{General notation, configuration space}
We denote by $\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$ the space of bounded Borel sets in $\RR[d]$. For any $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, $\Lambda^c$ denotes the complementary set of $\Lambda$ inside $\RR[d]$.
The norm $|.|$ will be used without ambiguity for different kind of objects. For a vector $\Vect x$, $|\Vect x|$ represents the uniform norm of $\Vect x$; For a countable set $\mathcal J$, $|\mathcal J|$ represents the number of elements belonging to $\mathcal J$; For a set $\Delta\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, $|\Delta|$ is the volume of $\Delta$.
Let $\Mat M$ be a matrix, we denote by $\|\Mat M\|$ the Frobenius norm of $\Mat M$ defined by
$\|\Mat M\|^2=Tr(\tr{\Mat M}\Mat M)$, where $Tr$ is the trace operator. For a vector $\Vect x$, $\|\Vect x\|$ is simply its euclidean norm.
For all $\Vect x\in\RR[d]$ and $\rho>0$, $\mathcal{B}(\Vect x,\rho):=\{\Vect y,\ |\Vect y-\Vect x|<\rho\}$. Let us also consider the short notation, for $i\in\ZZ[d]$, $\mathbbm{B}_i(\rho) = \mathcal{B}(i,\rho) \cap \ZZ[d]$.
The space $\RR[d]$ is endowed with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra and the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$. Let $\mathbbm{M}$ be a measurable space, which aims at being the mark space, endowed with the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal M$ and the probability measure $\lambda^{\mathbbm{m}}$. The state space of the point processes will be $\mathbbm{S}:=\RR[d]\times\mathbbm{M}$ measured by $\mu:=\lambda\otimes\lambda^{\mathbbm{m}}$.
We shall denote for short $x^m=(x,m)$ an element of $\mathbbm{S}$.
The space of point configurations will be denoted by $\Omega=\Omega(\mathbbm{S})$. This is the set of simple integer-valued measures on $\mathbbm{S}$. It is endowed with the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal F$ generated by the sets $\{\varphi\in\Omega,\ \varphi(\Lambda\times A)=n\}$ for all $n\in\NN$, for all $A\in\mathcal M$ and for all $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$. For any $x^m\in\mathbbm{S}$ and $\varphi\in\Omega$, we denote $x^m\in\varphi$ if $\varphi(x^m)>0$. For any $\varphi\in\Omega$ and any $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, we denote $\varphi_{\Lambda}:=\varphi_{\Lambda\times\mathbbm{M}}$ the projection of $\varphi$ onto $\Lambda\times\mathbbm{M}$, which is just the mesure $\sum_{x^m\in\varphi\cap(\Lambda\times\mathbbm{M})}\delta_{x^m}$, where $\delta_x$ is the Dirac measure at $x$. We will use without ambiguity some set notation for elements in $\Omega$, e.g. $\varphi\cup\{x^m\}=\varphi\cup x^m:=\varphi+\delta_{x^m}$ and
for $x^m\in\varphi$, $\varphi\smallsetminus \{x^m\}=\varphi\smallsetminus x^m:=\varphi-\delta_{x^m}$. For any $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, the number of elements of $\varphi_{\Lambda}$ is denoted by $|\varphi_{\Lambda}|:=\varphi(\Lambda\times\mathbbm{M})$.
\subsection{Marked Gibbs point processes}
The framework of this paper is restricted to stationary marked Gibbs point processes. Since we are interested in asymptotic properties, we consider these point processes on the infinite volume $\RR[d]$. Let us briefly recall their definition.
A marked point process $\Phi$ is a $\Omega$-valued random variable, with probability distribution $P$ on $(\Omega,\mathcal F)$.
The most prominent marked point process is the marked Poisson process $\pi^{\nu}$ with intensity measure $\nu$ on $\RR[d]$ (and mark density $\lambda^{\mathbbm{m}}$). The homogeneous marked Poisson process arises when $\nu=z\lambda$, with $z>0$.
Let $\ParV \in \SpPar$, where $\SpPar$ is some compact set of $\RR[p]$ (for some $p\geq 1$). For any $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, let us consider the parametric function $V_{\Lambda}(.;\ParV)$ from $\Omega$ into $\RR[]\cup\{+\infty\}$. For fixed $\ParV$, ($V_{\Lambda}(.;\ParV))_{\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])}$ constitutes a compatible family of energies if, for every $\Lambda\subset\Lambda'$ in $\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, there exists a measurable function $\psi_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}$ from $\Omega$ into $\RR[]\cup\{+\infty\}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{compatibility}
\forall\varphi\in\Omega\quad V_{\Lambda'}(\varphi;\ParV)=V_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV)+\psi_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}(\varphi_{\Lambda^c};\ParV).
\end{equation}
From a physical point of view, $V_{\Lambda}(\varphi_{\Lambda};\ParV)$ is the energy of $\varphi_{\Lambda}$ in $\Lambda$ given the outside configuration $\varphi_{\Lambda^c}$.
The following definition is the classical way to define Gibbs measures through their conditional specifications (see \cite{B-Pre76}).
\begin{definition}A probability measure $P_{\ParV}$ on $\Omega$ is a marked Gibbs measure for the compatible family of energies $(V_{\Lambda}(.;\ParV))_{\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])}$ and the intensity $\nu$ if for every $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, for $P_{\ParV}$-almost every outside configuration $\varphi_{\Lambda^c}$, the law of $P_{\ParV}$ given $\varphi_{\Lambda^c}$ admits the following conditional density with respect to $\pi^{\nu}$:
$$f_{\Lambda}(\varphi_{\Lambda}|\varphi_{\Lambda^c};\ParV)=\frac{1}{Z_{\Lambda}(\varphi_{\Lambda^c};\ParV)}e^{-V_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV)},$$
where $Z_{\Lambda}(\varphi_{\Lambda^c};\ParV)$ is a normalization called the partition function.
\end{definition}
The existence of a Gibbs measure on $\Omega$ which satisfies these conditional specifications is a difficult issue. We do not want to open this discussion here and we will assume that the Gibbs measures we consider exist. We refer the interested reader to \cite{B-Rue69,B-Pre76,A-BerBilDro99,A-Der05,A-DerDroGeo09}, see also Section \ref{sec-disc} for several examples.
In this article, we focus on stationary marked point processes on $\mathbbm{S}$, i.e. on point processes admitting a conditional density with respect to the homogeneous marked Poisson process $\pi$. Moreover, without loss of generality, the intensity of the Poisson process, $z$, is fixed to~1. We assume in a first step that the family of energies is hereditary, which means that for any $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$, for any $\varphi\in\Omega$, and for all $x^m\in\Lambda\times\mathbbm{M}$,
\begin{equation}\label{heredite}V_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV))=+\infty \Rightarrow V_{\Lambda}(\varphi \cup\{x^m\};\ParV))=+\infty,\end{equation}
or equivalently, for all $x^m\in\varphi_{\Lambda}$, $f_{\Lambda}(\varphi_{\Lambda}|\varphi_{\Lambda^c};\ParV)>0 \Rightarrow f_{\Lambda}(\varphi_{\Lambda}\smallsetminus\{x^m\}|\varphi_{\Lambda^c};\ParV)>0$. The non-hereditary case will be considered in Section \ref{non-hereditary}. The main assumption is then the following.
\begin{list}{}{}
\item \textbf{[Mod-E]}: For any $\ParV \in \SpPar$, the compatible family of energies $(V_{\Lambda}(.;\ParV))_{\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])}$ is hereditary, invariant by translation, and such that an associated Gibbs measure $P_{\ParV}$ exists and is stationary. Our data consist in the realization of a point process with Gibbs measure $P_{\ParVT}$. The vector $\ParVT$ is thus the true parameter to be estimated, assumed to be in $\mathring{\SpPar}$.
\end{list}
The local energy to insert a marked point $x^{m}$ into the configuration $\varphi$ is defined for any $\Lambda$ containing $x^m$ by
$$V^{}\left( x^{m}|\varphi; \ParV \right):=V_{\Lambda}(\varphi \cup\{x^m\})-V_{\Lambda}(\varphi).$$
From the compatibility of the family of energies, i.e. (\ref{compatibility}), this definition does not depend on $\Lambda$. We restrict our study to finite-range interaction point processes, which is the main limitation of this paper.
\begin{list}{}{}
\item \textbf{[Mod-L]}: There exists $D\geq 0$ such that for all $(m,\varphi) \in \mathbbm{M}\times \Omega$
$$\VIPar{0^{m}}{\varphi}{\ParV} = \VIPar{0^{m}}{\varphi_{\mathcal B(0,D)}}{\ParV}.$$
\end{list}
\subsection{Definitions of residuals for spatial point processes} \label{sec-desc}
The basic ingredient for the definition of residuals is the so-called GNZ formula stated below.
\begin{theorem}[Georgii-Nguyen-Zessin Formula]
Under \textbf{[Mod-E]}, for any function $h(\cdot,\cdot;\ParV): \mathbbm{S}\times \Omega\to \RR[]$ (eventually depending on some parameter $\ParV$) such that the following quantities are finite, then
\begin{equation}\label{GNZnonstat}
\Esp\left( \ism[ \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbbm{M}]{h\left(x^m,\Phi;\ParV\right) e^{- \VIPar{x^m}{\Phi}{\ParVT}}} \right) =
\Esp\left( \sum_{x^m \in \Phi } h\left(x^m,\Phi\setminus x^m;\ParV\right) \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\Esp$ denotes the expectation with respect to $P_{\ParVT}$.
\end{theorem}
For stationary marked Gibbs point processes, (\ref{GNZnonstat}) reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{GNZ}
\Esp\left( h\left(0^M,\Phi;\ParV\right) e^{- \VIPar{0^M}{\Phi}{\ParVT}} \right) =
\Esp\left( h\left(0^M,\Phi\setminus 0^M;\ParV\right) \right)
\end{equation}
where $M$ denotes a random variable with probability distribution $\lambda^{\mathbbm{m}}$.
The following definition is based on empirical versions of both terms appearing in~(\ref{GNZ}).
\begin{definition} For any bounded domain $\Lambda$, let us define the $h-$innovations (denoted by $I_\Lambda$) and the $h-$residuals (denoted by $R_\Lambda$ and depending on an estimate $\widehat{\ParV}$ of $\ParVT$) by
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_{\Lambda}\left( \varphi;h,\ParVT \right) &:=& \ism[\Lambda\times \mathbbm{M}]{h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\ParVT}}} - \sum_{x^m\in \varphi_\Lambda} h \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right)\\
R_{\Lambda}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV} \right) &:= & \ism[\Lambda\times \mathbbm{M}]{h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV} \right) e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\widehat{\ParV}}}} - \sum_{x^m\in \varphi_\Lambda} h \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \widehat{\ParV} \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{definition}
From a practical point of view, the last notion is the most interesting since it provides a computable measure. The main examples considered by \citeauthor{A-BadTurMolHaz05} in \cite{A-BadTurMolHaz05} (in the context of stationary point processes) are obtained by setting $h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right)=1$ for the raw residuals, $h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right)=e^{\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\ParV}}$ for the inverse residuals and $h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right)=e^{\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\ParV}/2}$ for the Pearson residuals. In particular, one may note that the raw residuals constitutes a difference of two estimates of the intensity of the point process (up to a normalisation by $|\Lambda|$): the first one is a parametric one and depends on the model while the second one is a nonparametric one (since it is equal to $|\varphi_\Lambda|$). Another more evolved example is to consider the function defined for $r>0$ by
$$
h_r(x^m, \varphi;\ParV): = \mathbf{1}_{[0,r]} (d(x^m,\varphi)) \; e^{\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\ParV}}
$$
where $d(x^m,\varphi)=\inf_{y^m\in \varphi} \|y-x\|$. Considering this function leads to
\begin{equation} \label{eq-Resempty}
R_\Lambda(\varphi;h_r,\widehat\ParV) = \ism{\mathbf{1}_{[0,r]} (d(x^m,\varphi))} - \sum_{x^m\in\varphi_\Lambda} h_r(x^m,\varphi\setminus x^m;\widehat{\ParV}).
\end{equation}
Then for a large window $R(\varphi;h_h,\widehat{\ParV})/|\Lambda|$ leads to a difference of two estimates of the well-known empty space function $F$ at distance $r$. Recall that for a marked stationary point process (see \cite{B-MolWaa03} for instance)
$$
F(r) := P\left( d(0^M ,\Phi) \leq r \right).
$$
The first term in the right hand side of \eqref{eq-Resempty} corresponds to the natural nonparametric estimator of $F(r)$ while the second one is a parametric estimator of $F(r)$.
\section{Asymptotic properties} \label{sec-asymp}
From now on, we assume that the point process satisfies \textbf{[Mod-E]} and \textbf{[Mod-L]}, that is \textbf{[Mod]}. The realization of $\Phi\sim P_{\ParVT}$ is assumed to be observed in a domain $\Lambda_n\oplus D^{+}$, with $D^{+}\geq D$, aimed at growing up to $\RR[d]$ as $n\to +\infty$. According to the locality assumption \textbf{[Mod-L]}, we are thus ensured that the $h-$innovations and $h-$residuals can be computed.
The aim of this section is to present several asymptotic properties for $I_{\Lambda_n}$ and $R_{\Lambda_n}$. We prove their consistency and we propose two asymptotic normality results within different frameworks:
\begin{itemize}
\item Framework~1: for a fixed test function $h$, $\Lambda_n$ is a cube, divided into a fixed finite number of sub-cubes (which will increase with $\Lambda_n$). The purpose is then to obtain the asymptotic normality for the vector composed of the $h-$residuals computed in each sub-cube.
\item Framework~2: we consider $h_1,\ldots,h_s$ $s$ different test functions and the aim is to obtain the asymptotic normality of the vector composed of the $h_j-$residuals computed on~$\Lambda_n$.
\end{itemize}
In both frameworks, an estimate of $\ParVT$ is involved. We assume that it is computed from the full domain $\Lambda_n$ with the same data used to evaluate the $h-$residuals, which is a natural setting in practice.
Moreover, contrary to the previous works dealing with asymptotic properties on Gibbs point processes ({\it e.g.} \cite{A-JenKun94}, \cite{A-ComJan98} or \cite{A-BilCoeDro08}), where $\Lambda_n$ is assumed to be of the discrete form $[-n,n]^d$, we consider general domains that may grow continuously up to $\RR[d]$.
The asymptotic results obtained in this section are the basis to derive goodness-of-fit tests, as presented in Section~\ref{sec-gof}.
\subsection{Consistency of the residuals process}
We obtain consistency results for $I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)$ and $R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi) \right)$, where for all $n\geq 1$, $\tilde\Lambda_n \subset \Lambda_n$, $(\tilde\Lambda_n)_{n\geq 1}$ and $(\Lambda_n)_{n\geq 1}$ are regular sequences whose size increases to $\infty$.
The assumption \textbf{[C]} gathers the two following assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[C1]}]
$$
\Esp \left( \left| h \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right) \right| e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}
\right) <+\infty.
$$
\item[\textbf{[C2]}] For all $(m,\varphi) \in \mathbbm{M} \times \Omega$, the functions $h \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right)$ and $f \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right):= h \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right) e^{- V^{}\left( 0^m|\varphi; \ParV \right)}$ are continuously differentiable with respect to $\ParV$ in a neighborhood $\mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$ of $\ParVT$ and
$$
\Esp \left( \left\| \Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\right\| \right) <+\infty
\quad \mbox{ and }\quad
\Esp \left( \left\| \Vect{h}^{(1)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\right\| e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}\right) <+\infty,
$$
where $\Vect f^{(1)}$ denotes the gradient vector of $f$ with respect to $\ParV$.
\end{itemize}
Concerning the residuals process, we also need to assume
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[E1]}] The estimator $\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)$ of $\ParVT$, computed from the full observation domain $\Lambda_n$, converges for $P_{\ParVT}-$a.e. $\varphi$ towards $\ParVT$, as $n\to +\infty$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-cons}
Assuming~\textbf{[Mod]}, we have as $n \to +\infty$
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Under \textbf{[C1]}: for $P_{\ParVT}-$a.e. $\varphi$, $|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1} I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\ParVT \right)$ converges towards 0.
\item[(b)] Under \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[E1]}: for $P_{\ParVT}-$a.e. $\varphi$, $|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1} R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right)$ converges towards 0.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Assumption \textbf{[Mod-L]}, while useful to allow the computation of the residuals in practice, is actually useless to prove their consistency.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Asymptotic control in probability of the residuals process}
We provide in this section a control for the departure of the residuals from the innovations and $(\widehat{\ParV}_n-\ParVT)$. This is a crucial result to investigate the asymptotic normality of the residuals. We need the folllowing assumptions.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[N1]}] For all $(m,\varphi) \in \mathbbm{M} \times \Omega$, the functions $h \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right)$ and $f \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right)$ (defined in \textbf{[C1]}) are twice continuously differentiable with respect to $\ParV$ in a neighborhood $\mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$ of $\ParVT$ and
$$
\Esp \left( \left\| \Vect{\underline{f}}^{(2)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\right\| \right) <+\infty
\quad \mbox{ and }\quad
\Esp \left( \left\| \Vect{\underline{h}}^{(2)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\right\|e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)} \right) <+\infty,
$$
where $ \Vect{\underline{g}}^{(2)}_{} \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) = \left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta_j \partial \theta_k} g \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right)\right)_{1\leq j,k\leq p}$ for $g=f,h$.
\item[\textbf{[E2]}] There exists a random vector $\Vect{T}$ such that the following convergence holds as $n\to+\infty$
$$|\Lambda_n|^{1/2} \left( \widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi)-\ParVT\right) \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \Vect{T}.
$$
\end{itemize}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-equiv}
Under assumptions \textbf{[C]}, \textbf{[N1]} and \textbf{[E1-2]}, assuming that $|\tilde\Lambda_n|=\mathcal{O}(|\Lambda_n|)$, then as $n\to +\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq-proba}
R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi) \right)
= I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)
- |\tilde\Lambda_n| \tr{\left( \widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi)-\ParVT \right)} \Vect{\mathcal{E}}\left(h;\ParVT\right) + o_{P}(|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{1/2}) ,
\end{equation}
where $\Vect{\mathcal{E}}\left(h;\ParVT\right)$ is the vector defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-defE}
\Vect{\mathcal{E}}\left(h;\ParVT\right) := \Esp\left(
h \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right) \Vect{V}^{(1)}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)
e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}
\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
The notation $X_n(\Phi)=o_P(w_n)$ means that $w_n^{-1}X_n(\Phi)$ converges in probability towards 0 as $n$ tends to infinity.
\begin{remark}
Note that for exponential family models, $\Vect{V}^{(1)}(x^m|\varphi;\ParVT)$ corresponds to the vector of sufficient statistics (see Section \ref{sec-disc} for more details).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Assumptions required for the asymptotic normality results}
Apart from the assumptions \textbf{[Mod]}, \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1]} on the model, we will need to assume \textbf{[N2-4]} below. All these assumptions are fulfilled by many models as proved in Section \ref{sec-disc}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[N2]}] For any bounded domain $\Lambda$, for any $\ParV \in \mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$,
$$\Esp\left( \left|{I}_{\Lambda}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right) \right|^3\right)<+\infty.$$
\item[\textbf{[N3]}] For any sequence of bounded domains $\Gamma_n$ such that $\Gamma_n\to 0$ when $n\to\infty$, for any $\ParV \in \mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$, $$\Esp\left( {I}_{\Gamma_n}\left( \Phi;h,\ParV \right)^2\right)\longrightarrow 0.$$
\item[\textbf{[N4]}] For any $\varphi \in \Omega$ and any bounded domain $\Lambda$, $I_{\Lambda}\left( \varphi ; \ParV \right)$ depends only on $\varphi_{\Lambda \oplus D}$.
\end{itemize}
Concerning the properties required for the estimator $\widehat{\ParV}_n$, we need its consistency through \textbf{[E1]} and to refine \textbf{[E2]} into \textbf{[E2(bis)]} below. Note that the maximum pseudolikelihood estimator satisfies these assumptions for many models (see section \ref{sec-hypEst}).
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[E2(bis)]}] The estimate admits the following expansion
$$
\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi) - \ParVT = \frac{1}{|\Lambda_n|} \Vect{U}_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) + o_{P}( |\Lambda_n|^{-1/2}),
$$
where, for any $\ParV \in \mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for any $\varphi\in \Omega$ and for two disjoint bounded domains $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2$,
$$\Vect{U}_{\Lambda_1\cup \Lambda_2}\left( \varphi ; \ParV \right)= \Vect{U}_{\Lambda_1}\left( \varphi ; \ParV \right)+ \Vect{U}_{\Lambda_2}\left( \varphi ; \ParV \right),$$
\item[(ii)] for all $j=1,\ldots,p$ and any bounded domain $\Lambda$
$$\Esp\left(\left|\left( \Vect{U}_{\Lambda}\left( \Phi ; \ParV \right)
\right)_j\right|^3 \right) <+\infty,$$
\item[(iii)] for all $j=1,\ldots,p$ and for any bounded domain $\Lambda$
$$
\Esp \left( \left. \left( \Vect{U}_{\Lambda}\left( \Phi ; \ParV \right)
\right)_j \right| \Phi_{\Lambda^c}\right) =0,
$$
\item[(iv)] for all $j=1,\ldots,p$ and for any sequence of bounded domains $\Gamma_n$,
$$\Esp\left(\left( \Vect{U}_{\Gamma_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParV \right)
\right)_j^2 \right)\longrightarrow 0\quad\text{as}\quad\Gamma_n\to 0,$$
\item[(v)] for any $\varphi \in \Omega$ and any bounded domain $\Lambda$, $\Vect{U}_{\Lambda}\left( \varphi ; \ParV \right)$ depends only on $\varphi_{\Lambda \oplus D}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark} \label{rem-E2bis}
Assumption \textbf{[E2(bis)]} implies \textbf{[E2]}. Indeed, under this assumption one may apply Theorem~2.1 of \cite{A-JenKun94} and assert: there exists a matrix $\Mat{\Sigma}$ such that $|\Lambda_n|^{-1/2} \Vect{U}_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) \stackrel{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}(0,\Mat{\Sigma})$, as $n\to +\infty$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Asymptotic normality of the $h-$residuals computed on subdomains of $\Lambda_n$}\label{sec-fwk1}
In this framework, we give ourself a test function $h$ and we compute the $h-$residuals on disjoint subdomains of $\Lambda_n$. In this context, we assume that the domain $\Lambda_n$ is a cube and is divided into a fixed number of subdomains as follows
$$\Lambda_n := \bigcup_{j \in \mathcal J} \Lambda_{j,n}$$ where $\mathcal J$ is a finite set and all the $\Lambda_{j,n}$ are disjoint cubes with the same volume $ \left| \Lambda_{0,n}\right|$ increasing up to $+\infty$. Let us denote by ${\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n} \left(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right)$ the vector of the residuals computed on each subdomain, i.e. ${\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n} \left(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right)= \left( R_{\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right) \right)_{j\in \mathcal J}$.
According to Proposition~\ref{prop-equiv} and in view of \textbf{[E2(bis)]}, we introduce the following notation
\begin{equation} \label{def-Rinfty}
R_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\ParV):=I_{\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\ParV)- \tr{{\Vect{U}}_{\Lambda}\left( \varphi ; \ParV \right)} \Vect{\mathcal{E}}\left( h;\ParV\right)
\end{equation}
for any $\varphi\in \Omega$, for any bounded domain $\Lambda$ and for any $\ParV \in \SpPar$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-fwk1}
Assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item The parametric model satisfies \textbf{[Mod]}.
\item The energy function and the test function $h$ satisfy \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-4]}.
\item The energy function and the estimate $\widehat{\ParV}_n$ satisfy \textbf{[E1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}.
\end{itemize}
Then, the following convergence in distribution holds, as $n\to +\infty$
\begin{equation} \label{eq-fwk1}
{} \left| \Lambda_{0,n}\right|^{-1/2}{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n} \left(\Phi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right) \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}\left( 0,\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT) \right),
\end{equation}
where $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)=\lambda_{Inn}\; \Mat{I}_{|\mathcal J|} +|\mathcal{J}|^{-1}(\lambda_{Res} -\lambda_{Inn} )\;\Mat{J}$ with $\Mat{J}=\Vect{e}\tr{\Vect{e}}$ and $\Vect{e}=\tr{(1,\ldots,1)}$. The constants $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$ are respectively defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{Inn}&=& D^{-d} \sum_{|k|\leq 1} \Esp\left(
{I}_{\Delta_0(D)}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)
{I}_{\Delta_k(D)}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)
\right) ,\label{eq-defLambdaInn}\\
\lambda_{Res} &=& D^{-d} \sum_{|k|\leq 1}
\Esp\left(
R_{\infty,\Delta_0(D)}( \Phi;h,\ParVT) R_{\infty,\Delta_k(D)}( \Phi;h,\ParVT)
\right)
\label{eq-defLambdaRes},
\end{eqnarray}
where, for all $k\in \ZZ[d]$, $\Delta_k(D)$ is the cube centered at $kD$ with side-length $D$.
\end{proposition}
From this asymptotic normality result, we can deduce the convergence for the norm of the centered residuals. This is the basis for a generalization of the quadrat counting test discussed in Section \ref{sec-gof}. We denote by $\overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)$ the mean residuals over all subdomains, that is
$\overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)=|\mathcal J|^{-1}\sum_{j\in\mathcal J} R_{\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-quadrat}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop-fwk1},
\begin{equation} \label{eq-cor}
|\Lambda_{0,n}|^{-1} \| \Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\Phi;h)- \overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\Phi;h) \|^2 \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \lambda_{Inn}\ \chi^2_{|\mathcal{J}|-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
An easy computation shows that $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$ are the two eigenvalues of $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ with respective order $|\mathcal J|-1$ and $1$. Let $\Mat{P}_{Inn}$ be the matrix of orthonormalized eigenvectors associated to $\lambda_{Inn}$. This matrix of size $(|\mathcal{J}|,|\mathcal{J}|-1)$ satisfies by definition $\tr{\Mat{P}}_{Inn}\Mat{P}_{Inn} = \Mat{I}_{|\mathcal{J}|-1}$ and, from (\ref{eq-fwk1}), $|\Lambda_{0,n}|^{-1} \; \| \tr{\Mat{P}}_{Inn} \Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)\|^2 \stackrel{d}{\to} \lambda_{Inn}\ \chi^2_{|\mathcal{J}|-1}$. Moreover, it is easy to check that ${\Mat{P}_{Inn}}\tr{\Mat{P}}_{Inn} = \Mat{I}_{|\mathcal{J}|}-|\mathcal{J}|^{-1} \Mat{J}_{|\mathcal{J}|}$ which leads to $\| \tr{\Mat{P}}_{Inn} \Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)\|^2= \| \Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)- \overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h) \|^2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The asymptotic covariance matrix $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ and $\lambda_{Inn}$ involve only the covariance structure of the innovations (or the residuals) in a finite box around $0$. This comes from the locality assumption \textbf{[Mod-L]}, also involved in \textbf{[N4]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}. A challenging task in practice is to estimate $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$ (and so $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$), this issue is investigated in Section \ref{sec-estMat}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Asymptotic normality of the $(h_j)_{j=1,\ldots,s}-$residuals computed on $\Lambda_n$}\label{sec-fwk2}
In this framework, we consider $s$ different test functions and we compute all $h_j-$residuals on the same domain $\Lambda_n$, which is assumed to be a cube growing up to $\RR[d]$ when $n\to+\infty$.
We present an asymptotic normality result for the random vector $\left( R_{\Lambda_{n}}\left( \Phi;h_j,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right) \right)_{j=1,\ldots,s}$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-fwk2}
Assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item The parametric model satisfies \textbf{[Mod]}.
\item The energy function and the test functions $h_j$ (for $j=1,\ldots,s$) satisfy \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-4]}.
\item The energy function and the estimate $\widehat{\ParV}_n$ satisfy \textbf{[E1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}.
\end{itemize}
Then, the following convergence in distribution holds, as $n\to +\infty$
\begin{equation} \label{eq-fwk2}
{} \left| \Lambda_{n}\right|^{-1/2} \left( R_{\Lambda_{n}}\left( \Phi;h_j,\widehat{\ParV}_n\right) \right)_{j=1,\ldots,s} \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N}\left( 0,\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT) \right),
\end{equation}
where $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ is the $(s, s)$ matrix given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-defSigma2}
\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT) =
D^{-d} \sum_{|k| \leq 1}
\Esp\left(
\Vect{R}_{\infty,\Delta_0(D)}(\Phi;\Vect{h},\ParVT) \; \tr{\Vect{R}_{\infty,\Delta_k(D)}(\Phi;\Vect{h},\ParVT)}
\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Vect{R}_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi,\Vect{h},\ParVT):=\left( R_{\infty,\Lambda} (\varphi;h_j,\ParVT) \right)_{j=1,\ldots,s}$, see (\ref{def-Rinfty}), and where, for all $k\in \ZZ[d]$, $\Delta_k(D)$ is the cube centered at $kD$ with side-length $D$.
\end{proposition}
\section{Estimation and positivity of the asymptotic covariance matrices} \label{sec-estMat}
\subsection{Statement of the problem}
The aim of this section is to provide a condition under which, on the one hand the matrices $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$, defined in Propositions~\ref{prop-fwk1} and~\ref{prop-fwk2}, are positive-definite, and on the other hand $\lambda_{Inn}$, involved in Corollary \ref{cor-quadrat}, is positive. Then we define estimators of $\Mat{\Sigma}_1^{-1/2}(\ParVT)$, $\lambda_{Inn}^{-1}$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2^{-1/2}(\ParVT)$. As a consequence, we will be in position to normalize and estimate the quantities arising in (\ref{eq-fwk1}), (\ref{eq-cor}) and (\ref{eq-fwk2}) so that they converge to a free law.
Before this, let us focus on the particular form of the matrix $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$. This $(|\mathcal J|,|\mathcal J|)$ matrix has two eigenvalues $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$ (respectively defined by~\eqref{eq-defLambdaInn} and~\eqref{eq-defLambdaRes}), whose multiplicity is $|\mathcal J|-1$ for $\lambda_{Inn}$ and 1 for $\lambda_{Res}$. By using the Gram-Schmidt process for orthonormalizing the eigenvectors of $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$, one obtains the explicit form for the squared inverse of this matrix, provided $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$ do not vanish:
$$
\Mat{\Sigma}_1^{-1/2}(\ParVT) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_{Inn}}} \; \Mat{I}_{|\mathcal{J}|} \; + \; \frac1{|\mathcal{J}|} \left( \frac1{\sqrt{\lambda_{Res}}}-\frac1{\sqrt{\lambda_{Inn}}} \right) \Mat{J},
$$
where $\Mat{J}=\Vect{e}\tr{\Vect{e}}$ and $\Vect{e}=\tr{(1,\ldots,1)}$. Therefore, estimating $\Mat{\Sigma}_1^{-1/2}(\ParVT)$ can be reduced to the estimation of these two eigenvalues $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$.
Consequently, the estimation of $\lambda_{Inn}$ and the covariance matrices $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ is achieved by estimating (\ref{eq-defLambdaInn}), (\ref{eq-defLambdaRes}) and~(\ref{eq-defSigma2}), which can be viewed as a particular case of estimating the matrix (actually a constant for the two first expressions)
$$\Mat{M}({\ParVT})=D^{-d} \sum_{|k|\leq 1}\Esp \left( \Vect{Y}_{\Delta_0(D)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) \tr{\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_k(D)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) }
\right),$$
where, according to the assumptions involved in Propositions \ref{prop-fwk1} and \ref{prop-fwk2}, for any bounded domain $\Lambda$, $\Vect{Y}_{\Lambda}(\Phi;\ParV)$ is a random vector of dimension $q$ ($q=1$ or $s$) depending on $\ParV$, such that for any bounded domains $\Lambda,\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2$ ($\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2$ disjoint), for any $\ParV \in \mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$, for any $j=1,\ldots,q$ and any $\varphi\in \Omega$
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Vect{Y}_{\Lambda_1\cup \Lambda_2}(\varphi;\ParV) = \Vect{Y}_{\Lambda_1}(\varphi;\ParV)+\Vect{Y}_{\Lambda_2}(\varphi;\ParV),$
\item[(ii)] $\Esp\left( \left(\Vect{Y}_{\Lambda}(\Phi;\ParV)\right)_j^2\right)<+\infty$,
\item[(iii)] $\Esp \left( \left. \left( \Vect{Y}_{\Lambda}\left( \Phi ; \ParV \right)
\right)_j \right| \Phi_{\Lambda^c}\right) =0,$
\item[(iv)] for any sequence of bounded domains $\Gamma_n$, $\Esp\left(\left( \Vect{Y}_{\Gamma_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParV \right)
\right)_j^2 \right)\longrightarrow 0\quad\text{as}\quad\Gamma_n\to 0,$
\item[(v)] $\Vect{Y}_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV)$ depends only on $\varphi_{\Lambda\oplus D}$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Positive definiteness of $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$}
Let us consider the following assumption.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[PD]}] For some $\overline{\Lambda}:=\cup_{|i|\leq \left\lceil \frac{D}{\overline{\delta}} \right\rceil } \Delta_i(\overline{\delta})$ with $\overline{\delta}>0$, there exists $B\in\mathcal F$ and $A_0,\ldots,A_{\ell}$, ($\ell\geq 1$) disjoint events of $\overline{\Omega}_B:=\left\{\varphi \in \cSp: \varphi_{\Delta_i(\overline{\delta})}\in B, 1\leq |i| \leq 2\left\lceil \frac{D}{\overline{\delta}}\right\rceil \right\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item for $j=0,\ldots,\ell$, $P_{\ParVT}(A_j)>0$.
\item for all $\left(\varphi_0,\ldots,\varphi_{\ell} \right)\in A_0 \times \cdots \times A_{\ell}$ the $(\ell, q)$ matrix with entries $\left(\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left( \varphi_i ; \ParVT \right)} \right)_j - \left(\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left( \varphi_0 ; \ParVT \right)} \right)_j$ is injective, which means:
$$
\left(\forall \Vect{y}\in \RR[q], \tr{\Vect{y}} \left( \ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left( \varphi_i ; \ParVT \right)}-\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left( \varphi_0 ; \ParVT \right)}\right)
=0 \right)\Longrightarrow \Vect{y}=0.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-sdp}
From the definition of $\Vect{Y}_{\Lambda}(\Phi;\ParV)$ and under \textbf{[PD]}, the matrix $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ is positive-definite.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The assumption \textbf{[PD]} is associated to some characteristics of the point process $\Phi$. The parameter $\overline{\delta}$ is independent of the parameters involved in the different estimators (e.g. $D^\vee$ or $\delta$ arising in the next section). Given a model, the event $B$ and $\overline{\delta}$ are chosen in order to let the different configurations sets $A_0,A_1,\ldots,A_\ell$ as simple as possible. For most models, a convenient choice is $B=\emptyset$ and $\overline{\delta}\geq D$ (see the examples treated in Appendix \ref{exemplesPD} for instance).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Estimation of $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$} \label{sec-defEstMat}
The dependence of $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ on $D$ may be lightened thanks to the following lemma, whose proof is relegated to section \ref{proofdelta}.
\begin{lemma}\label{delta}
The matrix $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ can be rewritten for any $\delta>0$ and any $D^{\vee}\geq D$ as
$$
\Mat{M}(\ParVT) = \delta^{-d} \sum_{|k|\leq \left\lceil \frac{D^{\vee}}{\delta}\right\rceil}\Esp \left( \Vect{Y}_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) \tr{\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_k(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) }\right),
$$
where $\Delta_k(\delta)$ is the cube with side-length $\delta$ centered at $k\delta$.
\end{lemma}
From this result, to achieve an estimation of $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$, it is required to estimate the involved expectation and $\ParVT$ (by $ \widehat{\ParV}_n$). This is enough for the estimation of $\lambda_{Inn}$ for which $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)=I_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV)$. But when $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)=R_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\ParV)$ or $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)=\Vect{R}_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;\Vect{h},\ParV)$, which appears in $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$, it can be noticed that $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda$ still depends on an expectation with respect to $P_{\ParVT}$, through the vector $\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h,\ParVT)$ defined by \eqref{eq-defE}. Moreover, the vector $\Vect{U}_\Lambda$ in \textbf{[E2(bis)]} may also depend on such a term (this is the case for example when considering the maximum pseudolikelihood estimate as shown in Section~\ref{sec-hypEst}). This means that $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)$ cannot be estimated only by $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_n)$, but by $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Lambda}(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_n)$, where $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_n$ is an estimator of $\Vect Y$. We assume in the sequel that $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_n$ satisfies the same properties $(i)-(v)$ as $\Vect{Y}$ and is a good estimator of $\Vect{Y}$ (see Proposition \ref{consistance}). The explicit form of $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_n$ depends strongly on the estimate $\widehat{\ParV}_n$ (e.g. through $\Vect{U}_\Lambda$ in \textbf{[E2(bis)]}). When $\widehat{\ParV}_n$ is the maximum pseudolikelihood estimator, we provide explicit formulas for $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_n$ in Section \ref{sec-estMatMPLE}.
Let us now specify an estimator of $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$. Assume that the point process is observed in the domain $\Lambda_{n_0}\oplus D^+$ where $D^+\geq D$ and $\Lambda_{n_0}$ is a cube. For any $\delta$ such that $|\Lambda_{n_0}|\delta^{-d}\in\NN$, we may consider the decomposition $\Lambda_{n_0}=\cup_{k\in \mathcal K_{n_0}} \Delta_k(\delta)$, where the $\Delta_k(\delta)$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $\delta$ and centered, without loss of generality, at $k\delta$. For any such $\delta$, according to Lemma~\ref{delta}, a natural estimator of $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ is, for any $D^{\vee}\geq D$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-estMn}
\widehat{\Mat{M}}_{n_0}(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi),\delta,D^\vee) =
|\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1}\!\!\!
\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{n_0}} \sum_{j\in \mathbbm{B}_k\left(\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta} \right\rceil \right) \cap \mathcal K_{n_0}} \!\! \!\!\!\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n_0,\Delta_j(\delta)}\left(\varphi;\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi)\right) \tr{\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n_0,\Delta_k(\delta)}\left(\varphi;\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi)\right) }.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
As suggested by Lemma \ref{delta}, the parameter $\delta$ in (\ref{eq-estMn}) may be chosen arbitrarily. Yet, while $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ is actually independent of $\delta$, its estimate $\widehat{\Mat{M}}_{n_0}$ may depend on it due to edge effects.
\end{remark}
The following proposition provides a framework to study the asymptotic properties of (\ref{eq-estMn}) and shows the consistency of $\widehat{\Mat{M}}_{n_0}$ when the domain $\Lambda_{n}$ increases up to $\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Its proof is relegated to section \ref{preuve-consistance}.
\begin{proposition}\label{consistance}
Under \textbf{[Mod]}, \textbf{[E1]}, assume that for any $\ParV$ in a neighborhood $\mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$ of $\ParVT$, for any bounded domain $\Lambda$, for any $\varphi\in \Omega$ and for $j=1,\ldots,p$, $\left(\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Lambda}(\varphi;\cdot \right)_j$ is a continuous function. Assume moreover that
\begin{equation} \label{eq-hypYhat}
\sup_{k \in \mathcal{K}_n} \left|\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\Phi;\ParV)- {\Vect{Y}}_{\Delta_k(\delta_n)} (\Phi;\ParV) \right| \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\rightarrow} 0,
\end{equation}
where, for any $\delta>0$ as above, $(\delta_n)_{n\in\NN}$ is a sequence satisfying $|\Lambda_{n}|\delta_n^{-d}\in\NN$, $\delta_{n_0}=\delta$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$ as $n\to\infty$.
Then, for any $D^\vee\geq D$,
$$\widehat{\Mat{M}}_n \left( \Phi; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi), \delta_n, D^\vee\right)\overset{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}\Mat{M}(\ParVT).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The choice of the sequence $(\delta_n)_{n\in\NN}$ is always possible (see the proof). Since we allow the domain $\Lambda_n$ to grow continuously up to $\RR[d]$, its decomposition in sub-cubes with side-length $\delta$ is not always possible. The sequence $(\delta_n)_{n\in\NN}$ is thus mandatory to make a decomposition of the domain available when $n$ increases. We chose it by respecting as most as possible the initial choice of the practicioner.
\end{remark}
\section{Goodness-of-fit tests for stationary marked Gibbs point processes} \label{sec-gof}
We present in this section three goodness-of-fit tests, based on the residuals computed according to the different frameworks considered in Section \ref{sec-asymp}.
We assume that the point process is observed in the domain $\Lambda_{n_0}\oplus D^+$ where $D^+\geq D$ and $\Lambda_{n_0}$ is a cube.
\subsection{Quadrat-type test with $|J|-1$ degrees of freedom}\label{sec-test-quadrat}
According to the setting detailed in Section \ref{sec-fwk1}, we divide the domain $\Lambda_{n_0}$ into a fixed number of subdomains, namely $\Lambda_{n_0} := \bigcup_{j \in \mathcal J} \Lambda_{j,n_0}$ where $\mathcal J$ is a finite set and all the $\Lambda_{j,n_0}$ are disjoint cubes with the same volume $\left| \Lambda_{0,n_0}\right|$.
Moreover, in each sub-domain, we consider the decomposition $\Lambda_{j,n_0}=\cup_{k\in \mathcal K_{j,n_0}}\Delta_k(\delta)$, for any $\delta$ such that $|\Lambda_{0,n_0}|\delta^{-d}\in\NN$, where the $\Delta_k(\delta)$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $\delta$.
Following (\ref{eq-estMn}), we consider, for any $\delta>0$ as above and any $D^{\vee}\geq D$, the estimator
\begin{equation}\label{est-Inn}
\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Inn} = |\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1} \;\sum_{i\in \mathcal K_{n_0}} \;\;\sum_{j \in \mathbbm{B}_i\left( \left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta}\right\rceil \right)\cap \mathcal K_{n_0}} \!\!\!\!\!\!
I_{\Delta_i(\delta)}\left(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi) \right) I_{\Delta_j(\delta)}\left(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi) \right),\end{equation}
where $\mathcal K_{n_0}=\cup_{j\in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal K_{j,n_0}$. Note that $I_{\Delta_i(\delta)}\left(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi) \right) =R_{\Delta_i(\delta)}\left(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi) \right) $ but we preserve this redundant notation in the sequel.
The following corollary is an immediate consequence of Corollary \ref{cor-quadrat} and Proposition \ref{consistance}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-test-quadrat}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop-fwk1} and if \textbf{[PD]} holds for $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)={I}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)$, then, for any $\delta>0$, one can construct a sequence $(\delta_n)_{n\in\NN}$ satisfying $|\Lambda_{0,n}|\delta_n^{-d}\in\NN$, $\delta_{n_0}=\delta$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$, such that as $n\to+\infty$
\begin{equation}\label{test-quadrat}
T_{1,n}:=|\Lambda_{0,n}|^{-1} \; \widehat\lambda_{n,Inn}^{-1} \; \times \; \|
\Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\Phi;h)- \overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\Phi;h)
\|^2 \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \chi^2(|\mathcal{J}|-1).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
This result leads to a goodness-of-fit test for $H_0: \Phi\sim P_{\ParVT}$ versus $H_1:\Phi \nsim P_{\ParVT}$. Let us briefly summarize the different steps to implement the test for a given asymptotic level $\alpha\in (0,1)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Step 1} Consider a parametric model of a stationary marked Gibbs point process with finite range $D$ observed on the domain $\Lambda_{n_0}\oplus D^+$ with $D^+\geq D$.
\item {\bf Step 2} Choose an estimation method satisfying the assumptions \textbf{[E1]}, \textbf{[E2(bis)]} (for example the MPLE) and compute the estimate $\widehat\ParV_{n_0}$ on $\Lambda_{n_0}$.
\item {\bf Step 3}
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] Consider a test function $h$ (satisfying \textbf{[C1-2]}, \textbf{[N1-3]} and \textbf{[PD]}), divide $\Lambda_{n_0}$ into $|\mathcal{J}|$ cubes and compute the $h-$residuals on each different cube.
\item[b)] Estimate $\lambda_{Inn}$ by (\ref{est-Inn}).
\item[c)] Compute the test statistic $T_{1,n_0}$ involved in (\ref{test-quadrat}).
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Step 4} Reject the model if $T_{1,n_0}(\varphi)>\chi^2_{1-\alpha}(|\mathcal{J}|-1)$.
\end{itemize}
Let us note that in the particular case of a homogeneous Poisson point process with intensity $z$ and when considering the raw residuals ($h=1$), this test is exactly the Poisson dispersion test applied to the $|\mathcal J|$ quadrat counts, also called quadrat counting test, see \cite{B-Dig03} for instance. Indeed, in this case, $\Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)- \overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n}(\varphi;h)$ is the vector of quadrat counts and $\lambda_{Inn}=z$. Considering $|\Lambda_{0,n}| \widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Inn}$ as an estimation of the intensity on $\Lambda_{0,n}$, the statistic $T_{1,n}$ reduces to the ratio of the sum of squares of the quadrat counts over their estimated mean.
\begin{remark} \label{rem-lInn}
The condition \textbf{[PD]} in Corollary~\ref{cor-test-quadrat} has to be verified with $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)={I}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)$ which is not so difficult (see Proposition~\ref{prop-lInn} for a general result). Indeed, contrarily to Corollary~\ref{cor-T1prime} and~\ref{cor-T2}, this condition does not depend on the form of the estimator $\widehat{\ParV}_n$.
Moreover, as emphasized in Section~\ref{sec-fwk1}, the assumptions of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk1} are satisfied for many models (this will be explored in details for exponential models in Section~\ref{sec-MCN}). This means that the proposed goodness-of-fit test based on~\eqref{test-quadrat} may be used for many models and many choices of function $h$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{drawback}
The weakeness of this testing procedure (and the next ones) could be the estimation (\ref{est-Inn}) of $\lambda_{Inn}$ (and in general the estimator (\ref{eq-estMn})). The choice of the parameters $\delta$ and $D^{\vee}$ in (\ref{est-Inn}) is crucial. For instance, for fixed $n$, in the extreme cases $\delta\to 0$ or $D^{\vee}\to\infty$, we get $\widehat{\lambda}_{n,Inn}\approx 0$. A careful simulation study should help for these choices. Another improvement could be to estimate $\lambda_{Inn}$ via Monte-Carlo methods.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Quadrat-type test with $|J|$ degrees of freedom}\label{sec-T1prime}
Under the same setting as above, assume moreover that \textbf{[PD]} holds for $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\varphi;\ParVT\right)=R_{\infty,\overline{\Lambda}}( \varphi;h,\ParVT)$. Let us define the normalized residuals
$$
\widetilde{\Vect{R}}_{1,n_0} (\varphi;h):= \widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Inn}^{-1/2} \Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n_0}(\varphi;h) + \left(\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Res}^{-1/2} - \widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Inn}^{-1/2}\right) \overline{\Vect{R}}_{\mathcal{J},n_0}(\varphi;h),
$$
where $\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Inn}$ is defined in (\ref{est-Inn}) and $\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Res}$ is an estimate of $\lambda_{Res}$ following (\ref{eq-estMn}). When considering the MPLE, explicit formulas for $\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Res}$ are given in Section~\ref{sec-estMatMPLE}. It is easy to check that $\widetilde{\Vect{R}}_{1,n_0} (\varphi;h) = \widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_1}_{n_0}^{-1/2} \; \Vect{R}_{\mathcal{J},n_0}(\varphi;h)$. Therefore the following corollary is deduced from Propositions~\ref{prop-fwk1} and \ref{consistance}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor-T1prime}
Under the assumptions of Propositions \ref{prop-fwk1} and \ref{consistance}, assuming that \textbf{[PD]} holds for $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)={I}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)$ and $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)=R_{\infty,\overline{\Lambda}}( \Phi;h,\ParVT)$, then, for any $\delta>0$, one can construct a sequence $(\delta_n)_{n\in\NN}$ which satisfies $|\Lambda_{0,n}|\delta_n^{-d}\in\NN$, $\delta_{n_0}=\delta$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$ as $n\to\infty$, such that
as $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{T}_{1,n} (\Phi):= |\Lambda_{0,n}|^{1/2} \| \widetilde{\Vect{R}}_{1,n} (\Phi;h)\|^2 \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \chi^2(|\mathcal{J}|) \label{eq-T1n}
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
A goodness-of-fit test with asymptotic size $\alpha\in (0,1)$ is deduced similarly as in the previous section. The steps to follow in practice are the same except that in {\bf Step 3} b), one has to estimate both $\lambda_{Inn}$ and $\lambda_{Res}$, and in {\bf Step 4} we reject the model if $\widetilde{T}_{1,n_0}(\varphi)>\chi^2_{1-\alpha}(|\mathcal{J}|)$.
\begin{remark}
Let us emphasize that, with respect to Corollary~\ref{cor-test-quadrat}, Corollary~\ref{cor-T1prime} involves an additional more complex assumption: \textbf{[PD]} has to be satisfied for $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)=R_{\infty,\overline{\Lambda}}( \Phi;h,\ParVT)$. This kind of assumption deeply depends on the nature of the estimate $\widehat{\ParV}$. This problem is investigated in Proposition~\ref{prop-exemples} for particular examples. Furthermore, we show in Proposition \ref{prop-PDfails} that $\lambda_{Res}=0$ occurs for many models and many choices of $h$ including the Poisson model when $h=1$. These two remarks underline the fact that the test relying on $\widetilde{T}_{1,n}$ is more restrictive than the previous one with $T_{1,n}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Empty space function type test}\label{sec-T2}
Let us consider the setting of section \ref{sec-fwk2}, where $s$ different residuals are computed on the same full domain $\Lambda_{n_0}$. We consider the decomposition $\Lambda_{n_0}=\cup_{k\in \mathcal K_{n_0}}\Delta_k(\delta)$, for any $\delta$ such that $|\Lambda_{n_0}|\delta^{-d}\in\NN$, where the $\Delta_k(\delta)$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $\delta$.
Under the notation of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk2}, assuming \textbf{[PD]} holds for $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\varphi;\ParVT\right)=\Vect{R}_{\infty,\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi,\Vect{h},\ParVT)$, let us define
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\Vect{R}}_{2,n_0} (\varphi;\Vect{h},\widehat{\ParV}) :=\widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_2}_{n_0}^{-1/2} \; \left( R_{\Lambda_{n_0}}(\varphi;{h_j},\widehat{\ParV})\right)_{j=1,\ldots,s}
\end{equation*}
where $\widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_2}_{n_0}^{-1/2}:=\widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_2}_{n_0}^{-1/2}(\varphi,\widehat{\ParV};\delta,D^\vee)$ is an estimation of $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ as in (\ref{eq-estMn}). See explicit formulas in Section~\ref{sec-estMatMPLE} when considering the MPLE.
From Propositions~\ref{prop-fwk2} and \ref{consistance}, we get the following corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor-T2}
Assuming \textbf{[PD]} with $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\varphi;\ParVT\right)=\Vect{R}_{\infty,\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi,\Vect{h},\ParVT)$, under the assumptions of Propositions \ref{prop-fwk2} and~\ref{consistance}, then, for any $\delta>0$ as above, one can construct a sequence $(\delta_n)_{n\in\NN}$ which satisfies $|\Lambda_{n}|\delta_n^{-d}\in\NN$, $\delta_{n_0}=\delta$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$ as $n\to\infty$, such that, as $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq-T2n}
\widetilde T_{2,n} (\Phi) := |\Lambda_{n}|^{1/2} \| \widetilde{\Vect{R}}_{2,n} (\Phi;\Vect{h},\widehat{\ParV})\|^2 \stackrel{d}{\rightarrow} \chi^2(s) .
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
A goodness-of-fit test for $H_0: \Phi\sim P_{\ParVT}$ versus $H_1:\Phi \nsim P_{\ParVT}$, with asymptotic size $\alpha\in(0,1)$ is deduced as before. From a practical point of view, the steps detailed in \ref{sec-test-quadrat} are modified into:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Step 3(framework 2)}
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] Consider $s$ different test functions (satisfying \textbf{[C1-2]}, \textbf{[N1-3]} and \textbf{[PD]}), and compute the $s$ different $h_j-$residuals on the same initial domain $\Lambda_{n_0}$.
\item[b)] Estimate the matrix $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ by~\eqref{eq-estMn} and compute $\widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_2}_{n_0}^{-1/2}$ with any numerical routine (e.g. a choleski decomposition or a singular value decomposition).
\item[c)] Compute the test statistic $\widetilde T_{2,n_0}(\varphi)$ defined by~\eqref{eq-T2n}.
\end{itemize}
\item {\bf Step 4} Fix $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and reject the model if $\widetilde T_{2,n_0}(\varphi)>\chi^2_{1-\alpha}(s)$.
\end{itemize}
\section{Application to exponential models and the MPLE} \label{sec-disc}
Through Sections~\ref{sec-asymp}, \ref{sec-estMat} and \ref{sec-gof} three sets of assumptions have been considered. The first one deals with integrability and regularity of the model and the test function(s) and gathers \textbf{[Mod]}, \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-4]}. The second one is about the estimator $\widehat{\ParV}_n$ and involves \textbf{[E1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}. Finally, the third one, assumption \textbf{[PD]} is very specific and deals with the positive definiteness of covariance matrices. We prove in this section that these assumptions are in general fulfilled for exponential family models and the MPLE.
\subsection{Assumptions \textbf{[Mod]}, \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-4]} for exponential family models} \label{sec-MCN}
The energy function of exponential family models is given for any $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$ by $V_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV) = \tr{\ParV} \Vect v_{\Lambda} (\varphi)$,
where $\Vect v_{\Lambda}(\varphi)$ is the vector of sufficient statistics given by
$\Vect v_{\Lambda}(\varphi)=\tr{(v_{1,\Lambda}(\varphi),\ldots, v_{p,\Lambda}(\varphi))}$. The local energy is then expressed as $\VIPar{x^{m}}{\varphi}{\ParV}= \tr{\ParV} \SExIV{x^{m}}{\varphi}$,
where $\SExIV{x^{m}}{\varphi}= (\SExI{1}{x^{m}}{\varphi}, \ldots, \SExI{p}{x^{m}}{\varphi}):=\Vect v_{\Lambda}(\varphi\cup \{x^{m}\}) - \Vect v_{\Lambda}(\varphi)$. Let us consider the following assumption:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{[Exp]}] For $i=1,\cdots,p$, there exist $\cSEx{\inf}{i},\cSEx{\sup}{i}\geq 0$, $k_i\in \NN$ such that one of both following assumptions is satisfied for all $(m,\varphi) \in \mathbbm{M}\times \Omega$:
$$
\Par_i \geq 0 \mbox{ and }
-\cSEx{\inf}{i}\leq \SExI{i}{0^{m}}{\varphi}=\SExI{i}{0^{m}} {\varphi_{\mathcal{B}(0,D)}} \leq \cSEx{\sup}{i} |\varphi_{\mathcal{B}(0,D)} |^{k_i}.
$$
or
$$
-\cSEx{\inf}{i}\leq \SExI{i}{0^{m}}{\varphi}=\SExI{i}{0^{m}} {\varphi_{\mathcal{B}(0,D)}} \leq \cSEx{\sup}{i}.
$$
\end{itemize}
The assumption \textbf{[Exp]} has already been considered by \cite{A-BilCoeDro08}. It is fulfilled for a large class of examples including the overlap area point process, the multi-Strauss marked point process, the $k-$nearest-neighbor multi-Strauss marked point process, the Strauss type disc process, the Geyer's triplet point process, the area interaction point process,\ldots.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-C12N13}
Under \textbf{[Exp]}, the assumptions \textbf{[Mod]}, \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-4]} are satisfied for the raw residuals, inverse residuals, Pearson residuals or residuals based on the empty space function.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The assumption \textbf{[Exp]} implies that the local energy function is local and stable, which, from results of \cite{A-BerBilDro99}, implies that \textbf{[Mod]} is fulfilled. A direct consequence of \textbf{[Exp]} is that for every $\alpha>0$, for all $\ParV \in \SpPar$ and for all $i=1,\ldots,p$
\begin{equation} \label{eq-propInteg}
\Esp\left( |\SExI{i}{0^{M}}{\Phi}|^\alpha
e^{ - \tr{\ParV} \SExIV{0^{M}}{\Phi} }
\right) <+ \infty,
\end{equation}
which ensures the integrability assumptions \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-2]} for the residuals considered in the proposition. The locality assumption \textbf{[N4]} is contained in \textbf{[Exp]}. Finally, an application of the dominated convergence theorem, with the help of (\ref{eq-propInteg}), shows \textbf{[N3]}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem-LJ}
Our setting is not restricted to locally stable exponential family models. As an example, following ideas of \cite{A-CoeDro09}, one may prove that \textbf{[C]} and \textbf{[N1-4]} are fulfilled for Lennard-Jones type models.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Assumptions \textbf{[E1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]} for the MPLE} \label{sec-hypEst}
Among the different parametric estimation methods available for spatial point patterns, the maximum pseudolikelihood is of particular interest. Indeed, unlike the maximum likelihood estimation method, it does not require the computation of the partition function, it is quite easy to implement and asymptotic results are now well-known (see \cite{A-JenMol91}, \cite{A-JenKun94}, \cite{A-BilCoeDro08}, \cite{A-DerLav09} and \cite{A-CoeDro09}). The MPLE is obtained by maximizing the log-pseudolikelihood contrast, given for exponential models by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-defLPL}
LPL_{\Lambda_n}(\varphi;\ParV) = -\ism[\Lambda_n \times \mathbbm{M}]{e^{-\tr{\ParV} \Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)}} \; - \; \tr{\ParV} \; \sum_{x\in \varphi} \Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi\setminus x^m).
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-MPLE} Under assumption \textbf{[Exp]} (and an additional indentifiability condition), \textbf{[E1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]} are fulfilled for the MPLE. The vector $\Vect{U}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParVT)$ in \textbf{[E2(bis)]} is then expressed as follows
\begin{equation} \label{eq-UMPLE}
\Vect{U}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParVT) := \Mat{H}(\ParVT)^{-1} \Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParVT) ,
\end{equation}
where $\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParVT)$ is the gradient vector of the log-pseudolikelihood given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-defLPL1}
\Vect{LPL}_\Lambda^{(1)}(\varphi;\ParVT) : =\ism{\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi;\ParVT) e^{-\tr{\ParVT}\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)} } - \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_\Lambda} \Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi\setminus x^m;\ParVT)
\end{equation}
and where $\Mat{H}(\ParVT)$ is the symmetric matrix
\begin{equation} \label{eq-defH}
\Mat{H}(\ParVT) := \Esp\left( \Vect{v}(0^M|\Phi;\ParVT) \tr{\Vect{v}(0^M|\Phi;\ParVT)}
\; e^{-\VIPar{0^M}{\Phi}{\ParVT}}
\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \textbf{[E1]} is proved by \cite{A-BilCoeDro08} (under \textbf{[Exp]} and the identifiability condition \textbf{[Ident]} arising p.244 in \cite{A-BilCoeDro08}). Let $\Vect{Z}_n(\varphi;\ParVT):=- |\Lambda_n|^{-1} \Vect{LPL}_{\Lambda_n}(\varphi;\ParVT)$. If $\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)=\widehat{\ParV}_n^{MPLE}(\varphi)$ denotes the maximum pseudolikelihood estimate, one derives
$$
\Vect{Z}_n^{(1)}(\varphi;\widehat{\ParV}_n)- \Vect{Z}_n^{(1)}(\varphi;\ParVT) =0 - \Vect{Z}_n^{(1)}(\varphi;\ParVT) =\Mat{H}_n(\varphi;\ParVT,\widehat{\ParV}_n)( \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT)$$ with
$\Mat{H}_n(\varphi;\ParVT,\widehat{\ParV}_n)= \int_0^t \Mat{Z}_n^{(2)} \left( \varphi;\ParVT + t(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT)\right)dt.$
Under assumptions \textbf{[Exp]} and \textbf{[Ident]}, then, for $n$ large enough, $\Mat{H}_n$ is invertible and converges almost surely towards the matrix $\Mat{H}(\ParVT)$ given by~\eqref{eq-defH}. Moreover, following the proof of Theorem~2 of \cite{A-BilCoeDro08} (see condition $(iii)$ p.257-258), we derive
$\Var (\Vect{Z}_n^{(1)}(\Phi;\ParVT ))=\mathcal{O}(|\Lambda_n|^{-1})$. So
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Lambda_n|^{1/2} \!\! \left( (\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi) -\ParVT ) + \Mat{H}^{-1}(\ParVT) \Vect{Z}_n^{(1)}(\Phi;\ParVT)\right) \!\!\!&=& \!\!\!- |\Lambda_n|^{1/2}\left( \Mat{H}_n^{-1}(\Phi;\widehat{\ParV}_n,\ParVT) - \Mat{H}^{-1}(\ParVT) \right) \Vect{Z}_n^{(1)}(\Phi;\ParVT) \\
&\to& 0,
\end{eqnarray*}
in probability as $n \to +\infty$. This implies (\ref{eq-UMPLE}). Finally, $\Vect{U}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParVT)$ fulfills properties $(i)-(v)$ in \textbf{[E2(bis)]} for the same reasons as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop-C12N13} and, for $(iii)$, from the proof of Theorem 2 (step 1, p. 257) in \cite{A-BilCoeDro08}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In the same spirit as Remark~\ref{rem-LJ}, let us underline that the MPLE also satisfies \textbf{[E1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]} for some non locally stable and non exponential family models, including Lennard-Jones type models (provided a locality assumption).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Estimation of asymptotic covariance matrices when considering the MPLE} \label{sec-estMatMPLE}
We still focus on exponential family models. As in Section~\ref{sec-defEstMat}, we assume that the point process is observed in the domain $\Lambda_{n_0}\oplus D^+$ where $D^+\geq D$ and $\Lambda_{n_0}$ is a cube. Moreover, we consider the decomposition $\Lambda_{n_0}=\cup_{k\in \mathcal K_{n_0}}\Delta_k(\delta)$, for any $\delta$ such that $|\Lambda_{n_0}|\delta^{-d}\in\NN$, where the $\Delta_k(\delta)$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $\delta$ and centered, without loss of generality, at $k\delta$.
From (\ref{def-Rinfty}) and \eqref{eq-UMPLE}, we have under the assumptions \textbf{[Exp]} and when considering the MPLE
\begin{equation} \label{eq-RinftyMPLE}
R_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\ParVT) := I_\Lambda(\varphi;h,\ParVT) - \tr{\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}(\varphi;\ParVT)} \Vect{W}(h,\ParVT)
\end{equation}
where $\Vect{W}(h,\ParV) := \Mat{H}(\ParV)^{-1} \Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h,\ParV)$. A natural estimator of $\Vect{W}(h,\ParVT)$ is given by $\widehat{\Vect{W}}_{n_0}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}):=\widehat{\Mat{H}}_{n_0}(\varphi;\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})^{-1} \widehat{\Vect{\mathcal{E}}}_{n_0}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})$ where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{\Mat{H}}_{n_0}(\varphi;\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}) &=& |\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1} \ism[\Lambda_{n_0} \times \mathbbm{M}]{ \Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi) \tr{\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)}
e^{-\tr{\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}}\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi) }}, \\
\widehat{\Vect{\mathcal{E}}}_{n_0}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}) &=& |\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1} \ism[\Lambda_{n_0} \times \mathbbm{M}]{
h(x^m,\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})
\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi) e^{-\tr{\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}}\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi) } }. \\
\end{eqnarray*}
In this spirit, let $\widehat{R}_{n_0,\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}):= I_{\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})-\tr{\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_\Lambda(\varphi;\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}) } \widehat{\Vect{W}}_{n_0}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})$ and \\ $\widehat{\Vect{R}}_{n_0,\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;\Vect{h},\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}):= \left( \widehat{R}_{n_0,\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h_j,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})\right)_{j=1,\ldots,s}$. Based on these notation, we obtain the following estimations for $\lambda_{Inn}, \lambda_{Res}$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Inn}(\varphi,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi),\delta,D^\vee) &=& \!\!\!|\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1} \;\sum_{i\in \mathcal K_{n_0}} \;\;\sum_{j \in \mathbbm{B}_i\left( \left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta}\right\rceil \right)\cap \mathcal K_{n_0}} \!\!\!\!\!\!
I_{\Delta_i(\delta)}\left(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi) \right) I_{\Delta_j(\delta)}\left(\varphi; \widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi) \right), \\
\widehat{\lambda}_{n_0,Res}(\varphi,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi),\delta,D^\vee) &=&\!\!\! |\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1} \;\sum_{i\in \mathcal K_{n_0}} \;\;\sum_{j \in \mathbbm{B}_i\left( \left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta}\right\rceil \right)\cap \mathcal K_{n_0}} \!\!\!\!\!\!
\widehat{R}_{\infty,\Delta_i(\delta)}(\varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})
\widehat{R}_{\infty,\Delta_j(\delta)}(\Phi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}), \\
\widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_2}_{n_0}(\varphi,\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0}(\varphi),\delta,D^\vee) &=& \!\!\!|\Lambda_{n_0}|^{-1} \;\sum_{i\in \mathcal K_{n_0}} \;\;\sum_{j \in \mathbbm{B}_i\left( \left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta}\right\rceil \right)\cap \mathcal K_{n_0}} \!\!\!\!\!\!
\widehat{\Vect{R}}_{\infty,\Delta_i(\delta)}(\varphi;\Vect{h},\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})
\tr{ \widehat{\Vect{R}}_{\infty,\Delta_j(\delta)}(\varphi;\Vect{h},\widehat{\ParV}_{n_0})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor-PD} Under the notation and assumptions of Propositions~\ref{prop-fwk1} and~\ref{prop-fwk2}, and under \textbf{[Exp]}, then, for any $\delta>0$ as above, one can consider a sequence $\delta_n$ which satisfies $\delta_{n_0}=\delta$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$, such that for any $D^\vee\geq D$, the estimators
$\widehat{\lambda}_{n,Inn}(\Phi,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi),\delta_n,D^\vee)$, $\widehat{\lambda}_{n,Res}(\Phi,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi),\delta_n,D^\vee)$ and
$\widehat{\Mat{\Sigma}_2}_n(\Phi,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi),\delta_n,D^\vee)$ converge in probability (as $n\to +\infty$) towards respectively $\lambda_{Inn}$, $\lambda_{Res}$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We apply Proposition \ref{consistance}, where for any $\ParV \in \mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$, we set
\begin{itemize}
\item for $\lambda_{Inn}$: $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)=\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)= I_\Lambda(\varphi;h,\ParV)$.
\item for $\lambda_{Res}$: $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)=R_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\ParV)$ and $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV) = \widehat{R}_{n,\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;h,\ParV)$.
\item for $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$: $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\varphi;\ParV)=\Vect{R}_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;\Vect{h},\ParV)$ and $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParV)=\widehat{\Vect{R}}_{n,\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;\Vect{h},\ParV)$.
\end{itemize}
The result is obvious for $\lambda_{Inn}$. For $\lambda_{Res}$ (the proof is similar for $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$), it remains to prove that for any $\ParV \in \SpPar$, $\sup_{k \in \mathcal{K}_n}\left| \widehat{R}_{n,\infty,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\Phi;h,\ParV) -{R}_{n,\infty,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\Phi;h,\ParV)\right| \to 0$ in probability as $n\to +\infty$. For any $k \in \mathcal K_n$, we derive
$$
\widehat{R}_{n,\infty,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\Phi;h,\ParV) - R_{\infty,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\Phi;h,\ParV) = \tr{\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\varphi;\ParV)} \left( \Vect{W}(h,\ParV)-\widehat{\Vect{W}}_n(\varphi;h,\ParV) \right).
$$
Assumption \textbf{[E2(bis)]} (implied by \textbf{[Exp]}, see Proposition \ref{prop-MPLE}) ensures that $|\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(\delta_n)\setminus \Delta_k(\delta)}(\Phi;\ParV)|$ converges to 0 in quadratic mean. In particular, the convergence of $\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(\delta_n)}(\Phi;\ParV)$ towards $\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(\delta)}(\Phi;\ParV)$ holds in probability. Moreover under the assumptions \textbf{[N1]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}, the ergodic theorem of \cite{A-NguZes79} may be applied to prove that $\widehat{\Vect{W}}_n(\Phi;h,\ParV)$ converges almost surely towards $\Vect{W}(h,\ParV)$, as $n\to +\infty$. Slutsky's theorem ends the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If the model is not an exponential model, Corollary~\ref{cor-PD} still holds by replacing the vector of the sufficient statistics, $\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)$, by the gradient vector of the local energy function, $\Vect{V}^{(1)}(x^m|\varphi)$ in the different definitions.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Positive definiteness of covariance matrices when considering the MPLE} \label{sec-PDMatMPLE}
Let us now focus on the positive-definitess of the above quantities. According to Proposition \ref{prop-sdp} the key assumption to check is \textbf{[PD]}.
As adressed in Remark~\ref{rem-lInn}, we begin by giving a general result ensuring that $\lambda_{Inn}>0$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-lInn}
Under the assumption \textbf{[Exp]}, then $\lambda_{Inn}>0$ for the raw residuals, the Pearson residuals and the inverse residuals.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In \textbf{[PD]}, we fix $\overline{\delta}=D$ and $B=\emptyset$. Let us write $\overline{\Omega}:=\overline{\Omega}_{\emptyset}$. Consider the following events for some $n\geq 1$
$$
A_0= \left\{ \varphi \in \overline{\Omega}: \varphi(\Delta_0(\overline{\delta}) )=0 \right\} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad
A_n = \left\{ \varphi \in \overline{\Omega}: \varphi(\Delta_0(\overline{\delta}))=n \right\},
$$
and let $\varphi_0\in A_0$ and $\varphi_n\in A_n$. Recall that the local stability property (ensured by \textbf{[Exp]}) asserts that there exists $K\geq 0$ such that $\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\ParVT} \geq -K$ for any $x^m\in \mathbb{S}$ and any $\varphi\in \Omega$. Now, let us consider the three type of residuals.\\
{\it Raw residuals $(h=1)$.} From the local stability property
$$
| I_{\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi_n;h,\ParVT) - I_{\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi_0;h,\ParVT) | \geq n - \left| \ism[\overline{\Lambda}\times \mathbbm{M}]{ e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi_n}{\ParVT}}-e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi_0}{\ParVT}} }\right| \geq n - 2|\overline{\Lambda}| e^{K}>0,
$$
for $n$ large enough. And so assuming that the left-hand-side is zero leads to a contradiction, which proves \textbf{[PD]}.\\
{\it Inverse residuals ($h=e^V$).} Again, from the local stability property
$$
\left| I_{\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi_n;h,\ParVT) - I_{\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi_0;h,\ParVT) \right| = \left|\sum_{x^m\in {\varphi_n}_{\overline{\Lambda}}} e^{\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi_n\setminus x^m}{\ParVT}} \right|\geq n e^{-K}>0,
$$
which proves \textbf{[PD]} similarly to the previous case. \\
{\it Pearson residuals ($h=e^{V/2}$).} From the same argument
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| I_{\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi_n;h,\ParVT) - I_{\overline{\Lambda}}(\varphi_0;h,\ParVT) \right| &\geq& \bigg|\sum_{x^m\in {\varphi_n}_{\overline{\Lambda}}} e^{\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi_n\setminus x^m}{\ParVT}/2} \bigg| - \\
&&\left| \ism[\overline{\Lambda}\times \mathbbm{M}]{ e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi_n}{\ParVT}/2}-e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi_0}{\ParVT}/2} }\right| \\
&\geq & n e^{-K/2} - 2 |\overline{\Lambda}| e^{K/2} >0,
\end{eqnarray*}
for $n$ large enough, which ends the proof.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop-lInn} asserts that \textbf{[PD]} is fullfilled for $\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)={I}_{\overline{\Lambda}} \left(\Phi;\ParVT\right)$. Therefore, the combination of Propositions~\ref{prop-C12N13},~\ref{prop-MPLE} and~\ref{prop-lInn} and Corollary~\ref{cor-PD} ensures all the conditions of Corollary~\ref{cor-test-quadrat} hold. So a goodness-of-fit test based on~\eqref{test-quadrat} is valid for exponential family models satisfying \textbf{[Exp]} and for the raw residuals, the Pearson residuals and the inverse ones.
Now, let us focus on tests based on Corollary~\ref{cor-T1prime} and~\ref{cor-T2}. The following result is important from a practical point of view. It asserts that $\lambda_{Res}$ (and so $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$), and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ may fail to be positive-definite for an inappropriate choice of test function.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-PDfails}
Let us consider an exponential family model, let $\widehat{\ParV}:=\widehat{\ParV}^{MPLE}$ and let us choose a test function of the form $h(x^m,\varphi;\ParV)= \tr{\Vect{\omega}} \Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)$ for some $\Vect{\omega}\in \RR[p]\setminus 0$, then $\lambda_{Res}=0$ and the matrices $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ in Propositions~\ref{prop-fwk1} and~\ref{prop-fwk2} are only semidefinite-positive matrices.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The result is proved by noticing that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Mat{H}(\ParVT) \; \Vect{\omega} &=& \Esp \left( \Vect{v} (0^M|\Phi) \tr{\Vect{v} (0^M|\Phi)} e^{-\VIPar{0^M}{\Phi}{\ParVT}} \right) \; \Vect{\omega} \\
&=& \Esp \left( \Vect{v} (0^M|\Phi) \tr{ \left( \tr{\Vect{\omega}}\Vect{v} (0^M|\Phi) \right)} e^{-\VIPar{0^M}{\Phi}{\ParVT}} \right) \\
&=& \Esp \left( h(0^M,\Phi;\ParVT) \Vect{v} (0^M|\Phi) e^{-\VIPar{0^M}{\Phi}{\ParVT}} \right) =\Vect{\mathcal E}( \tr{\Vect{\omega}} \Vect{v}, \ParVT).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, $\Vect{W}\left( \tr{\Vect{\omega}} \Vect{v}, \ParVT\right)= \Mat{H}(\ParVT)^{-1} \Vect{\mathcal{E}}(\tr{\omega} \Vect{v}, \ParVT)=
\Vect{\omega}$, which means that for any $\varphi\in \Omega$ and any bounded domain $\Lambda$
$$
R_{\infty,\Lambda}(\varphi;\tr{\Vect{\omega}}\Vect{v},\ParVT) = I_\Lambda(\varphi;\tr{\Vect{\omega}}\Vect{v},\ParVT) - \tr{\Vect{LPL}^{(1)}_{\Lambda}(\varphi;\ParVT) }\Vect{\omega} =0.
$$
This means that if, for the framework~1, the test function is of the form $h=\tr{\Vect{\omega}}\Vect{v}$ then $\lambda_{Res}=0$ and
if one of the test functions, for the framework~2, is of the form $h=\tr{\Vect{\omega}}\Vect{v}$, then $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ is necessary singular.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
As for Corollary~\ref{cor-PD}, the result of Proposition~\ref{prop-PDfails} still holds in general by replacing the vector $\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)$ by the gradient vector of the local energy function $\Vect{V}^{(1)}(x^m|\varphi)$.
\end{remark}
As a consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop-PDfails}, the two goodness-of-fit tests based on $T'_{1,n}$ and $T_{2,n}$ in Section~\ref{sec-T1prime} and \ref{sec-T2} are not available (for the MPLE) if the test function $h$ is a linear combination of the sufficient statistics $\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)$. Since for most classical models, the value 1 can be obtained from a linear combination of $\Vect{v}(x^m|\varphi)$, the raw residuals ($h=1$) are not an appropriate choice for these two tests. This is the case for the two following examples: the area-interaction point process and the 2-type marked Strauss point process, which are presented in details in Appendix \ref{exemplesPD}. The following result proves that for a different choice of $h-$residuals, $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ and $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ are positive-definite.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-exemples}
For the 2-type marked Strauss point process and the area-interaction point process, when considering the MPLE as an estimator of $\ParVT$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item the matrix $\Mat{\Sigma}_1(\ParVT)$ obtained in Framework 1 from the inverse residuals $h=e^V$,
\item the matrix $\Mat{\Sigma}_2(\ParVT)$ obtained in Framework 2 from the empty space residuals, which are constructed for $0<r_1<\ldots<r_s<+\infty$ from the family of test functions
$$h_j(x^m,\varphi;\ParV)= \mathbf{1}_{[0,r_j]}(d(x^m,\varphi)) e^{V\left(x^m|\varphi;\ParV\right)},\quad j=1,\ldots,s,$$
\end{itemize}
are positive-definite.
\end{proposition}
The proof of this result is postponed in Appendix~\ref{exemplesPD}. The combination of Propositions~\ref{prop-C12N13},~\ref{prop-MPLE},~\ref{prop-exemples} and Corollary~\ref{cor-PD} ensures all the conditions of Corollary~\ref{cor-T1prime} and~\ref{cor-T2} hold. So a goodness-of-fit test based on~\eqref{eq-T1n} (resp.~\eqref{eq-T2n}) is valid for the 2-type marked Strauss point process and the area-interaction point process and for the inverse residuals (resp. the family of test functions based on the empty space function).
Following the Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-exemples}, it is the belief of the authors that such a result holds for other models and other choices of test functions. However, another model and/or test functions will lead to a specific proof. Therefore, this result cannot be as general as the one presented in Proposition~\ref{prop-lInn}.
\section{The non-hereditary case}\label{non-hereditary}
Up to here, we have assumed through \textbf{[Mod-E]} that the family of energies is hereditary. We consider in this section the non-hereditary case. This particular situation can only occur in presence of a hardcore interaction. From a general point of view, we say that a family of energies involves a hardcore interaction if some point configurations have an infinite energy. Many classical models of Gibbs measures include a hardcore part, as the hard ball model.
A family of energies involving a hardcore part is hereditary if (\ref{heredite}) holds. This is a common assumption done for Gibbs energies and it appears to be fulfilled in most classical models, including the hard ball model. However, one may encounter some non-hereditary models, in the sense that (\ref{heredite}) does not hold. Intuitively, in this case, when one removes a point from an allowed point configuration, it is possible to obtain a forbidden point configuration. This occurs for instance for Gibbs Delaunay-Voronoï tessellations or forced-clustering processes (see \cite{A-DerLav09} and \cite{A-DerLav10}).
In the non-hereditary case, the GNZ formula (\ref{GNZnonstat}), which is the basis to define the residuals, becomes false (see Remark 2 in \cite{A-DerLav09}). It is extended to non-hereditary interactions in \cite{A-DerLav09}. This generalization requires to introduce the notion of removable points.
\begin{definition}
Let $\varphi\in\Omega$ and $x\in\varphi$, then $x$ is removable from $\varphi$ if there exists $\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])$ such that $x\in\Lambda$ and $V_{\Lambda}(\varphi-x; \ParV)<\infty$. The set of removable points in $\varphi$ is denoted by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}(\varphi)$.
\end{definition}
Notice that in the hereditary case, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}(\varphi)=\varphi$.
The GNZ formula is then generalized to the non-hereditary case as follows. Assuming for any $\ParV \in \SpPar$ that a Gibbs measure exists for the family of energies $(V_{\Lambda}(.;\ParV))_{\Lambda\in\mathcal{B}(\RR[d])}$, then, for any function $h(\cdot,\cdot,\ParV): \mathbbm{S}\times \Omega\to \RR$ such that the following quantities are finite,
\begin{equation}\label{GNZnon-hereditary}
\Esp\left( \ism[ \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbbm{M}]{h\left(x^m,\Phi;\ParV\right) e^{- \VIPar{x^m}{\Phi}{\ParVT}}} \right) =
\Esp\left( \sum_{x^m \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}(\Phi) } h\left(x^m,\Phi\setminus x^m;\ParV\right) \right).
\end{equation}
We can therefore define the $h-$residuals for (possibly) non-hereditary interactions. For any bounded domain $\Lambda$, if $\widehat{\ParV}$ is an estimate of $\ParVT$, the $h-$residuals are
\begin{equation}\label{resnon-hereditary}
R_{\Lambda}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV} \right) = \ism[\Lambda\times \mathbbm{M}]{h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV} \right) e^{-\VIPar{x^m}{\varphi}{\widehat{\ParV}}}} - \sum_{x^m\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}(\varphi_\Lambda)} h \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \widehat{\ParV} \right).\end{equation}
If the set of removable points $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}(\varphi)$ does not depend on $\ParV$, it is straightforward to extend all the asymptotic results obtained for the residuals in the preceding sections to (\ref{resnon-hereditary}).
If the set of removable points depends on $\ParV$, this is false. Even in the hereditary case, if $\ParV$ is a hardcore parameter (as the hardcore distance in the hard ball model) then $\widehat{\ParV}$ behaves as an estimator of the support of the distribution $P_{\ParV}$. In this case assumption \textbf{[E2]} has typically few chances to hold and the asymptotic law of the residuals is unknown. In \cite{A-DerLav10} Figure 15, some simulations of raw-residuals for Gibbs Voronoï tessellations are presented, involving an estimated hardcore parameter in a non-hereditary setting : they show that the distribution of the residuals does not seem to be gaussian in this case.
\section{Proofs} \label{sec-proofs}
Since any stationary Gibbs measure can be represented as a mixture of ergodic measures (see \cite{B-Pre76}), it is sufficient to prove the different convergences involved in this paper for ergodic measures. We therefore assume from now on that $P_{\ParVT}$ is ergodic.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-cons}}
(a) Under \textbf{[C1]}, the ergodic theorem of \cite{A-NguZes79} holds for both terms appearing in the definition of~$I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\ParVT \right)$. Then, as $n\to +\infty$, one has $P_{\ParVT}-$a.s.
$$
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1} I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right) \rightarrow
\Esp\left( h \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right) e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}
\right) -\Esp\left( h \left( 0^M , \Phi\setminus 0^M ; \ParVT \right)
\right),
$$
which equals to 0 from the GNZ formula~(\ref{GNZ}).\\
(b) The aim is to prove that the difference $|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1}R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right)-|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1}I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\ParVT \right)$ converges towards 0 for $P_{\ParVT}-$a.e. $\varphi$. Let us write
$$
R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right)-I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right):=T_1(\varphi)-T_2(\varphi)
$$
with
\begin{eqnarray}
T_1(\varphi)&:=& \ism[\tilde\Lambda_n\times \mathbbm{M}]{\left(
f \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) - f \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right)
\right)} \label{eq-defT1}
\\
T_2(\varphi) &:=& \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}}
h \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) - h \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right). \label{eq-defT2}
\end{eqnarray}
Under the Assumptions~\textbf{[C2]} and \textbf{[E1]}, from the ergodic theorem and the GNZ formula, there exists $n_0\in \NN$ such that for all $n\geq n_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1}T_1(\varphi) &\leq& \frac2{|\tilde\Lambda_n|} \ism[\tilde\Lambda_n\times \mathbbm{M}]{ \tr{\left(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT \right)}
\Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) } \nonumber \\
&\leq & 2 \|\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT \| \times \frac1{|\tilde\Lambda_n|}\ism[\tilde\Lambda_n\times \mathbbm{M}]{\| \Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) \|} \nonumber\\
&\leq& 4 \|\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT \| \times \Esp\left( \| \Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\|\right) , \label{eq-T1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1}T_2(\varphi) &\leq& \frac2{|\tilde\Lambda_n|} \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}} \tr{\left(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT \right)} \Vect{h}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi \setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right) \nonumber \\
&\leq& 4 \|\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT \| \times \Esp\left( \| \Vect{h}^{(1)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\|e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}\right). \label{eq-T2}
\end{eqnarray}
Equations~(\ref{eq-T1}) and~(\ref{eq-T2}) lead to
$$
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1}R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right)-|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1} I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\ParVT \right) \leq c \|\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT \|,
$$
for $n$ large enough, with $c=4 \times \Esp\left(\| \Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\|+\| \Vect{h}^{(1)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\|e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}\right)$.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-equiv}}
Recall that
$$ R_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) - I_{\tilde\Lambda_n}\left( \varphi;h,\ParVT \right)= T_1(\varphi)-T_2(\varphi)$$
where $T_1(\varphi)$ and $T_2(\varphi)$ are defined by~(\ref{eq-defT1}) and~(\ref{eq-defT2}). Let us write
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_1(\varphi) &=& \ism[\tilde\Lambda_n \times \mathbbm{M}]{\tr{\left(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT\right)} \Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right)} + T^\prime_1(\varphi) \\
T_2(\varphi) &=& \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}} \tr{\left(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT\right)} \Vect{h}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right) + T^\prime_2(\varphi),
\end{eqnarray*}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_1^\prime(\varphi) &:=& \ism[\tilde\Lambda_n \times \mathbbm{M}]{A_1 \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right)}\\
T_2^\prime(\varphi) &=& \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}} A_2 \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_1 \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) &:=& f \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n \right)- f \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) - \tr{\left(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT\right)} \Vect{f}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right)\\
A_2 \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) &:=&h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n \right)- h \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) - \tr{\left(\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)-\ParVT\right)} \Vect{h}^{(1)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
From the mean value theorem, there exist for $j=1,\ldots,p$,\\ $\mathbf{\xi}_{1,j},\mathbf{\xi}_{2,j} \in [\min(\widehat{\theta}_1,\theta_1^\star),\max(\widehat{\theta}_1,\theta_1^\star)]\times \ldots\times
[\min(\widehat{\theta}_p,\theta_p^\star),\max(\widehat{\theta}_p,\theta_p^\star)]$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
A_1 \left( x^m , \varphi ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \sum_{j=1}^p (\widehat{\theta}_j -\theta_j^\star) \left(
{f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \mathbf{\xi}_{1,j} \right)- {f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right)\right) \label{eq-res1}\\
\; A_2 \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi) \right) \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \sum_{j=1}^p (\widehat{\theta}_j -\theta_j^\star) \left(
{h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \mathbf{\xi}_{2,j} \right)- {h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right)\right). \label{eq-res2}
\end{eqnarray}
Let $j \in \{1,\ldots,p\}$, again from the mean value theorem, there exist for $\ell=1,2$ and for $k=1,\ldots,p$, $\mathbf{\eta}_{\ell,j,k} \in [\min(\mathbf{\xi}_{\ell,j,1},\theta_1^\star),\max(\mathbf{\xi}_{\ell,j,1},\theta_1^\star)]\times \ldots\times[\min(\mathbf{\xi}_{\ell,j,p},\theta_p^\star),\max(\mathbf{\xi}_{\ell,j,p},\theta_p^\star)]
$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
{f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \mathbf{\xi}_{1,j} \right)- {f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) &=& \sum_{k=1}^p \left( \mathbf{\xi}_{1,j,k}-\theta_k^\star\right) f^{(2)}_{jk} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \mathbf{\eta}_{1,j,k} \right) \label{eq-res3}\\
\quad {h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \mathbf{\xi}_{2,j} \right)-{h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right) &=& \sum_{k=1}^p \left( \mathbf{\xi}_{2,j,k}-\theta_k^\star\right) h^{(2)}_{jk} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \mathbf{\eta}_{2,j,k} \right). \label{eq-res4}
\end{eqnarray}
By combining~(\ref{eq-res1}), (\ref{eq-res2}), (\ref{eq-res3}) and~(\ref{eq-res4}) and under \textbf{[N1]}, we can deduce the existence of $n_0 \in \NN$ such that for all $n\geq n_0$, one has for $P_{\ParVT}-$a.e. $\varphi$
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1} |T_1^\prime(\varphi)| &\leq & \frac2{|\tilde\Lambda_n|} \ism[\tilde\Lambda_n \times \mathbbm{M}]{
\sum_{j,k} \left| (\widehat{\theta}_j-\theta_j^\star)(\widehat{\theta}_k-\theta_k^\star) f^{(2)}_{jk} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) \right|} \\
&\leq& 2 \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT \|^2 \times \frac1{|\tilde\Lambda_n|} \ism[\tilde\Lambda_n \times \mathbbm{M}]{ \| \Vect{\underline{f}}^{(2)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right)\|} \\
&\leq& 4 \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT \|^2 \times \Esp\left( \| \Vect{\underline{f}}^{(2)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\|\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1} |T_2^\prime(\varphi)| &\leq & \frac2{|\tilde\Lambda_n|} \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}}
\sum_{j,k} \left| (\widehat{\theta}_j-\theta_j^\star)(\widehat{\theta}_k-\theta_k^\star) h^{(2)}_{jk} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right) \right| \\
&\leq& 2 \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT \|^2 \times \frac1{|\tilde\Lambda_n|} \sum_{x^m \in \varphi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}} \| \Vect{\underline{h}}^{(2)}_{} \left( x^m , \varphi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right) \| \\
&\leq& 4 \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT \|^2 \times \Esp\left( \| \Vect{\underline{h}}^{(2)}_{} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\|e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
{}|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{1/2} \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT \|^2 = \left(\frac{|\tilde\Lambda_n|}{|\Lambda_n|}\right)^{1/2} \| \; |\Lambda_n|^{1/2} (\widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT)\| \times \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\varphi)- \ParVT\|{}
\end{eqnarray*}
then, under the assumptions of Proposition~\ref{prop-equiv}, one has, from Slustsky's theorem, the following convergence in probability as $n \to +\infty$
$$
{}|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{1/2} \| \widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi)- \ParVT \|^2 \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} 0.
$$
By combining all these results, one obtains the following convergence in probability, as $n\to+\infty$
$$
{}|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1/2}\left(T_1(\Phi) - T_2(\Phi)- |\tilde\Lambda_n| \tr{\left( \widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi)-\ParVT\right)} \Vect{X}_{\tilde\Lambda_n}(\Phi) \right)
= |\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1/2} \left( T^\prime_1(\Phi) - T^\prime_2(\Phi) \right)
\stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} 0.
$$
where $\Vect{X}_{\tilde\Lambda_n}(\Phi)$ is the random vector defined for all $j=1,\ldots,p$ by
$$
\left(\Vect{X}_{\tilde\Lambda_n}(\Phi)\right)_j := \frac{1}{|\tilde\Lambda_n| }\ism[\tilde\Lambda_n\times \mathbbm{M}]{ {f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \Phi ; \ParVT \right)} -\frac{1}{|\tilde\Lambda_n| } \sum_{x^m \in \Phi_{\tilde\Lambda_n}} {h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( x^m , \Phi\setminus x^m ; \ParVT \right).
$$
By using the ergodic theorem and the GNZ formula, one has $P_{\ParVT}-$a.s. as $n\to +\infty$
$$
\left(\Vect{X}_{\tilde\Lambda_n}(\Phi)\right)_j \rightarrow \Esp\left( {f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right) - {h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( 0^M , \Phi ; \ParVT \right) e^{- V^{}\left( 0^M|\Phi; \ParVT \right)}\right).
$$
Finally, let us notice that for all $(m,\varphi) \in \mathbbm{M}\times \Omega$ and for all $j=1,\ldots,p$
\begin{eqnarray*}
{f}^{(1)}_{j} \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_j} \left. \left( h \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right) e^{- V^{}\left( 0^m|\varphi; \ParV \right)} \right) \right|_{\ParV=\ParVT}\\
&=& {h}^{(1)}_{j} \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParVT \right) e^{- V^{}\left( 0^m|\varphi; \ParVT \right)} - h \left( 0^m , \varphi ; \ParV \right) {V}^{(1)}_{j}\left( 0^m|\varphi; \ParVT \right)e^{- V^{}\left( 0^m|\varphi; \ParVT \right)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore $\left(\Vect{X}_{\tilde\Lambda_n}(\Phi)\right)_j \rightarrow -\Vect{\mathcal{E}}_j(h,\ParVT)$ $P_{\ParVT}-$a.s. as $n\to +\infty$. This finally leads to the following convergence in probability, as $n\to+\infty$
$$
|\tilde\Lambda_n|^{-1/2}\left(T_1(\Phi) -T_2(\Phi) +|\tilde\Lambda_n| \tr{\left( \widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi)-\ParVT\right)} \Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h;\ParVT)) \right) \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} 0.
$$
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk1}}
Let us first state a result widely used in the following.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem-centCond}
For any bounded domain $\Lambda$ and for any test function $h$
\begin{equation} \label{eq-centCond}
\Esp \left( I_\Lambda ( \Phi ;h,\ParVT ) | \Phi_{\Lambda^c} \right) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-centCond} is omitted since it corresponds to the proof of Theorem~2 (Step~1, p.~257) of \cite{A-BilCoeDro08} by subsituting $v_j(x^m|\varphi)$ by the test function $h(x^m,\varphi;\ParVT)$. \\
For all $n\in\NN$, the domain $\Lambda_n$ is assumed to be a cube divided as $\Lambda_n = \bigcup_{j \in \mathcal J} \Lambda_{j,n}$ where for all $j\in\mathcal J$, the $\Lambda_{j,n}$'s are disjoint cubes. So $|\Lambda_n|=|\mathcal J||\Lambda_{j,n}|=|\mathcal J||\Lambda_{0,n}|$. Moreover, for all $j\in\mathcal J$, we can decompose each $\Lambda_{j,n}$ in the following way :
\begin{equation}\label{decomposition}
\Lambda_{j,n} := \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal K_{j,n}} \Delta_k(D_n)\end{equation}
where the $\Delta_k(D_n)$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $D_n$ and $\mathcal K_{j,n}\subset\ZZ[d]$. The side-length $D_n$ is chosen greater than $D$ and as close as possible to $D$, leading to
$$D_n= \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{|\mathcal J|^{1/d}\left\lfloor \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{|\mathcal J|^{1/d}D}\right\rfloor}.$$
This choice implies $D_n\to D$ when $n\to\infty$ and guarantees $D\leq D_n \leq 2D$ as soon as $|\Lambda_n|\geq|\mathcal J|D^d$.
The cubes $\Lambda_{j,n}$'s are therefore divided into $|\mathcal K_{j,n}|=|\Lambda_{0,n}|D_n^{-d}$ cubes whose volumes are closed to $D^d$. Denoting $\mathcal K_{n}=\bigcup_{j \in \mathcal J} \mathcal K_{j,n}$, we have $|\mathcal K_n|=|\Lambda_n|D_n^{-d}=|\mathcal J||\mathcal K_{j,n}|$ and finally
\begin{equation}\label{eq-decompLnF1}
\Lambda_n = \bigcup_{j \in \mathcal J} \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal K_{j,n}} \Delta_k(D_n) = \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal K_n} \Delta_k(D_n).
\end{equation}
From Proposition~\ref{prop-equiv} and under Assumption~\textbf{[E2(bis)]}, one has for any $j\in\mathcal J$
$$
{}|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi) \right) = {}|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty, \Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,{\ParVT} \right) + o_P(1),
$$
where $R_{\infty, \Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,{\ParVT} \right)$ is defined in (\ref{def-Rinfty}).
Therefore the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk1} reduces to the proof of the asymptotic normality of the vector $\left(|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)\right)_{j\in\mathcal J}$. Now
\begin{align}\label{somme}
{}|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right) &=
{}|\Lambda_{0,n}|^{-1/2}\left( {I}_{\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi ; h, \ParVT \right) -
\frac{|\Lambda_{0,n}|}{|\Lambda_n|} \tr{{\Vect{U}}_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) }\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h;\ParVT)
\right) \nonumber\\
& = \frac{|\Lambda_{0,n}|^{1/2}}{|\Lambda_n|} \left(|\mathcal J|\times I_{\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi ; h, \ParVT \right) - \tr{ {\Vect{U}}_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) }\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h;\ParVT)\right) \nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{D_n^{d/2} |\mathcal J|^{1/2}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|^{1/2}} \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n} W_{j,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right),
\end{align}
where for any $\varphi \in \Omega$
\begin{equation}\label{defW}
W_{j,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{}W^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right): =|\mathcal J|\times I_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; h, \ParVT \right) &\\
\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad-\tr{\Vect{U}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right) }\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h;\ParVT) & \mbox{ if } k\in \mathcal K_{j,n},\\
W^{(2)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right):= - \tr{{\Vect{U}}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right) }\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h;\ParVT) & \mbox{ if } k\in \mathcal K_n\setminus \mathcal K_{j,n}.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Therefore, to prove a central limit theorem for the vector $\left(|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)\right)_{j\in\mathcal J}$, it suffices to apply Theorem \ref{tcl} (see Appendix \ref{annexe-tcl}), where in its statement we choose $\Vect Z_{n,k}=(W_{j,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}(\Phi;\ParVT))_{j\in\mathcal J}$, $X_{n,i}=\Phi_{\Delta_i(D_n)}$ and $p=|\mathcal J|$. For this, we first have to specify the asymptotic variance matrix $\Mat \Sigma$, then to check the assumptions of Theorem \ref{tcl}.\\
{\it \underline{First step}: computation of the asymptotic variance.}
Let us fix a cartesian coordinate system such that $0$ is the center of $\Lambda_n$.
We assume, without loss of generality, that $|\mathcal J|$ is odd. Moreover, we can always choose an odd number $|\mathcal K_{j,n}|$ of cubes $\Delta_k(D_n)$ in (\ref{decomposition}). Consequently, $\Lambda_{0,n}$ may be centered at $0$ and each $\Delta_k(D_n)$ is centered at $kD_n$, $k\in\ZZ[d]$. Note that if $|\mathcal J|$ was even, each $\Delta_k(D_n)$ would be centered at $kD_n/2$.
So, in this system, $\mathcal K_n$ is a subset of $\ZZ[d]$, independent of $D_n$, with $|\mathcal K_n|=|\mathcal J|\left\lfloor \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{|\mathcal J|^{1/d}D}\right\rfloor^d$ elements.
Set, for all $k,k' \in \ZZ[d]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)} (D_n):= \Esp\left(
W^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W^{(1)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
\right) \\
E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n) :=\Esp\left(
W^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W^{(2)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
\right) \\
E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)} (D_n):= \Esp\left(
W^{(2)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W^{(2)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
\right)
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that from the stationarity of the point process, we have $E_{k,k^\prime}^{(l)}(D_n)=E_{0,k-k^\prime}^{(l)}(D_n)$, for $l=1,12,2$.
Moreover, under Assumptions \textbf{[N4]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}, for any $k\in \mathcal K_n$ and for any configuration $\varphi$, since $D_n\geq D$, $W^{(i)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right)$, $i=1,2$, depends only on $\varphi_{\Delta_l(D_n)}$ for $|l-k|\leq 1$ that is $l\in\mathbbm{B}_k(1)$. As a consequence, if $k^\prime\in\mathbbm{B}^c_k(1)$, $W^{(i)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)$ is a measurable function of $\Phi_{\Delta_k^c(D_n)}$. This leads, for $i,j=1,2$, to
\begin{align}\label{markov}
\Esp \left( W^{(i)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
W^{(j)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
\right)
&= \Esp\left( \Esp\left(
W^{(i)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
W^{(j)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) | \Phi_{\Delta_k^c(D_n)}
\right) \right)\nonumber\\
&= \Esp\left( W^{(i)}_{\Delta_{k^\prime}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
\Esp\left(
W^{(j)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)
{}| \Phi_{\Delta_k^c(D_n)}
\right) \right).
\end{align}
From Lemma~\ref{lem-centCond} and under \textbf{[E2(bis)]} then for any $k\in \ZZ[d]$ and for $i=1,2$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq-propMarkovW}
\Esp\left(
W^{(i)}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) | \Phi_{\Delta_k^c(D_n)}
\right) =0.
\end{equation}
From (\ref{markov}) and (\ref{eq-propMarkovW}), we deduce that, for $l=1,12,2$,
\begin{equation}\label{portee}
k^\prime\in\mathbbm{B}^c_k(1) \Longrightarrow E^{(l)}_{k,k'}(D_n)=0.
\end{equation}
We are now in position to compute the covariance. For any $i$ and $j$ in $\mathcal J$, from (\ref{somme}),
\begin{multline}\label{cov}
cov\left(|\Lambda_{i,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_{i,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right),|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)\right)\\= \frac{1}{D_n^d |\mathcal J|} \Esp\left(\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n} \sum_{k' \in \mathcal K_n} W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W_{j,n,\Delta_{k'}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\right).
\end{multline}
Let us first consider the case $i=j$. We may write
\begin{multline*}
\Esp\left(\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n} \sum_{k' \in \mathcal K_n} W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)^2\right)\\ =
\frac1{|\mathcal K_n|}\bigg( \underbrace{\sum_{k,k^\prime\in \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)}(D_n)}_{:=S_1}+2 \underbrace{\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n},k^\prime\in \mathcal K_n\setminus \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n)}_{:=S_2} + \underbrace{\sum_{k,k^\prime\in \mathcal K_n\setminus \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)}(D_n)}_{:=S_3}\bigg).
\end{multline*}
The following lemma will be useful to drop the dependence on $D_n$ in each term $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$ above.
\begin{lemma}\label{dropDn}
For any $i,j=1,2$, denoting $\overline\Delta_{0}(\tau)=\cup_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)}\Delta_{k}(\tau)$ (for some $\tau>0$), we have
$$ W^{(i)}_{\Delta_0(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W^{(j)}_{\overline\Delta_{0}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\overset{L_1}{\longrightarrow} W^{(i)}_{\Delta_0(D)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W^{(j)}_{\overline\Delta_{0}(D)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $i=1,2$, $W^{(i)}_{\Delta_0(D_n)}$ is a linear combination of $I_{\Delta_0(D_n)}$ and $\Vect U_{\Delta_0(D_n)}$, which converge respectively in $L^2$ to $I_{\Delta_0(D)}$ and $\Vect U_{\Delta_0(D)}$ by \textbf{[N3]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}, since $D_n\to D$. Thus $W^{(i)}_{\Delta_0(D_n)}$ converges in $L^2$ to $W^{(i)}_{\Delta_0(D)}$ as $n\to\infty$. Similarly, for any $j=1,2$, $W^{(j)}_{\overline\Delta_{0}(D_n)}$ tends in $L^2$ to $W^{(j)}_{\overline\Delta_{0}(D)}$. The convergence stated in Lemma \ref{dropDn} then follows.
\end{proof}
Let us focus on the asymptotic of each term $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$.
\underline{Term $S_1$}: from (\ref{portee}),
$$
S_1 = \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}} \bigg(
\sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm{B}_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)}(D_n) + \underbrace{\sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k^c(1)\cap \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)}(D_n)}_{=0}
\bigg) = \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)}(D_n).
$$
Let $\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}:= \mathcal K_{i,n} \cap \left( \cup_{j\in \partial \mathcal K_{i,n}} \mathbbm B_j(1)\right)$ and note that $\frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_{i,n}|} \to 0$ as $n\to +\infty$. Then,
$$
S_1 = \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n} \setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)}(D_n) +\underbrace{\sum_{k\in \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(1)}(D_n) }_{:=A_1}.
$$
Since,
$$
{}\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|}\times |A_1|\leq \frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} |E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D_n)|{} \stackrel{n\to +\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0,
$$
(because $D\leq D_n\leq 2D$ and $\frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_{i,n}|} \to 0$), we obtain, as $n\to +\infty$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac1{|\mathcal K_n|} \; S_1 &\sim& \frac{|\mathcal K_{i,n} \setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|} \; \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D_n){}
\sim \frac{|\mathcal K_{i,n} |}{|\mathcal K_n|} \; \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D_n).
\end{eqnarray*}
From Lemma \ref{dropDn}, $$\sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D_n)=\Esp\left(W^{(1)}_{\Delta_0(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)W^{(1)}_{\overline\Delta_{0}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)\right)\longrightarrow \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D).$$
Therefore,
$$\frac1{|\mathcal K_n|} \; S_1 \sim\frac1{|\mathcal J|} \; \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D){} .$$
\underline{Term $S_2$}: with similar arguments as above, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_2 &=& \underbrace{\sum_{k \in \mathcal K_{i,n}\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n)}_{=0} \\ &&\hspace*{.5cm} +
\sum_{k \in \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}} \bigg(
\sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap (\mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n) +
\underbrace{\sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k^c(1)\cap (\mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n)}_{=0}
\bigg)
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, since $\frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_{n}|} \to 0$ and $D\leq D_n\leq 2D$,
$$\frac1{|\mathcal K_n|} \; S_2 \leq \frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n} |}{|\mathcal K_n|}\sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} |E_{0,k}^{(12)}(D_n)|\stackrel{n\to +\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.
$$
\underline{Term $S_3$}:
$$
S_3 =
\sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n}} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap (\mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)}(D_n)
+\underbrace{\sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n}} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k^c(1)\cap (\mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)}(D_n)}_{=0}.
$$
Let $\widetilde{\mathcal K}_n = (\mathcal K_n\setminus \mathcal K_{i,n}) \cap \left( \cup_{j \in \partial(\mathcal K_n\setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})} \mathbbm B_j(1) \right)$ and note that $\frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_n|}{|\mathcal K_n|} \to 0$, as $n\to +\infty$. Then,
$$
S_3 = \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_n} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap(\mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)}(D_n)+
\underbrace{\sum_{k \in \widetilde{\mathcal K}_n} \sum_{k^\prime \in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap(\mathcal K_n \setminus \mathcal K_{i,n})}E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)}(D_n)}_{:=A_3}.
$$
Since,
$$
\frac1{|\mathcal K_n|} |A_3| \leq \frac{| \widetilde{\mathcal K}_n|}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} |E_{0,k}^{(2)}(D_n)| \stackrel{n\to +\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0,
$$
we obtain, from Lemma \ref{dropDn},
$$
\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} S_3 \sim \frac{|\mathcal K_n\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_n|}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(2)}(D_n) \sim
\frac{|\mathcal J|-1}{|\mathcal J|}\sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} E_{0,k}^{(2)}(D).
$$
Combining the three terms $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$, we have, as $n\to +\infty$
\begin{equation}\label{i=j}
\Esp\left(\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n} \sum_{k' \in \mathcal K_n} W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)^2\right) \sim \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} \left( \frac1{|\mathcal J|} E_{0,k}^{(1)}(D) + \frac{|\mathcal J|-1}{|\mathcal J|} E_{0,k}^{(2)}(D)\right).
\end{equation}
When $i\not=j$, there are three main cases in (\ref{cov}), according to $k,k' \in \mathcal K_{i,n}$, $k,k'\in \mathcal K_{j,n}$, or $k,k' \in \mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})$. As for the case $i=j$ treated before, the other situations involve non-zero correlations on edges sets like $\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{i,n}$, which are negligible with respect to $|\mathcal K_n|$.
The covariance is therefore equivalent, up to $D_n^d|\mathcal J|$, to
$$\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k,k' \in \mathcal K_{i,n}}E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n) + \frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k,k' \in \mathcal K_{j,n}} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(12)}(D_n)
+ \frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k,k' \in \mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})} E_{k,k^\prime}^{(2)}(D_n).$$
The simplification occurs as for the case $i=j$ and, since $|\mathcal K_{i,n}|=|\mathcal K_{j,n}|$, we obtain the asymptotic equivalent for the covariance (\ref{cov})
\begin{equation}\label{inot=j}
\frac{1}{D^d |\mathcal J|} \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} \left( \frac 2{|\mathcal J|} E_{0,k}^{(12)}(D) + \frac{|\mathcal J|-2}{|\mathcal J|} E_{0,k}^{(2)} (D)\right).
\end{equation}
Finally, from (\ref{i=j}) and (\ref{inot=j}), we deduce that $\Mat \Sigma_1(\ParVT)$, defined in Proposition \ref{prop-fwk1}, corresponds to the asymptotic variance of $\left(|\Lambda_{j,n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_{j,n}}\left( \Phi;h,\ParVT \right)\right)_{j\in\mathcal J}$.\\
{\it \underline{Second step}: application of Theorem \ref{tcl}.}
We apply Theorem \ref{tcl} with $\Vect Z_{n,k}=(W_{j,n,\Delta_k(D_n)})_{j\in\mathcal J}$, $X_{n,i}=\Phi_{\Delta_i(D_n)}$, $p=|\mathcal J|$ and $\Mat \Sigma=\Mat \Sigma_1(\ParVT)$, which is a symmetric positive-semidefinite matrix as the limit of a covariance matrix (from the first step of the proof).
The assumption (\ref{subordinate}) holds from \textbf{[N4]}, \textbf{[E2(bis)]} and because $D_n\geq D$. Assumptions $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ are direct consequences of \textbf{[E2(bis)]}, \textbf{[N2]} and Lemma~\ref{lem-centCond}. It remains to prove $(iv)$. Assuming $\Mat\Sigma=(\Sigma_{ij})$ for $1\leq i,j\leq p$, from the definition of the Frobenius norm, we have
\begin{multline}\label{CVvariance}
\Esp \left\| |\mathcal K_n|^{-1} \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n}\sum_{k'\in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_n} \Vect Z_{n,k}\tr{\Vect Z_{n,k'}} - \Mat \Sigma \right\|\\ \leq \sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^p \Esp\left| |\mathcal K_n|^{-1} \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n}\sum_{k'\in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_n} W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}W_{j,n,\Delta_{k'}(D_n)}-\Sigma_{ij}\right|.\end{multline}
Let us first assume that $i\not=j$ are fixed and denote $Y_{n,k}(D_n)= W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}$, $S_n^k(D_n)=\sum_{k'\in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_n} W_{j,n,\Delta_{k'}(D_n)}$. We have
\begin{align*}
\Esp \left| |\mathcal K_n|^{-1} \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n}\sum_{k'\in \mathbbm B_k(1)\cap \mathcal K_n} W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D_n)}W_{j,n,\Delta_{k'}(D_n)}-{\Sigma}_{ij}\right| &=
|\mathcal K_n|^{-1} \Esp \left| \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n} Y_{n,k}(D_n) S_n^k(D_n) -{\Sigma}_{ij} \right|
\\
&\leq E_1+E_2+E_3+E_4,
\end{align*}
where
$$E_1=\frac{|\mathcal K_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|}\Esp\left| |\mathcal K_{i,n}|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}} (Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)-\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)))\right|,$$
$$E_2=\frac{|\mathcal K_{j,n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|}\Esp\left| |\mathcal K_{j,n}|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{j,n}} (Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)-\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)))\right|,$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
E_3&=&\frac{|\mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})|}{|\mathcal K_n|}\times \\
&&\qquad \Esp\left| |\mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})|^{-1}
\!\! \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})}\!\!\!\!\!\!\! (Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)-\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)))\right|,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{multline*}
E_4=\Bigg| \frac{|\mathcal K_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}}\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n))+\frac{|\mathcal K_{i,n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{j,n}}\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n))\\+\frac{|\mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})|}{|\mathcal K_n|}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n\setminus(\mathcal K_{i,n}\cup \mathcal K_{j,n})}\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n))-{\Sigma}_{ij} \Bigg|.\end{multline*}
The first three terms $E_1$, $E_2$ and $E_3$ can be handled similarly. Let us focus on $E_1$:
\begin{align}\label{E1}
\frac{|\mathcal K_n|}{|\mathcal K_{i,n}|}E_1&\leq |\mathcal K_{i,n}|^{-1} \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}} \Esp\left|Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)-Y_{n,k}(D)S_n^k(D)\right|\nonumber\\
&\quad+ |\mathcal K_{i,n}|^{-1} \Esp\left|\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}} (Y_{n,k}(D)S_n^k(D)-\Esp(Y_{n,k}(D)S_n^k(D)))\right|\nonumber\\
&\quad+ |\mathcal K_{i,n}|^{-1} \sum_{k\in \mathcal K_{i,n}}\left|\Esp\left(Y_{n,k}(D)S_n^k(D)\right)-\Esp\left(Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)\right)\right|.
\end{align}
Up to the edge effects which are negligible with respect to $|\mathcal K_{i,n}|$, $\left(Y_{n,k}(D)S_n^k(D)\right)_k$ is stationary when $k\in\mathcal K_{i,n}$, since in this case, from (\ref{defW}), $W_{i,n,\Delta_k(D)}=W^{(1)}_{\Delta_k(D)}$ does not depend on $n$. Therefore the second term in (\ref{E1}) tends to 0 by the mean ergodic theorem. For a fixed $n$, we have also by stationarity (up to the edge effects)
\begin{align*}
\Esp\left|Y_{n,k}(D_n)S_n^k(D_n)-Y_{n,k}(D)S_n^k(D)\right|&=\Esp\left|Y_{n,0}(D_n)S_n^0(D_n)-Y_{n,0}(D)S_n^0(D)\right|\\
&=\Esp\left|W^{(1)}_{\Delta_0(D_n)}W^{(2)}_{\overline\Delta_0(D_n)}-W^{(1)}_{\Delta_0(D)}W^{(2)}_{\overline\Delta_0(D)}\right|,
\end{align*}
where $\overline\Delta_0(D_n)=\cup_{k'\in \mathbbm B_0(1)}\Delta_{k'}(D_n)$. From Lemma \ref{dropDn}, this term tends to 0, therefore the first term in (\ref{E1}) asymptotically vanishes. The same argument shows that the third term in (\ref{E1}) also tends to 0 as $n\to\infty$.
As a consequence, $E_1$ tends to 0.
The same decomposition as in (\ref{E1}) may be done for $E_2$ and $E_3$, which leads by similar arguments to $E_2\to0$ and $E_3\to0$.
The last term $E_4$ involves the difference between $\Sigma_{ij}$ and its empirical counterpart. The same calculations as in the first step of the proof shows that $E_4\to 0$.
Therefore, we have proved that the terms in the double-sum (\ref{CVvariance}) corresponding to $i\not=j$ asymptotically vanish. The same result can be proved similarly when $i=j$. Thus assumption $(iv)$ in Theorem \ref{tcl} holds and the convergence in law is deduced.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk2}}
We can decompose $\Lambda_{n}$ in the following way :
$$\Lambda_{n} := \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal K_{n}} \Delta_k(D_n)$$
where the $\Delta_k$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $D_n$ and $\mathcal K_{n}\subset\ZZ[d]$ satisfies $|\mathcal K_{n}|=|\Lambda_{n}|D_n^{-d}$. Similarly as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop-fwk1}, we choose
$$D_n= \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{\left\lfloor \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{D}\right\rfloor},$$
which implies $D_n\to D$ when $n\to\infty$ and guarantees $D\leq D_n \leq 2D$ as soon as $|\Lambda_n|\geq D^d$.
From Proposition~\ref{prop-equiv} and under Assumption~\textbf{[E2(bis)]}, for all $i=1,\dots,s$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{}|\Lambda_{n}|^{-1/2} R_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h_i,\widehat{\ParV}_n(\Phi) \right) & = & {}|\Lambda_{n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h_i,\ParVT \right) +o_P(1) \\
&=&
{}|\Lambda_n|^{-1/2}\left( {I}_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi ; h_i, \ParVT \right) -
\tr{{\Vect{U}}_{\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right) }\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h_i;\ParVT)
\right) + o_{P}(1)\\
& = & \frac{1}{D_n^{d/2}}\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|^{1/2}} \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n} W_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; h_i, \ParVT \right)+ o_{P}(1),
\end{eqnarray*}
where for any $\varphi \in \Omega$
$$
W_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; h_i, \ParVT \right) := I_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; h_i, \ParVT \right) + \tr{\Vect{U}_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \varphi ; \ParVT \right) }\Vect{\mathcal{E}}(h_i;\ParVT).$$
We apply Theorem \ref{tcl} in the simpler case when $f_{n,k}=f$ for all $n\in\NN$ and all $k\in\mathcal K_n$. If $D_n=D$ for all $n$, this framework would reduce to a stationary setting similar to Theorem 2.1 in \cite{A-JenKun94}. But as $\Lambda_n$ is allowed to increase continuously up to $\RR[d]$, $D_n\equiv D$ is impossible. We will therefore apply Theorem \ref{tcl} in Appendix \ref{annexe-tcl} with $\Vect Z_{n,k}=\left(W_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; h_j, \ParVT \right)\right)_{j=1\dots s}$, $X_{n,i}=\Phi_{\Delta_i(D_n)}$ and $p=s$.
Let us first compute the covariance matrix of $\left(|\Lambda_{n}|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h_i,\ParVT \right)\right)_{i=1,\dots,s}$. By the same calculations as for the term $S_1$ in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk1}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{sigma2}
cov \bigg(|\Lambda_n|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi; \right. & \left(h_i, \ParVT \right) ,|\Lambda_n|^{-1/2} R_{\infty,\Lambda_n}\left( \Phi;h_j, \ParVT \right)\bigg) \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{D_n^d} \Esp\left(\frac{1}{|\mathcal K_n|} \sum_{k \in \mathcal K_n} \sum_{k' \in \mathcal K_n} W_{\Delta_k(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; h_i, \ParVT \right)W_{\Delta_{k'}(D_n)}\left( \Phi ; h_j, \ParVT \right)\right) \nonumber\\
&\sim \frac{1}{D^d} \sum_{k \in \mathbbm B_0(1)} \Esp\left(W_{\Delta_0(D)}\left( \Phi ; h_i, \ParVT \right)W_{\Delta_{k}(D)}\left( \Phi ; h_j, \ParVT \right)\right).
\end{align}
The asymptotic covariance matrix is thus $\Mat \Sigma_2(\ParVT)$ defined in Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk2}. We can now apply Theorem~\ref{tcl} in the appendix with $\Mat \Sigma=\Mat \Sigma_2(\ParVT)$. The assumption (\ref{subordinate}) hods because $D_n\geq D$ and from \textbf{[N4]} and \textbf{[E2(bis)]}. The assumptions $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ follow from \textbf{[E2(bis)]}, \textbf{[N2]} and Lemma~\ref{lem-centCond}. Assumption $(iv)$ may be checked easily as in the second step of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-fwk1}, by using (\ref{sigma2}).
\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{delta}}\label{proofdelta}
For simplicity, let $\Vect{Y}_\Lambda:=\Vect{Y}_\Lambda(\Phi;\ParV)$. Let us denote $\overline{\Delta}(\delta,D^\vee):= \cup_{|j|\leq \lceil D^\vee/\delta\rceil} \Delta_j(\delta)$. From the additivity property of $\Vect Y$, proving Lemma \ref{delta} reduces to prove that for any $\delta>0$ and any $D^\vee\geq D$, $D^d A(\delta,D^\vee)=\delta^d A(D,D)$ where
$$
A(\delta,D^\vee):=\Esp\left(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\overline{\Delta}(\delta,D^\vee)}}\right).
$$
Since $D^\vee\geq D$, we can write $\overline{\Delta}(\delta,D^\vee)=\overline{\Delta}(\delta,D)\cup \Delta'$, where $\Delta'\subset \left(\overline{\Delta}(\delta,D)\right)^c$. From the locality assumption, $\Vect Y_{\Delta'}$ is only a function of $\Phi_{\Delta_0^c(\delta)}$. So
\begin{equation}\label{decorrelation}\Esp\left(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta'}}\right)=\Esp\left(\Esp\left(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta'}}|\Phi_{\Delta_0^c(\delta)}\right)\right)=\Esp\left(\Esp\left(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta)}|\Phi_{\Delta_0^c(\delta)}\right)\tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta'}}\right)=0,\end{equation}
which yields $A(\delta,D^\vee)=A(\delta,D)$. By denoting $A(\delta):=A(\delta,D^\vee)=A(\delta,D)$ and $\overline{\Delta}(\delta):=\overline{\Delta}(\delta,D)$, we must prove $D^d A(\delta)=\delta^d A(D)$.
Let us first assume $\delta=k D$ with $k\in\NN$. We may write $\overline{\Delta}(kD)=\left(\Delta_0(kD)\oplus D\right) \cup \Delta'$ and may assert that $\Vect Y_{\Delta'}$ depends only on a function of $\Phi_{\Delta_0^c(kD)}$. By a similar argument as in (\ref{decorrelation}), we obtain $A(\delta)= \Esp ( \Vect Y_{\Delta_0(kD)} \tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(kD)\oplus D}})$. From the disjoint decomposition $\Delta_0(kD)=\cup_{j\in\mathcal K} \Delta_j(D)$ where $|\mathcal K|=k^d$, we have, by the same decorrelation argument as above and by stationarity,
\begin{eqnarray*}
A(\delta) &=& \sum_{j\in\mathcal K} \Esp(\Vect Y_{\Delta_j(D)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(kD)\oplus D}})=\sum_{j\in\mathcal K} \Esp(\Vect Y_{\Delta_j(D)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta_j(D)\oplus D}})\\
&=&k^d \Esp(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(D)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(D)\oplus D}})=\frac{\delta^d}{D^d}A(D).
\end{eqnarray*}
Let us now assume $D=k\delta$ with $k\in\NN$. First notice that in this case $\overline{\Delta}(D)= \overline{\Delta}(\delta)\oplus \frac{D}{2}(1-1/k)$. The following decomposition holds: $\Delta_0(D)=\cup_{j\in\mathcal K} \Delta_j(\delta)$ where $|\mathcal K|=k^d$. For any $j\in\mathcal K$, $|j|\leq \frac{D}{2}(1-1/k)$, so $\overline{\Delta}(D)$ contains any translation of the set $\overline{\Delta}(\delta)$ with respect to $j$. Let us denote this translated set by $\tau_j \overline{\Delta}(\delta)$. From the same decorrelation argument as above and by stationarity, we have
\begin{equation}\label{cas2}
A(D)=\sum_{j\in\mathcal K} \Esp(\Vect Y_{\Delta_j(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\overline{\Delta}(D)}})=\sum_{j\in\mathcal K} \Esp(\Vect Y_{\Delta_j(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\tau_j \overline{\Delta}(\delta)}})=\sum_{j\in\mathcal K} \Esp(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\overline{\Delta}(\delta)}})=\frac{D^d}{\delta^d}A(\delta).\end{equation}
Let us now consider the case $D/\delta=k^\prime/k$, where $(k,k^\prime)\in\NN[2]$. Let $\delta^\prime=\delta/k$, then $D=k^\prime\delta^\prime$ and according to (\ref{cas2}), ${\delta^\prime}^d A(D) = D^d A(\delta^\prime)$. In the same way as we have proved $D^d A(\delta)=\delta^dA(D)$ when $\delta=kD$, this is not difficult to show that for any $\delta=k\delta^\prime$ with $\delta^\prime\leq D$, ${\delta^\prime}^d A(\delta)=\delta^dA(\delta^\prime)$. As a consequence when $D/\delta=k^\prime/k$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{casrationnel}A(D)=\frac{D^d }{{\delta^\prime}^d}A(\delta^\prime)=\frac{D^d }{\delta^d}A(\delta).\end{equation}
In the general case, one may find a sequence of rational numbers $(q_n)_{n\in\NN}$ which converges to $D/\delta$. Let $\delta_n=q_nD$, we have from (\ref{casrationnel}), $A(D)=\frac{D^d}{\delta_n^d}A(\delta_n)$. Since we have assumed $\Esp(\Vect Y^2_{\Gamma_n})\to 0$ when $\Gamma_n\to0$, the additivity of $\Vect Y$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$ yield $$A(\delta_n)=\Esp\left(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta_n)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\overline{\Delta}(\delta_n)}}\right)\to\Esp\left(\Vect Y_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\tr{\Vect Y_{\overline{\Delta}(\delta)}}\right)=A(\delta)$$ as $n$ goes to infinity. Therefore, the identity (\ref{casrationnel}) holds for any $\delta>0$, which concludes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-sdp}}
The proof follows arguments presented by \citeauthor{A-JenKun94} in \cite{A-JenKun94}. Let $C_n(\overline\delta)=[-n\overline{\delta}-\overline{\delta}/2,n\overline{\delta}+\overline{\delta}/2]^d$, so $C_n(\overline\delta)=\cup_{k\in\mathcal K_n}\Delta_k(\overline\delta)$, where $\mathcal K_n=[-n,n]^d\cap\ZZ[d]$ and $\Delta_k(\overline\delta)$ is the cube centered at $k\overline\delta$ with side-length $\overline\delta$. We have
\begin{align*}
\Var\left( |C_n(\overline\delta)|^{-1/2} \Vect{Y}_{C_n(\overline\delta)}(\Phi;\ParVT)\right) &= |C_n(\overline\delta)|^{-1} \sum_{i,j\in \mathcal K_n} \Esp\left(
\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_i(\overline\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) \tr{\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_j(\overline\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) }
\right) \nonumber \\
&= |C_n(\overline\delta)|^{-1} \sum_{i\in \mathcal K_n} \sum_{j \in \mathbbm{B}_i\left( \left\lceil \frac{D}{\overline\delta}\right\rceil \right)\cap \mathcal K_n }\Esp\left(
\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_i(\overline\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) \tr{\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_j(\overline\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) }
\right) \nonumber. \end{align*}
Since $|C_n(\overline\delta)|=\overline{\delta}^d|\mathcal K_n|$, from the ergodic theorem,
$$\Var\left( |C_n(\overline\delta)|^{-1/2} \Vect{Y}_{C_n(\overline\delta)}(\Phi;\ParVT)\right) \longrightarrow \overline\delta^{-d} \sum_{|k|\leq \left\lceil \frac{D}{\overline\delta}\right\rceil}\Esp \left( \Vect{Y}_{\Delta_0(\overline\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) \tr{\Vect{Y}_{\Delta_k(\overline\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParVT\right) }
\right)$$ which is $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ by Lemma \ref{delta}.
Therefore, to prove that $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ is positive-definite, it is sufficient to prove that the covariance matrix $\Var\left( |C_n(\overline\delta)|^{-1/2} \Vect{Y}_{C_n(\overline\delta)}(\Phi;\ParVT)\right)$ is positive-definite for $n$ large enough. Let $\Vect{x}\in \RR[q]\setminus\{0\}$, we must show that $$V:=\tr{\Vect{x}} \Var\left( |C_n(\overline\delta)|^{-1/2} \Vect{Y}_{C_n(\overline\delta)}(\Phi;\ParVT)\right) \Vect{x} >0.$$
Since, for two random variables $X,X^\prime$ with finite variance
$$
\Var(X) = \Esp (\Var(X|X^\prime)) \;\;+ \;\; \Var( \Esp(X|X^\prime)) \geq \Esp( \Var(X|X^\prime)),
$$
we have, by denoting $L:= \left(2\cD[\frac{D}{\overline{\delta}}]+1\right)\ZZ[d]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
V &\geq& |C_n(\overline{\delta})|^{-1} \; \Esp \left( \Var \left( \tr{\Vect{x}}
\Vect{Y}_{C_n(\overline{\delta})} (\Phi;\ParVT) | \; \Phi_{\Delta_k(\overline{\delta})}, k\notin L
\right) \right) \\
&=& |C_n(\overline{\delta})|^{-1} \tr{\Vect{x}} \Esp\bigg( \Var\bigg(
\sum_{\ell \in L \cap \mathcal K_n} \;\; \underbrace{\sum_{i \in \mathbbm{B}_\ell\left(\left\lceil\frac{D}{\overline{\delta}} \right\rceil \right)\cap \mathcal K_n } \Vect{Y}_{\Delta_i(\overline{\delta})} (\Phi;\ParVT) }_{:=\Vect{S}_{\ell,n}(\Phi)}
| \; \Phi_{\Delta_k(\overline{\delta})}, k\notin L \bigg) \bigg) \Vect{x}
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that from the locality property, $\Vect{S}_{\ell,n}(\Phi)$ depends only on $\Phi_{\Delta_{j}(\overline{\delta})}$ for $j \in \mathbbm{B}_\ell\left(2 \left\lceil \frac{D}{\overline{\delta}} \right\rceil\right)$. Therefore, conditionally on $\Phi_{\Delta_k(\overline{\delta})}, k \notin L$, the variables $\Vect{S}_{\ell,n}(\Phi)$ and $\Vect{S}_{\ell^\prime,n}(\Phi)$ (for $\ell\neq \ell^\prime$) are independent. Now, let $\overline\Delta(\overline\delta):=\cup_{|i|\leq \left\lceil \frac{D}{\overline{\delta}} \right\rceil}\Dom[i](\overline{\delta})$, from the stationarity we have for $n$ large enough
\begin{eqnarray*}
V &\geq & |C_n(\overline{\delta})|^{-1} \tr{\Vect{x}} \sum_{\ell \in L\cap \mathcal K_n} \Esp\bigg(\Var\bigg(
\Vect{S}_{\ell,n}(\Phi)
| \; \Phi_{\Delta_k(\overline{\delta})}, k\notin L \bigg) \bigg) \Vect{x}\\
&\geq &\frac{{\overline{\delta}}^{-d}}2 \frac{
|L\cap \mathcal K_n| }{|\mathcal K_n|}\times
\Esp \left( \Var \left( \tr{\Vect{x}} \ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)} \big| \Phi_{\Dom[k](\overline{\delta})}, 1\leq|k|\leq2\cD[\frac{D}{\overline{\delta}}] \right)\right) \\
&\geq& \kappa(\overline{\delta},D,d) \times
\Esp \left( \Var \left( \tr{\Vect{x}} \ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)}\left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)} \big| \Phi_{\Dom[k](\overline{\delta})}, 1\leq|k|\leq2 \cD[\frac{D}{\overline{\delta}}]\right)\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\kappa(\overline{\delta},D,d)$ is a positive constant. Assume there exists some positive constant $c$ such that $P_{\ParVT}-$a.s. $\tr{\Vect{x}} \ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)}=c$ when the variables $\Phi_{\Dom[k](\overline{\delta})}, 1\leq |k|\leq 2\cD[\frac{D}{\overline{\delta}}]$ are fixed to belong to $B$, where $B\in\mathcal F$ is involved in \textbf{[PD]}. It follows that for any $\varphi_i \in A_i$ for $i=0,\ldots,\ell$ (with $\ell\geq 1$), where the $A_i$'s come from \textbf{[PD]}, $\tr{\Vect{x}} \left( \ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \varphi_i ; \ParVT \right)}-\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \varphi_0 ; \ParVT \right)}\right)=0$. Since for all $\left(\varphi_0,\ldots,\varphi_{\ell}\right) \in A_0\times\ldots\times A_{\ell}$, the matrix with entries $\left(\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \varphi_i ; \ParVT \right)}\right)_j-\left(\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \varphi_0 ; \ParVT \right)}\right)_j$ is assumed to be injective, this leads to $\Vect{x}=0$ and hence to some contradiction. Therefore, when the variables $\Phi_{\Dom[k](\overline{\delta})}$, $1\leq |k|\leq 2\cD[\frac{D}{\overline{\delta}}]$ are for example assumed to belong to $B$, the variable $ \tr{\Vect{x}}\ensuremath{\Vect{Y}_{\overline\Delta\left(\overline\delta\right)} \left( \Phi ; \ParVT \right)}$ is almost surely not a constant and so $V>0$, which proves that $\Mat{M}(\ParVT)$ is a symmetric positive-definite matrix.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{consistance}}\label{preuve-consistance}
Since for any $\varphi\in \Omega$, $\widehat{\Mat{M}}_n(\varphi; \cdot,\delta,D^\vee)$ is continuous in a neighborhood $\mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$ of $\ParVT$ and according to \textbf{[E1]}, it is sufficient to prove that for any $\ParV \in \mathcal{V}(\ParVT)$, $\widehat{\Mat{M}}_n(\Phi; \ParV,\delta_n,D^\vee)$ converges in probability towards $\Mat{M}(\ParV)$.
We choose the sequence $\delta_n$ as follows :
$$\delta_n= \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{\left\lfloor \frac{|\Lambda_n|^{1/d}}{\delta}\right\rfloor},$$
which guarantees $\delta_{n_0}=\delta$, since $|\Lambda_{n_0}|\delta^{-d}\in\NN$, $\delta\leq\delta_n \leq 2\delta$ for $n$ sufficiently large, and $\delta_n\to\delta$ as $n\to\infty$. This choice allows us to consider, for all $n\in\NN$, the decomposition $\Lambda_{n}=\cup_{k\in \mathcal K_{n}} \Delta_k(\delta_n)$, where the $\Delta_k(\delta_n)$'s are disjoint cubes with side-length $\delta_n$ and centered at $k\delta_n$. Moreover, since $\delta_n\geq\delta$ and $\delta_n\to\delta$, we have $\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta_n} \right\rceil=\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta} \right\rceil$ when $n$ is large enough, which is assumed in the sequel of the proof.
Let $\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}:= \mathcal K_{n} \cap \left( \cup_{j\in \partial \mathcal K_{n}} \mathbbm B_j\left(\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta} \right\rceil \right)\right)$. Since $|\Lambda_n|=\delta_n^d |\mathcal K_n|$, we have
$$\left| \delta_n^d \widehat{\Mat{M}}_{n}(\Phi; \ParV,\delta_n,D^\vee)- \delta^d \Mat{M}(\ParV)\right|
\leq X_1+X_2+X_3+X_4,$$
where by setting $\overline{\Delta}_k(\tau)=\cup_{j\in \mathbbm{B}_k\left(\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta} \right\rceil \right)}\Delta_j(\tau)$ (for some $\tau>0$),
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_1&=&\left| |\mathcal K_n|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \widetilde{\mathcal K}_n}
\sum_{j\in \mathbbm{B}_k\left(\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta} \right\rceil \right) \cap \mathcal K_n}
\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_j(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right)}
\right| \\
X_2&=&\left||\mathcal K_n|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}}
\left( \widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\overline{\Delta}_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right)}-
{\Vect{Y}}_{\Delta_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{{\Vect{Y}}_{\overline{\Delta}_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right)}\right)\right| \\
X_3 &=& \left||\mathcal K_n|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}}
\left( {\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\overline{\Delta}_k(\delta_n)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right)}-
{\Vect{Y}}_{\Delta_k(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{{\Vect{Y}}_{\overline{\Delta}_k(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right)}\right)\right| \\
X_4 &= &\left||\mathcal K_n|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \mathcal K_n\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}}
{\Vect{Y}}_{\Delta_k(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{{\Vect{Y}}_{\overline{\Delta}_k(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right)}
-
\Esp \left( \Vect{Y}_{\Delta_0(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) \tr{\Vect{Y}_{\overline{\Delta}_0(\delta)}\left(\Phi;\ParV\right) }\right)
\right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
We have from the additivity and the stationartiy of $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_n$,
\begin{align*}
\Esp |X_1|&\leq |\mathcal K_n|^{-1}\sum_{k\in \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}} \sum_{j\in \mathbbm{B}_k\left(\left\lceil \frac{D^\vee}{\delta} \right\rceil \right) \cap \mathcal K_{n}} \Esp\left|\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_k(\delta_n)}\left(\varphi;\ParV\right) \tr{\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_j(\delta_n)}\left(\varphi;\ParV\right)}\right|\\
&\leq \frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}|}{|\mathcal K_n|} \Esp \left|
\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\Delta_0(\delta_n)}(\Phi;\ParV)\tr{\widehat{\Vect{Y}}_{n,\overline{\Delta}_0(\delta_n)}(\Phi;\ParV)} \right|,
\end{align*}
which tends to 0 as $n\to +\infty$, because $\frac{|\widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}|}{|\mathcal K_{n}|} \to 0$ and $\delta\leq\delta_n\leq 2\delta$. Therefore, $X_1$ converges in probability to 0. The second term converges also to 0 in probability from the additivity of $\Vect{Y}$ and $\widehat{\Vect{Y}}$ and from~\eqref{eq-hypYhat}. The expectation of the third term converges to 0 by following the proof of Lemma~\ref{dropDn}. Finally, from the stationarity of $\Vect Y$ and since $|\mathcal K_n|\sim|\mathcal K_n\setminus \widetilde{\mathcal K}_{n}|$, the mean ergodic theorem applies to $\Esp|X_4|$, which, in particular, shows that $X_4\to 0$ in probability. This proves that $$\delta_n^d \widehat{\Mat{M}}_{n}(\Phi; \ParV,\delta_n,D^\vee) \longrightarrow \delta^d \Mat{M}(\ParV),$$
in probability, as $n\to\infty$. Since $\delta_n$ is a deterministic sequence converging to $\delta$, the conclusion of Proposition \ref{consistance} follows.
|
\section{Introduction}
The speed at which the bar rotates is one of the fundamental
ingredients describing bars, their evolution and their coupling with
other galaxy components. Its importance is indeed reflected in the
fact that this whole volume is devoted to the study of pattern speeds.
Some conclusions were already stated in the 90's about bar pattern
speeds (Elmegreen 1996). The pattern speed seems to be close to the
angular circular velocity in the disk near the end of the bar. The
corotation radius seems to be around 1.2 times the bar semi-major
axis, at least for early type galaxies. The question about the
dependence of the pattern speed with morphological type was also
raised and it is still an open question subject to discussion
(Rautiainen et al. 2005). It was also already concluded that the best
method for obtaining the location of corotation was that proposed by
Tremaine \& Weinberg (1984), hereafter TW method) which uses a set of
simple kinematic measurements to derive the pattern speed assuming
that the tracer obeys the continuity equation, that the disks are flat
and that there is one well defined pattern speed. Some of these
assumptions have been recently challenged, there is now a simple
extension of the TW method to multiple pattern speeds (Maciejewski
2006) and the fact that Beckman et al. (this volume) have shown that
the TW method can be applied to H${\alpha}$ velocity fields raises
some interesting issues.
Some indirect methods to derive the bar pattern speed include
identifying morphological or kinematic features with resonances (e.g.,
Athanassoula 1992, shape of dust lanes; Canzian 1993, sign inversion
of the radial streaming motion across corotation; Buta 1986, 1995,
rings as resonance indicators; Zhang \& Buta 2007, phase-shift between
the potential and density wave patterns). Other methods are based on
numerical modelling: (1) matching numerical simulations to the
observed velocity fields, from a set of general self-consistent models
or models deriving the potential from the light distribution (e.g.,
Duval \& Athanassoula 1983; Lindblad et al. 1996; Weiner et al. 2001;
P\'erez et al. 2004; Z\'anmar-S\'anchez et al. 2008; P\'erez \&
Zurita, in prep.), and (2) numerical simulations matched to galaxy
morphology (e.g., Hunter et al. 1988; England 1989; Rautiainen et
al. 2005). The best indirect method, so far, to calculate pattern
speeds is the method based on the comparison of gas velocities to
those obtained in numerical simulations that use a potential obtained
from optical or NIR light (Elmegreen 1996).
In this paper, we will investigate the derivation of pattern speeds
from dynamical simulations, and we will analyse the possible problems
and caveats that one encounters when deriving bar pattern speeds in
this indirect way. Finally, we will present some new results on the
bar of NGC~1530.
\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{perez_f01.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
The left panel shows the velocity field from the H${\alpha}$
observations by Zurita et al. (2004). The right panel shows the
modelled velocity field with $R_{\rm cor}/R_{\rm bar}=1.4$. The
velocity ranges between $+200$ and $-200$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\, }
\label{li_vhel}
\end{figure*}
\section{ Deriving the pattern speed}
The method to derive the pattern speeds from dynamical modelling is
relatively simple. From an optical or NIR image one can derive the
gravitational potential with some assumptions for the $M/L$ ratio and
the vertical scale-height, and imposing a certain pattern speed, then
gas flows are modelled using a fluid dynamical method, exploring a
certain range in parameter space. The modelled gas dynamics is then
compared to the observed kinematics until the best-fit solution is
found.
The N-body and hydro code, used by us in this work, was initially
developed by the Geneva Observatory galactic dynamics group for spiral
galaxy studies (Fux 1999, 1997; Pfenniger \& Friedli 1993). The
initially self-consistent code was modified to use a fixed rotating
potential. The stellar potential is fixed using the observed light
distribution. For more details about the code, refer to Fux (1999) or
his Ph.D. Thesis, Fux (1997). For more details about the code in the
form used for this work refer to P\'erez et al. (2004).
In this way, we have modelled 5 barred galaxies (NGC~5505, NGC~7483,
NGC~5728, and NGC~7267). Other groups that have taken the fluid
dynamical modelling approach to derive the bar dynamics, using the
light distribution to derive the potential, are Weiner et al. 2001,
modelling NGC~4123 and Z\'anmar-S\'anchez et al. (2008) modelling
NGC~1365, both using a 2-D Eulerian grid code. All these studies
concluded that the corotation radius is close to the end of the bar
(i.e., fast bars).
Now, we will briefly analyse the effect of changing the model
parameters on the output pattern speed.
The calculation of the $M/L$ from the broad--band colors using
population synthesis models is robust to most of the parameters going
into the modelling (Bell \& de Jong 2001; P\'erez 2003), such as SFR,
although, the absolute normalisation depends on the chosen IMF. The
photometric bands for which the $M/L$ ratio is most robust to galaxy
colour changes are the NIR bands.
As already shown in P\'erez et al. (2004), the scale height and the
$M/L$ ratio affect the location and amplitude of the shocks in the bar
region. For the vertical distribution an exponential profile is
assumed with a radially constant vertical scale-height. This may not
be a good assumption as there is evidence from infrared photometric
studies of the Milky Way that the vertical scale of the bar is larger
than that of the disk (Freudenreich 1998). The biggest impact on the
dynamics of a non-constant scale-height is precisely in the inner
region we are interested in, where the radial forces will change
significantly. However, it is hard to do better than this since not
much is known about the scale-heights of bars in external
galaxies. For most of the simulations one value of the scale-height
was adopted, following the relationship found by Kregel et al. (2002).
They analysed the structure of the stellar disk in a sample of edge-on
galaxies and found that the average $\langle h_R/h_z \rangle =7.3 \pm
2.2$, where $h_R$ and $h_z$ are respectively the disk exponential
scale-length and scale-height. For the scale-heights smaller than
$h_z$, as defined before, none of the pattern speeds gives a good fit
for the studied galaxies. For the models with $h_{z} \times 1.5$ the
best fit corresponds to a slower bar; however, an average of
$\approx1$\,kpc is an unrealistically large value for the vertical
scale of a real galaxy with the observed scale-length (within the
ranges of scale-lengths analysed).
Varying the $M/L$ for a given pattern speed causes a variation in the
positions and strength of the shocks. The derivation of the pattern
speed is robust to $M/L$ changes; i.e., there is a small range of
$M/L$ ratios for which the models fit the observed kinematics (Weiner
et al. 2001; P\'erez et al. 2004). If we derive the models keeping the
$M/L$ ratios and varying the pattern speeds, the shock gets steeper
for slower bars and not only the morphology changes, but also the gas
flow changes and the locations and amplitude of the shocks no longer
fits the kinematics. The pattern speed is constrained within 10--20\%.
We have also taken into account the use of different type of dynamical
modelling and the effect of using 2-D vs 1-D in deriving the pattern
speeds. P\'erez (2008) showed that the global velocity field and the
gas distribution is very similar in both 2-D and 3-D models. The study
shows that the position and strength of the shocks developed in the
3-D N-body SPH simulations do not vary significantly compared to the
results derived from the 2-D Eulerian code. The results obtained in
the studies deriving the barred galaxies using the bar streaming
motions and strength and position of shocks are robust to the fluid
dynamical model used. Therefore, the effect of 2-D and 3-D modelling
can be neglected in this type of studies.
Summarising, the pattern speed is constrained within 10--20\% using
this indirect approach. All the galaxies studied in this way by the
different groups give pattern speeds that locate corotation close to
the end of the bar. The morphological types covered for these type of
simulations include from SBa to SBc galaxies, however, only a small
number of galaxies have been modelled in this way.
\section{Modelling NGC 1530}
NGC~1530 is an archetypal barred galaxy, at intermediate
inclination (between 40$^{\circ}$--50$^{\circ}$ according to different
studies), it has one of the largest bars ever observed, around 24 kpc
in length. The bar is dominated morphologically in the optical bands by
dust lanes running straight along the bar. It has a complicated
morphology in the nuclear region characterised in the optical and CO
bands by a nuclear ring/spiral. NGC~1530 has been classified as a
class 7 torque (Block et al. 2004) using the dust-penetrated
classification scheme of Block \& Puerari (1999), this makes NGC~1530
one of the strongest bars found in the literature. The weak inner
pseudoring in this object is made from arms that break from the ends
of the bar and wrap around the other ends (Block et
al. 2004). Although it has been widely studied, there has not been an
attempt to specifically model in detail the velocity field of NGC~1530
and, so far, only general SPH models of barred galaxies have been used
to compare the global trends of the observed velocity field of
NGC~1530. Due to the richness of the bar region structures, and the
availability of high $S/N$ H${\alpha}$ velocity field (Zurita et al.
2004) NGC~1530 is a perfect candidate to test whether N-body/SPH can
reproduce the details of this galaxy's morphology and velocity field
and whether this type of simulations can teach us something else about
the dynamics of this galaxy.
Indirect assumptions have lead to the different authors to place
corotation at 1.0 and 1.2 times the bar semi-major axis, with derived
pattern speeds of 12 and 20~km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$\,, respectively (Downes et
al. 1996; Regan et al. 1996), either assuming where the ILR resonance
or where corotation are located, and always based on the fact that the
size of the nuclear spiral/ring is around 1.5\,kpc in radius, and
corresponds to the location of the inner Lindblad resonance. We have
carried out a detailed modelling of NGC~1530 to study the position of
the resonances, and the correspondence of the dynamics with the star
formation in this galaxy. As already mentioned, this is not the first
attempt to understand the relation between the star formation and the
morphology and kinematics of this galaxy but this is the first attempt
to do a detailed comparison with numerical models, where the potential
is derived directly from the light distribution of NGC~1530.
\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{perez_f02.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
Left panel shows the location of the studied HII regions on top of
the $V$-$R$ color map, on the right panel a zoom on the north part
of bar region with the observed velocity gradients
over-plotted. Notice the correspondence between the dust spurs
velocity gradients parallel to the bar major axis (Zurita \& P\'erez
2008).}
\end{figure*}
The best fit pattern speed is around 10~km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$\,, which corresponds to
a $R_{\rm cor}/R_{\rm bar} = 1.4$, which implies a slower bar than
previously derived from more indirect assumptions. With this pattern
speed the global kinematic features are beautifully reproduced
(Fig.~1). The models also develop the inner spiral/ring at around
1.2\,kpc that in previous studies was associated to the first ILR. For
this pattern speed, we find two ILRs one at around 0.15\,kpc and the
other at 4\,kpc. The results are compatible with a maximum disk. The
presence of an inner ring/spiral necessarily implies the existence of
an ILR, as previously suggested; however, the radius of the
ring/spiral need not be, necessarily, at the location of the resonance
(P\'erez \& Zurita, in prep.). We also find that the SPH models fail
to fully reproduce the exact location of the velocity gradients
observed along the bar, on the north side, close to some bright HII
regions. The HII regions in the bar region have been studied in detail
in Zurita \& P\'erez (2008). They concluded from the study of the
H${\alpha}$ equivalent widths that the HII regions that are located
further away from the bar dust-lane in its leading side, downstream
from the main bar dust-lane, are older than the rest by
~1.5--2.5\,Myr. In addition, a clear spatial correlation was found
between the location of HII regions, dust spurs on the trailing side of
the bar dust-lane, and the loci of maximum velocity gradients parallel
to the bar major axis (possibly tracing gas flow towards the main bar
dust-lane), see Fig.~2. These results support the hypothesis that
massive stars are forming on the trailing side of the bar dust-lane,
and age as they cross the bar, on a timescale that is compatible with
the bar dynamics time--scales.
\section{Conclusions}
We have analysed the use of dynamical simulations deriving the
potential from the galaxy light distribution to obtain the best-fit
pattern speed when compared to observed kinematics. There is a small
range of parameters for which the kinematics can be fitted. We have
analysed the effect of varying these parameters, namely the $M/L$
ratio, the pattern speed and the vertical scale-height. We can
constrain the pattern speeds within 10--20\%. All the galaxies
modelled in this way give pattern speeds that place corotation near
the end of the bar. The results are also unaffected by the choice of
the model in the dynamical modelling (P\'erez 2008). We have,
therefore, refined the methods (e.g., $M/L$ derivation) and the study
of the systematics in this type of modelling but only for a handful of
galaxies have the gas flows been derived (Z\'anmar-S\'anchez et
al. 2008; P\'erez et al. 2004; Weiner et al 2001). This way of
deriving the pattern speed is perfect to study later types which
present nebular emission in the bar region. We should also compare, in
the future, these results with sticky--particle simulations to check
the reliability of the results, and improve the sample, carrying out
the modelling in overlapping samples where the pattern speeds have
been derived using different methods (cf., TW, morphology, etc.).
Unfortunately, we have not fully addressed yet with this method the
study of later morphological types. We have presented here first
results on the detail comparison of the modelled dynamics with the 2-D
H${\alpha}$ velocity fields for NGC~1530. The models reproduce the
global and local velocity fields (detailed results in P\'erez \&
Zurita, in prep.). However, it fails to reproduce the velocity
gradient on the north-side of the bar close to a few bright HII
regions. Analysis of the H${\alpha}$ equivalent widths show that the
HII regions that are located further away from the bar dust-lane in
its leading side, downstream from the main bar dust-lane, are older
than the rest by 1.5--2.5\,Myr. In addition, a clear spatial
correlation was found between the location of HII regions, dust spurs
on the trailing side of the bar dust-lane, and the loci of maximum
velocity gradients parallel to the bar major axis (Zurita \& P\'erez
2008).
\begin{acknowledgements}
I. P\'erez is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, Veni-Grant
639.041.511) and the Spanish Plan Nacional del Espacio del Ministerio
de Educaci\'on y Ciencia. A.Z acknowledges support from the
Consejer\'{\i}a de Eduaci\'{o}n y C iencia de la Junta de
Andaluc\'{\i}a.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:int}
Among all the processes manifested in stellar coronae,
flares are the most energetic ones. They are supposed to be the result of the
energy release from magnetic field reconnection in the lower corona
\citep[e.g.][]{kop76}.
As a consequence, electrons and ions in the reconnection region
are accelerated downwards, along the magnetic field
lines, toward lower atmospheric layers. When they reach
the upper chromosphere, the local gas
is heated and evaporated into the new-formed magnetic loops. Thus, the density and
temperature of these loops increase, causing intense emission of soft
($<10$~keV) X-rays.
Stellar flares have been observed in almost all the \mbox{H-R} diagram \citep[see][for a
review]{vai81}. However, they are more frequent in late-type stars, where
they present a large variety of sizes and durations.
In late-K and M dwarfs \citep[the so-called UV Ceti-type stars; see][for
a description of their main properties]{pet91}, moderate flares are
frequently observed. During such events, the X-ray flux usually
increases by a factor of \mbox{$2 - 4$} \citep[e.g.][]{rob05}.
Giant flares, in which the X-ray flux increases from dozens to hundreds times the
quiescent state value, have been detected in some M dwarfs such as \object{EV~Lac}
\citep{fav00}, \object{EQ~Peg} \citep{kat02}, and \object{Prox~Cen} \citep{gue04}.
The duration of those flares
are of the order of a few kiloseconds, even in the more energetic ones.
For instance, the giant flare observed in \object{EV~Lac} lasted
$\sim 5$~ks. Long-duration flares are more common in pre-main sequence stars
than in the UV Ceti-type ones. For example,
during the 13 days observing run of the ORION Nebula Complex by \textit{Chandra},
at least 19 flares with durations above half a day were detected \citep[][]{fav05}.
Long-duration flares were also observed in the Taurus star-forming complex
\citep[][]{fra07,ste07}. The longer duration of these events is usually attributed to
the presence of larger coronal structures in young stars.
The \textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{Chandra} missions have
contributed enormously to the understanding of the processes involved in the X-ray
emission of late-type stars. In particular, the improved temporal and spectral resolution,
together with the development of theoretical models \citep[e.g.][]{kop84,pol88,ser91,
gue99,rea04,rea07}, have provided us with powerful tools for investigating
coronal flares.
Detailed diagnostics of X-ray flares have been carried out by different authors.
\citet{fav05} determined general properties of flaring loops, in terms of temperature
and semi-length, for young stellar objects in the Orion Nebula Complex (ONC).
>From their analysis, the authors inferred loop semi-lengths comparable to
the stellar radius in some cases. They speculated that these large structures are
connected with the proto-planetary disk and are, in fact, the same structures that
channel the plasma producing accretion. A similar
work was done for the Taurus star-forming region \citep{fra07}, where
the authors remarked that some coronal loops extended up to
a distance comparable with the stellar radius
\citep[see also][]{gia04}.
Studies for
more evolved stars were done by, e.g., \citet{rea04}, \citet{cre07}, and \citet{tes07},
who found
flaring loops with semi-lengths of $\sim 0.2 - 0.5$~$R_\star$
(i.e., a relatively compact flaring corona).
In the works presented in the previous paragraph, the diagnostic of X-ray flares
was done using the
procedure described by \citet{rea97, rea04} to model the decay phase,
which assumes the flare to be produced in a single loop
where heating does not entirely drive the flare decay.
\citet{rea07} extended this method to the rise phase and compared
the parameters determined in this way with those obtained by analyzing the decay
phase for three stellar flaring loops \citep[see also][]{pan97},
finding a good agreement between them.
On the other hand, the solar two-ribbon model developed by \citet{kop84},
or its stellar version \citep{pol88}, should be used
when heating totally drives the flare evolution \citep{rea02,rea03}.
In this model,
the reconnection energy is supposed to be dissipated immediately after being released.
\citet{kop84} assumed that only a fraction of the magnetic energy released by the
reconnection process is used to supply the thermal energy of the newly formed
flare loops. \citet{pol88} assumed that a factor of $10~\%$ of this
thermal energy escapes into the X-ray regime,
as suggested by detailed studies of solar flares \citep{can80}.
We also refer the reader to \citet{gue99}, who included time-dependent
conductive and radiative losses in the X-ray corona self-consistently.
In this work, we analyze an XMM-Newton serendipitous observation of the young
M-type star TWA 11B in which the X-ray emission suffered a continuous increase
during approximately 35\,ks. The duration and statistics of the observed rise
have allowed us: (i) to carry out a detailed spectral time-analysis; and
(ii) to derive properties of the star's magnetic configuration
by using both the single-loop and the two-ribbon flare models
described above.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip=true]{f0.eps}
\caption{Chandra HETG serendipitous detection of TWA 11B. The
position of the optical counterparts of TWA 11A and TWA 11B are marked.
Contours of the PSF observed in the XMM-Newton EPIC exposure are
overplotted.}
\label{fig0}
\end{figure}
\section{Observation and data treatment}
\label{sec:observations}
The XMM-Newton observation (ID 0006220201) was perfomed in the revolution
197, between 2001 January 4 and 5, for a total duration of $43$\,ks.
The field is centred on the coordinates
$\alpha_\mathrm{2000} = 12^\mathrm{h}35^\mathrm{m}34^\mathrm{s}$ and
$\delta_\mathrm{2000} = -39^\mathrm{\circ}54^\mathrm{'}55^\mathrm{''}$
(the main target being the Seyfert 2 galaxy \objectname{NGC 4507}).
The EPIC cameras were operated in Full Frame mode using the Thick filter.
Our target is situated 5.18\,arcmin at the North-East of the central source, in
the field of view of both the MOS and PN detectors.
{The EPIC-XMM source coincides with the position of the optical
counterpart of TWA 11B. The primary
star, TWA 11A (an A0-type star), is situated at $\sim 8$ arcsec from TWA 11B.
Although none X-ray emission is expected from an A0 star, we investigated the
possibility that the primary star produced some X-rays that could affect our results.
We studied a
serendipitous detection of HETG Chandra of the source (Observation ID 2150).
In this 140 ks exposure Chandra observation, the X-ray source is clearly identified
with TWA 11B (see Fig.~\ref{fig0}), while none X-ray emission coming from TWA 11A
is detected. Therefore, we are confident that the X-ray emission detected in the
XMM-Newton observation comes only from the M star TWA 11B.}
The data reduction followed the standard operating procedure. We used the
version 7.1.0 of the XMM-Newton Science Analysis System (SAS) to derive a
table of calibrated events in the energy range 0.3 -- 10.0\,keV. To extract the
events, we chose a radius of 30\,arcsec, which is slightly larger than the
3$\sigma$-level of the source's PSF. This assures us to lose less than 1\%
of the counts from the source. Different filters were applied to eliminate bad
events and noise. Note that the observation was neither
affected by pile-up
nor by high flaring background periods.
The X-ray light curve (Fig.~\ref{fig1}) showed a total increase in the star's
count-rate of a factor of $4.2$ from the lower level ($\approx 0.25$
counts/s) to the maximum observed emission.
Similar relative increases in flux were previously reported in
flares from other stars \citep[e.g.][]{rob05}.
A first increase in the light curve is observed
$5$\,ks after the beginning of the observation, reaching a local maximum only
$5$\,ks later. After a brief decrease, the count-rate continues increasing
until reaching the global maximum in the light curve
(this happened 37\,ks after
the beginning and only 3\,ks before the end of the observation).
The total duration of the enhancement is
$32$\,ks ($\approx 9$ hours\footnote{{The rotation period of TWA 11B is not
known. \citet{sch07} measured a projected rotational velocity
$v \sin i = 12.11 \pm 0.93$ km\,s$^{-1}$, what leads to an upper limit in the rotational
period of 2.7 days. Thus, the observation cover, at least, 17\% of the rotational period
of the star. Nevertheless, no indication of occultation of the flaring
region is observed.}}).
Note that the observed maximum may or may not be the flare peak.
In the latter case, the duration of the rise phase would be even
longer.
In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we plot the evolution of the hardness ratio, which is a tracer
of the temperature evolution, during the observation. Here,
the soft energy band is defined as the range 0.3 -- 0.8 keV
and the hard energy band as 0.8 -- 4.5 keV. Fig.~\ref{fig2} shows that the mean coronal
temperature
reached a maximum at $t \sim 7$ ks,
maintained high with significant fluctuations during approximately the next 27\,ks of
exposure, and then it began to decrease gradually.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[bb= 53 355 395 587,width=8.0cm,clip=true]{f1.ps}
\caption{EPIC-PN light curve of TWA 11B in the energy range $0.3 - 10.0$ keV.
The curve was binned to a 1\,ks time resolution. The event list was
corrected of bad events and noise. The exposure was also corrected of
live-time and good-time intervals. The gray segments mark the periods in
which the intrument was turned off. The continuous line at the bottom is the
background light curve. The time blocks used in the spectral analysis are plotted as
dashed vertical lines.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[bb= 50 5 480 324, width=8.0cm,clip=true]{f2.ps}
\caption{Hardness ratio evolution of TWA 11B during the observation
with EPIC-PN. The time blocks used in the spectral analysis are plotted
as in Fig.~\ref{fig1} for clarity.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Overall, the rise phase is unusually long compared with those observed in other
stars \citep[e.g.][]{pan97,gue99,rea02,rob05,rea07,cre07}.
To date, so long rise phases have been observed only in some T Tauri stars
\citep{fav05, gia06, fra07}, {some of them with accretion disks, and several
RS~CVn systems \citep{tes07,nor07}.}
In such stars, the relative increase in flux
ranges from a factor 3 \citep[V410 Tau;][]{fra07} to a factor 10
\citep[V892 Tau;][]{gia04} with rise-phase times from 8 to 55 ks.
TWA 11B is a {weak-line T Tauri} M2.5 star with an age of
$\sim 8$ Myr (estimated from its membership in the TW Hya Association).
{While it shows no signatures of an accretion disk \citep[near-infrared color excess
or strong H$\alpha$ emission;][]{sta95}, it is still contracting. Thus,
physical conditions in its atmosphere should be more similar to those
of sub-giant stars than of main-sequence ones. This may be the reason why
long duration rise phase flares are observed in both T Tauri stars and RS CVn
systems.}
A more detailed inspection of the
light curve shows that the emission increased
faster initially, it had a well-defined local maximum at $t \approx 10$\,ks, and then it growed
again, but more gradually this time, until the end of the observation. At the very end, there is a hint
that the emission was stopping to increase. Such a long rise phase suggests that we
observed an uninterrupted sequence of flare events involving an extended coronal region.
However, the faster initial rise and the local emission \mbox{peak -- coupled} to the earlier hardness
ratio \mbox{peak -- resembles} the evolution of a self-standing flaring episode possibly occurring
(at least during these initial stages) in a
single loop
\citep[e.g.][]{rea07}, whose decay merged with the ignition of the later
overlapping events.
Fig.~\ref{fig2.1} demonstrates that this peak
is indeed significative and
cannot be attributed to the effect of noise in the light curve.
This figure shows the
cumulative distribution of counts for 200 simulated constantly increasing
light curves\footnote{Constantly increasing light curves have been
chosen for the simulations since the global enhancement mostly shows
a linear pattern.}
(for $t \ge 5$\,ks) with Poissonian noise (shadowed region)
together with the cumulative distribution of counts observed during the
rise (continuous line).
Clearly, the simulations do not
reproduce the observed distribution of counts for the first peak in the
light curve. The differences are high enough to justify the treatment of
this event as independent.
In the following, we work under this hypothesis.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{f2.1.ps}
\caption{Normalized cumulative distribution of counts in the light curve of TWA 11B
for $t \ge 5$\,ks (continuous line). The shadowed region contains cumulative curves
of 200 simulated constantly increasing light curves (also for $t \ge 5$\,ks) with
Poissonian noise.}
\label{fig2.1}
\end{figure}
The large number of counts collected from the source in the EPIC
cameras allowed us to divide
the observation in several time intervals with enough signal to perform a reliable
spectral analysis {($\ge 1000$ counts in the quiescent and intervals 1 and 2, and
$\ge 2000$ counts in the remaining intervals after background subtraction\footnote{{Intervals
1 and 2 have been studied separately to investigate the evolution of the parameters of the
flaring plasma in its very first phases.}})}.
This permitted: 1) to investigate the nature of the processes taking place in our target;
and 2) to derive physical properties of it.
\section{Spectral analysis}
\label{sec:specanalysis}
For the spectral analysis, the observation was split
into 10 time-intervals (vertical
dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig1}). These intervals
sample different features in the light curve.
We used the XSPEC spectral fitting package \citep{arn96, arn04} in the
PN, MOS1, and MOS2 detectors simultaneously. We adopted the
Astrophysical Plasma Emission Code \citep[APEC,][]{smi01}
included in the XSPEC software. APEC calculates spectral models
for hot, optically thin plasmas using
the Astrophysical Plasma Emission Database
\citep[APED,][]{2001ASPC..247..161S}, that contains the relevant
atomic data for calculating both the continuum and line emission.
Interstellar absorption was taken
into account using the interstellar photo-electric absorption cross-sections
of \citet{mor83}, also available in XSPEC.
\subsection{Quiescent state}
The lowest (constant) count-rate level, found at the beginning of the
observation, is assumed to be the quiescent state. The X-ray luminosity of
the star during this lapse of time {(assuming the same distance than the
primary $d = 67 \pm 3$ pc)} is $\log L_\mathrm{X} \mathrm{[erg\,s^{-1}]} = 29.35$,
corresponding to $\log (L_\mathrm{X}/L_\mathrm{bol}) = -3.1$.
These values are typical of both pre-main sequence stars members
of young stellar associations \citep[e.g.][]{kas03} and older
field M dwarfs showing high X-ray activity \citep{rob05, cre07}.
The best fit to the X-ray quiescent spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig3}) is given
by a plasma model with two equally-weighted thermal components
(the output parameters of this fit are summarized
in Table~\ref{tab_quiescent}).
{Although high uncertainties are obtained for the hydrogen column
density in our fit, the value of $N_\mathrm{H}$ obtained by us is very similar
to that determined for other members of the TW Hya Association
\citep[e.g.][]{ste04,arg05}. Besides, the interstellar extinction was
found to be negligible in the general direction of TW Hya
\citep{ruc83}.}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[bb= 68 355 480 600, width=8.0cm,clip=true]{f3.ps}
\caption{Observed EPIC PN and MOS spectra of TWA 11B during the
quiescent state (marked with Q in Fig.~\ref{fig1}).}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption[]{Output parameters from fitting the X-ray EPIC spectra
of the quiescent state with a $2T$-model.}
\label{tab_quiescent}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$NH$ & = & $1.7^{+2.6}_{-1.7} \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$Z$ & = & $0.17^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ $Z_\odot$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$kT_1$ & = & $0.27^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ keV \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$EM_1$ & = & $2.2^{+1.4}_{-0.8} \times 10^{52}$ cm$^{-3}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$kT_2$ & = & $0.98^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ keV \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$EM_2$ & = & $2.2^{+0.6}_{-0.5} \times 10^{52}$ cm$^{-3}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$ (d.o.f.) & = & $0.86 \ (176)$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Flaring state}
\label{sec:flaring}
Synthesized stellar-like spectra
of solar flares (previously subtracted by the quiescent
``background'' spectrum) are generally \mbox{well-fitted} with
a single thermal component \citep[1-$T$ model, see][]{2001ApJ...557..906R}.
Consequently, to analyze physical properties of the flaring plasma
in our observation,
we first subtracted the spectrum of the quiescent state from
the observed spectrum in each time-interval. Then we fitted a
$1T$-model, leaving its temperature ($kT_\mathrm{F}$) and
emission measure ($EM_\mathrm{F}$) as free parameters.
The values of the column density ($NH$) and abundance ($Z$)
were fixed to those derived for
the quiescent state. With this technique, we {interpret} that
the coronal spectrum during the flare results from adding to the quiescent spectrum
a third thermal component, which is ascribed to heated material filling
the flaring loops \citep{2001ApJ...557..906R, cre07}.
Models with additional temperature components were checked, but did not
improve the fit results significantly.
Results from spectral fitting are given in Table~\ref{tab2}.
As expected from the hardness ratio evolution (Fig.~\ref{fig2}), the temperature
peaked in time-segment 1.
Then, it decreased gradually but almost continuously until the end of the observation.
On the other hand, the emission measure increased continuosly from the beginning
of the rise and starts to decrease only near the end of the observation.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\caption[]{Spectral results for the flaring component in each time-segment of the
light curve (excepting the quiescent time-interval).
}
\label{tab2}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Time-segment & Time-interval & Central time & $kT_\mathrm{F}$ & $EM_\mathrm{F}$ & $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ (d.o.f.)\\
& (ks) & (ks) & (keV) & ($10^{52}$ cm$^{-3}$) & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
1 & 5 -- 8 & 6.5 & 8$^{+60}_{-4}$ & 0.72$^{+0.20}_{-0.17}$ & 1.05 (129) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
2 & 8 -- 11 & 9.5 & 2.4$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 4.0$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & 0.87 (215) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
3 & 11 -- 17 & 14 & 2.5$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ & 3.88$^{+0.27}_{-0.28}$ & 1.08 (369) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
4 & 17 -- 22 & 19.5 & 2.27$^{+0.25}_{-0.27}$ & 5.3$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & 0.87 (355) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
5 & 22 -- 27 & 24.5 & 1.88$^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ & 7.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & 0.89 (406) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
6 & 27 -- 32 & 29.5 & 1.66$^{+0.18}_{-0.08}$ & 8.3$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & 1.03 (430) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
7 & 32 -- 36 & 34 & 1.31$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 9.2$^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ & 0.97 (379) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
8 & 36 -- 38 & 37 & 1.22$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 9.9$^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ & 1.01 (243) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
9 & 38 -- 41 & 39.5 & 0.99$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & 9.7$^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ & 0.86 (313) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Evolution of the emission measure distribution}
\label{sec:EMDs}
In order to approximate physically more realistic continuous emission measure
distributions (EMDs) of the plasma, we used
a multi-temperature model as in \citet{rob05}. In that work, the authors
used a $6T$-model on a logarithmic, almost equidistant grid with temperatures
fixed at 0.2, 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, 2.4, and 4.8 keV (which correspond to 2.3, 3.5,
7.0, 14.0, 28.0 and 56.0 MK), sampling those spectral regions where
the XMM-Newton detectors are more sensitive.
To fit our spectra, the values of $NH$ and $Z$
were fixed to those previously determined for the quiescent state.
Thus, the only variables
are the emission measures.
Note that in this case we are fitting each spectrum as a whole
(i.e., the quiescent spectrum was not subtracted from the rest
of the spectra).
Results from applying this $6T$-model to our observation
are shown in Table~\ref{tab2.1} and Fig.~\ref{fig4}, and are
summarized in the following items:
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\caption[]{Output parameters (emission measures, in units of $10^{52}$ cm$^{-3}$)
from fitting the whole X-ray EPIC spectra to a $6T$-model with
temperatures fixed at 0.2, 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, 2.4 and 4.8\,keV.
$EM'_1$ is the emission measure corresponding to the thermal
component of 0.2\,keV, $EM'_2$ is that of 0.3\,keV, and so on.
Uncertainties are calculated for a 2.7$\sigma$ confidence level.}
\label{tab2.1}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Time Interval & $EM'_1$ & $EM'_2$ & $EM'_3$ & $EM'_4$ & $EM'_5$ & $EM'_6$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Quiescent & $1.00_{-0.91}^{+0.88}$ & $1.00_{-1.00}^{+1.28}$ & $0.77_{-0.59}^{+0.61}$ & $1.63_{-0.28}^{+0.26}$ & $0.00_{-0.00}^{+......}$ & $0.00_{-0.00}^{+0.09}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
1 & $0.66_{-0.66}^{+0.80}$ & $0.59_{-0.59}^{+1.51}$ & $0.75_{-0.75}^{+0.63}$ & $1.85_{-0.72}^{+0.63}$ & $0.00_{-0.00}^{+1.04}$ & $0.85_{-0.30}^{+0.29}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
2 & $0.13_{-0.13}^{+1.24}$ & $2.14_{-2.14}^{+0.96}$ & $0.31_{-0.31}^{+1.15}$ & $2.12_{-0.97}^{+1.15}$ & $3.70_{-2.17}^{+0.66}$ & $0.00_{-0.00}^{+1.23}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
3 & $1.31_{-1.09}^{+0.61}$ & $0.22_{-0.22}^{+1.58}$ & $2.04_{-0.78}^{+0.48}$ & $2.73_{-0.60}^{+0.54}$ & $0.00_{-0.00}^{+0.61}$ & $1.91_{-0.28}^{+0.29}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
4 & $0.85_{-0.84}^{+0.98}$ & $1.88_{-1.88}^{+0.88}$ & $0.01_{-0.01}^{+0.92}$ & $4.48_{-0.88}^{+0.92}$ & $1.32_{-1.32}^{+1.86}$ & $1.48_{-1.08}^{+1.39}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
5 & $0.54_{-0.54}^{+1.07}$ & $2.42_{-2.11}^{+2.40}$ & $0.62_{-0.62}^{+1.02}$ & $5.19_{-0.60}^{+1.17}$ & $1.69_{-1.69}^{+1.89}$ & $1.41_{-1.07}^{+1.06}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
6 & $0.92_{-0.92}^{+1.20}$ & $1.94_{-1.94}^{+1.14}$ & $0.96_{-0.96}^{+1.04}$ & $5.41_{-1.22}^{+1.08}$ & $2.53_{-2.17}^{+1.01}$ & $1.01_{-1.01}^{+1.22}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
7 & $1.26_{-1.24}^{+1.46}$ & $1.36_{-1.36}^{+2.32}$ & $1.30_{-1.25}^{+1.06}$ & $8.35_{-1.49}^{+1.24}$ & $0.86_{-0.86}^{+1.75}$ & $0.58_{-0.58}^{+0.82}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
8 & $2.64_{-2.64}^{+1.17}$ & $0.25_{-0.25}^{+4.07}$ & $3.39_{-2.00}^{+1.01}$ & $8.17_{-2.07}^{+1.38}$ & $0.09_{-0.09}^{+2.40}$ & $0.81_{-0.81}^{+0.60}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
9 & $1.38_{-1.38}^{+1.32}$ & $0.83_{-0.83}^{+2.90}$ & $4.08_{-1.66}^{+1.08}$ & $8.39_{-1.02}^{+0.98}$ & $0.00_{-0.00}^{+0.82}$ & $0.23_{-0.23}^{+0.40}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{itemize}
\item The amount of plasma emitting at temperatures above 28\,MK is negligible
in the quiescent state.
\item Plasma emitting at the highest temperatures ($\sim$ 56\,MK)
appears at the beginning of the first (faster) rise (time-segment 1),
while the rest of the EMD curve remains as in the quiescent state.
Note that in this time-segment we obtained the maximum temperature for the
flaring component when fitting it with the $1T$-model (see first part of
$\S$~\ref{sec:flaring} and Table~\ref{tab2}).
\item The only significant difference between the EMD of the
quiescent state and that derived for time-segment 2
(where the light curve of the first flare peaks) is an excess of
plasma emitting at temperatures
around 28\,MK. We interpret it as the cooling of the material
at higher temperatures that was detected in time-segment 1
together with additional plasma evaporated after
the temperature peak was reached in time-segment 1 (note that
the total emission measure of the flaring component in time-segment 2
is higher than that measured in time-segment 1, as it can also be seen
in Table~\ref{tab2}).
\item The excess of plasma emitting in the region around 28\,MK
that was observed in time-segment 2 continues cooling towards lower temperatures
during time-segment 3. At the same time, a high quantity of plasma appears
again at the highest temperatures ($\sim$ 56\,MK). This quantity is
even larger than that measured in time-segment 1 and is approximately
coincident with the beginning of the second (more gradual) rise.
\item During time-segments 4 -- 7, the amount of plasma emitting
at the highest temperatures remains still high, while
a large excess of material (compared to the quiescent state) appears
also between 7 and 28\,MK (reaching the maximum always at a temperature
$\approx$~14\,MK). The existence of intense, sustained heating is
needed to explain the maintenance of plasma at temperatures around 56\,MK.
The evolution of the rest of the EMD curve can be interpreted as the
cooling of the continuously new appearing very hot plasma
together with heated material that evaporates from lower
layers and fills the flaring loops.
\item During time-segments 8 and 9 the emission at temperatures
$\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 28$\,MK turns back to the level found at the quiescent
state, which is an indication of the strong heating not being present
any more. However, the height of the maximum in the EMD curve is even larger
than in the previous time-segments, appearing also excess emission at
even lower temperatures (down to $\sim 3$\,MK).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm,clip=true]{f4.ps}
\caption{EMDs as derived with the $6T$-model.
The curves are
shifted in the y-axis to better observe the flare evolution in time.
Each one of the EMDs (shown as continuous lines) is labeled with the same number as its
corresponding time-segment (see Table~\ref{tab2}). The quiescent is marked as Q.
For comparison, the EMD of the quiescent state is also overplotted as a red,
dashed line at the same zero level than each one of the rest EMDs.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\section{Flare modeling}
\label{sec:model}
Results from $\S$~\ref{sec:observations} and $\S$~\ref{sec:specanalysis}
support the idea of the observed rise ($t \ge 5$\,ks)
being the consequence of two separate flare events: the first more
impulsive one (event A) starting in time-segment 1, followed by a
more gradual energy release (event B) having
a beginning that is merged with the decay phase of event A and becoming
dominant at the end of time-segment 3. But, what kind of magnetic
structures are producing each one of these events? According to
\cite{rea07}, multiple loop structures can be involved in a flare, but
this frequently occurs only in its late phases. The initial phases of an
X-ray flare are usually quite localized and one can reasonably assume the
presence of a single dominant loop \citep[e.g.][]{2001SoPh..204...91A,rea04}.
This assumption is realistic enough in most of the
observed rise phases, where the impulsive heating typically involves a
dominant loop
(while later residual heating may be released in other similar adjacent
loops). The clear evidence of a delay between the temperature peak and the
density peak is consistent with a single loop model, at least until the
moment in which this maximum density is reached. This delay is often
observed both in solar flares \citep[e.g.][]{1993A&A...267..586S},
and in stellar flares
\citep[e.g.][]{1988A&A...205..181V,1989A&A...213..245V,fav00,2000A&A...356..627M,2002A&A...392..585S},
even in very long ones \citep{fav05,2008ApJ...688..418G}. The presence of this
delay is indeed a signature of a relatively short heat pulse (the larger
the delay, the shorter the heat pulse is) and of the coherent
hydrodynamic evolution of plasma confined in a loop. Arcades and
two-ribbon flares
are instead characterized by strong and/or lasting heating \citep{kop84}
and/or irregular light curves \citep{2001SoPh..204...91A,rea04}.
Thus, event A is likely characterized (or dominated) by a
single flaring loop since its ignition occurs only at time-segment 1 (as
suggested by the plasma appearing at very high temperatures in its
corresponding EMD, see $\S$~\ref{sec:EMDs}) and shows a delay between the
temperature peak and the density peak reached by the flaring plasma in it
(see Table~\ref{tab2}). Event B is probably triggered by event A. The evolution of
the whole EMD during event B
evidences continuous, but decreasing in efficiency, heating of material
and is consistent with event B being a two-ribbon flare. In $\S$~\ref{sec52} we
demonstrate that the light curve of event B is indeed well-reproduced
by a two-ribbon flare model. Continual reconnections in an arcade may
also be
responsible for event B. However, in this case
one would expect a more irregular pattern in the light curve
than that observed in Fig.~\ref{fig1},
and the EMD evolution would not necessarily point to a kind of heating
that is decreasing in efficiency with time, as we have observed.
\subsection{Event A: the single loop flare}
\label{sec:singleloop}
We used the results from fitting the spectra with the $1T$-model
(see $\S$~\ref{sec:specanalysis}), given in Table~\ref{tab2}, to
determine the length of the loop involved in event A.
For the temperature in time-segment 1, we used $kT = 4$~keV
(the lower limit from the fit) since its upper limit is undetermined
(see Table~\ref{tab2}).
For this event, the complete rise phase is observed and instead we
miss satisfactory information from the decay phase. A complete
theoretical analysis of the rise phase of a flare occurring
in a single loop is given by \citet{rea07}. The author
showed that the loop half-length ($L$) can be determined from
the maximum temperature reached by the flaring plasma ($T_0$)
and the temperature and time in which the density peaks
($T_\mathrm{M}$ and $t_\mathrm{M}$, respectively) by:
\begin{equation}
L \approx 3 \cdot 10^{5/2} t_\mathrm{M} \frac{T_0^{5/2}}{T_\mathrm{M}^{2}}
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
all the parameters are given in c.g.s. units. The maximum
temperature ($T_0$) is related to the temperature measured for the
flaring component by spectral fitting ($T_\mathrm{obs}$). For the
EPIC instrument:
\begin{equation}
T_0 = 0.13 T^{1.16}_\mathrm{obs}
\label{eqT0}
\end{equation}
For event A, the maximum temperature and maximum emission measure were
reached in the time-segments 1 and 2, respectively. For a single loop description, the
(square root of the) emission measure becomes a good proxy of the density, because
the loop volume presumably does not change much during the event.
In this case, from Eq.~\ref{eq1} we obtain a loop half-length
$L = 1.8 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{11}$~cm, i.e. $\sim 4 \pm 1$ $R_\star$
\citep[assuming a stellar radius $R_\star = 0.64$ $R_\odot$ -- from the pre-main sequence
models of][for an M2.5 star with 8 Myr, such as TWA 11B is supposed to be]{sie00}.
Although this value is relatively large, similar loop sizes have already been
derived for young stars in star-forming regions \citep{fav05,fra07}.
As far as we are concerned, this would be
the first time that such a relatively long loop is detected in a
star older than 3 -- 4\,Myr.
This loop would fill a volume
$V \approx 2.3 \times 10^{31}$ cm$^3$ \citep[see][for further details
on the relations used for determining this quantity]{rea07}.
Assuming a semi-circular geometry, its aspect ($r/L$,
with $r$ being the loop cross-section) would be of the order of 2~\%,
which is quite lower than that observed in
the Sun ($\sim 10$~\%), but compatible with the results in \citet{fav05}.
In Table~\ref{tab3} we summarize the main parameters of the loop
involved in event A, i.e. those already mentioned and maximum density
at the loop apex ($n_\mathrm{M}$), average density in the loop
when the maximum density is reached at the apex ($n_\mathrm{avg}$)
and cross-section area of the loop ($A$). Such parameters were
determined with the relations given in \citet{rea07}.
Comparing our results
with those obtained by \citet{rea07} for events observed in Algol, AB~Dor, and
Prox~Cen, we conclude that:
1) our densities seem to be similar to those determined in the Algol
and Prox Cen flares;
and 2) the loop volume and its subtended area are of the same order of magnitude as
those found for Prox Cen, another M star.
Note that the largeness of some of the errors shown in Table~\ref{tab3} is
a consequence of the propagation of errors in the equations.
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption[]{
Parameters of the flaring loop involved in event A, derived as in \citet{rea07}.
We have assumed a semi-circular geometry.}
\label{tab3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llc}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Parameter & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Units} & Value \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$n_\mathrm{M}$ & $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ & $2.0 \pm 0.7$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$n_\mathrm{avg}$ & $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ & $4.1 \pm 0.7$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$V$ & $10^{31}$ cm$^{3}$ & $2.3 \pm 0.8$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$A$ & $10^{20}$ cm$^{2}$ & $0.6 \pm 0.2$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$r$ & $10^{10}$ cm & $0.4 \pm 0.1$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$L$ & $10^{11}$ cm & $1.8 \pm 0.3$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For the sake of completeness, we made the exercise to repeat the same analysis to
the entire flare event (A$+$B) as if it all occurred in a single loop. For a flare temperature
peaking in time-segment 1 ($t_0 \approx 6.5$ ks), and the density peaking in
time-segment 8 ($t_\mathrm{M} \approx 37$ ks), using Eq.~\ref{eq1}, we obtained
$L = 1.3 \times 10^{13}$ cm, i.e. $L \sim 260 R_\star$ . Obviously, such a long loop would
be easily destroyed by the stellar rotation. Clearly, this result makes no sense.
\subsection{Event B: the two-ribbon flare}
\label{sec52}
For the study of event B, we used the two-ribbon flare model
by \citet{kop84} extended to the stellar case \citep{pol88}.
This model supposes that a disruptive event opens a loop arcade,
being the open field lines then driven toward a radial neutral sheet
(above the magnetic neutral line) where they reconnect at progressively
higher altitudes. Thus, the continuous heating provided by these reconnections
is capable of reproducing the temporal profile of the energy rate released during both
the rise and decay phases of a two-ribbon flare. By analogy to that
observed on the Sun, the model considers that the arcade of loops
is extended along the East-West direction (i.e., axial symmetry around
the polar axis is assumed). It also assumes that the magnetic field is
potential between the stellar surface and the location of
the neutral line and extends radially outwards from there.
The magnetic field in the meridional planes of the arcade can therefore be expressed
in terms of a single lobe of a Legendre polynomial of degree $n$.
Note that:
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each lobe is latitudinally bounded by radial magnetic fields.
\item The arcade corresponds to one lobe axisymmetrically continued over some
longitude in the East-West direction.
\item Through an appropriate choice of $n$, one can find a lobe placed in
the range of latitudes covered by the active region. However, as spatial
information is available only for the Sun,
stellar flaring regions are generally assumed to
be centered on the equator for odd $n$ and to end at the equator for even $n$.
\item As stellar observations cannot provide any information on the time-dependent
rise of the neutral point, it is assumed to mimic the solar case.
Thus, it follows an exponential law of the form given by Eq.~\ref{eq:neutralpoint},
where $y$ is the height of the neutral point (in units of $R_\star$, measured
from the star's center), $t$ is the time (measured from the beginning of the
two-ribbon flare, $t_\mathrm{ini}$), $t_0$ is a time-constant, and $H_\mathrm{m}$ is the maximum height
reached by the reconnection point during its upward movement (measured from the
star's surface). $H_\mathrm{m}$
is typically chosen to be equal to the latitudinal extent of the arcade,
which is in turn linked with $n$ (see Eqs.~\ref{eq:Hmn1} and~\ref{eq:Hmn2}).
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:neutralpoint}
y &= 1 + \frac{H_\mathrm{m}}{R_\star} (1 - e^{-\frac{t}{t_0}})\\
\label{eq:Hmn1}
H_\mathrm{m} & \approx \frac{\pi}{n + 1/2} R_\star & \text{for}~n > 2\\
\label{eq:Hmn2}
H_\mathrm{m} & \approx \frac{\pi}{2} R_\star & \text{for}~n = 2
\end{align}
Under all these assumptions, the rate of magnetic energy released
by the reconnecting arcade per radian of longitude ($dE/dt$) can be
expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:dEdt}
\nonumber \frac{dE}{dt} = \frac{1}{8\pi} 2n (n+1) (2n+1)^2 R^3_\star B^2_\mathrm{m}~~~~~~~~~\\
\times \frac{I_{1,2}(n)}{P^2_n(\theta_{1,2})}
\frac{y^{2n} [y^{2n+1} - 1]}{[n + (n+1) y^{2n+1}]^3}
\left( \frac{dy}{dt} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_{1,2}(n) = \int P^2_n(\theta) \textrm{d}(\cos \theta)$
evaluated between the latitudinal borders of the lobe,
$P_n(\theta)$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $n$,
$\theta$ is the co-latitude, $\theta_{1,2}$ is the co-latitude
of either boundary of the lobe, and $B_\mathrm{m}$ is the maximum
surface magnetic field in the active region.
The factor $B_\mathrm{m}^2$ merely defines
the normalization of the energy release light curve, while $t_0$ and $n$ determine
its shape. As Eq.~\ref{eq:dEdt} is given per radian of longitude, a length ($l$)
must be assumed for the arcade in order to calculate its total
energy-release rate. Solar two-ribbon flares occur in loop arcades whose length is
typically about 1.5 times their width ($l \approx 1.5H_\mathrm{m}$).
In our study, we adopted this ratio for any given $n$.
Since, in the view of many authors, the initiation process for the flare
itself might be the result of a more rapid (nearly explosive) reconnection than
the reconnection process about which \citet{kop84} and \citet{pol88} speak,
they stressed that their model is applicable only after the initial flare
trigger mechanism is terminated.
In fact, the model seems not to be able to describe the time of impulsive heating
and steeply increasing temperatures. However, the impulsive phase typically
ceases before reaching the $50~\%$ flare peak level
in the soft X-ray bandpass commonly used for stellar observations.
At this time in our observations, the temperature is gradually decreasing.
Hence, the model is applicable from time-segment 4 of the light curve
to the end of our observations (time-segment 3 is rejected also
for avoiding possible contamination from the decay of event A).
In order to apply the described model, the photospheric magnetic field
in the flaring region (from which $B_\mathrm{m}$ can be
determinated), and its latitudinal location and size (which dictate $n$) should
be known. In the solar case, observations provide all these data, whereas
in the stellar case, at best, they can only be inferred indirectly.
Since we are unaware of the location, size, and magnetic field strength of
the active region that we are studying, we treated $n$ and $B_\mathrm{m}$ as free
parameters to be determined from the best fit of the model to the observations.
We created a grid of values for the free parameters $n$, $t_0$,
and $t_\mathrm{ini}$ to fit event B with the two-ribbon flare model
(the lower limit of $t_\mathrm{ini}$ was fixed at the beginning
of the whole enhancement
because of obvious physical reasons).
For each set of these parameters, we determined the $B_\mathrm{m}$ that best fit
the data by minimizing the $\chi^2$ value, which is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^N \left(\frac{L_{\mathrm{mod},i} - L_{\mathrm{obs},i}}{\Delta L_{\mathrm{obs},i}}\right)^2
\end{equation}
\noindent where $L_\mathrm{mod}$ is the expected luminosity from the model
($L_\mathrm{mod} = f \cdot q \cdot l \cdot dE/dt$), $L_\mathrm{obs}$
is the observed luminosity, $\Delta L_\mathrm{obs}$ is the error in the observed
luminosity, and $N$ the number of time-intervals with which we fitted the two-ribbon model
(from time-segment 4 to 9).
Following the solar
analogy \citep[][see $\S$~\ref{sec:int}]{can80}, we assumed
the measured radiative losses in the X-ray band to be $\approx 10~\%$
of the thermal energy generated as consequence of magnetic reconnections,
that is $f \approx 0.1$ \citep[see][for details]{pol88}.
Actually,
only a fraction ($q < 1$) of the liberated magnetic energy is
indeed used to heat the plasma (thermal energy that is subsequently lost via radiation and
conduction), while the rest is
transformed into mechanical energy, into fast particles ejected
from the corona, etc.
At this point, we want to notice that we did not find a unique solution corresponding
to a single set of parameters, but a number of solutions producing a good fit
($\chi^2 \sim 1$).
In Table~\ref{tab4}, we show the two-ribbon flare parameters for some of
the good fits we have obtained.
We plot these results together with the observations in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.
Other good fits were found also for larger values of $n$
(i.e., active regions with smaller width and, therefore, shorter loops),
but note that
a smaller active region needs higher
surface magnetic fields for reproducing a given energy-release rate.
Thus, loop systems that reach larger altitudes --~i.e., small values of $n$~--
may be more realistic in our case, although other loop configurations
cannot be excluded (see $\S$~\ref{s:fluor}).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip=true]{f5.ps}
\caption{Best fit to the observations using the two-ribbon model
for $n = 2$ (see Table~\ref{tab4}). Note that each set of parameters
in Table~\ref{tab4} produces similar results in the fitted region while having
different slopes in the previous part and in the decay.
The light curve segments used to fit the two-ribbon model (time-segments 4--9, see
also Fig.~\ref{fig1}) is shown
with a solid line. The dashed line is the model. We have also plotted the
average values of the model in each time-interval during event B (dotted line)
for a clearer comparison between the observed light curve and the model.
\label{fig5}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!h]
\scriptsize
\caption[]{Two-ribbon flare parameters resulting from fitting the model to the
observed energy release rate from event B.}
\label{tab4}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Polynomial degree & 2 & 3 & 5 & 10 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Region width [deg] & 90$^\circ$ & 53$^\circ$ & 33$^\circ$ & 17$^\circ$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$H_\mathrm{m}$ [R$_\star$] & 1.57 & 0.90 & 0.57 & 0.30 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$L^\dag_\mathrm{m}$ [R$_\star$] & 2.46 & 1.41 & 0.89 & 0.47 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$t_\mathrm{ini}$ [ks] & 7.0 & 6.5 & 6.0 & 5.5 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$t_0$ [ks] & 247 & 192 & 183 & 174 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$B_\mathrm{m} \sqrt{q}$ [G] & 440 & 730 & 1050 & 1830 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
v$_\mathrm{rise}$ [km s$^{-1}$] & 2.8 & 2.1 & 1.4 & 0.8 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$N_\mathrm{e}$ [$\times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$] & 1.1 & 2.6 & 5.1 & 13.3 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$\chi^2$ & 1.02 & 1.02 & 1.04 & 1.04 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\scriptsize{$\dag$ $L$ is the loop semi-length
determined from the maximum height $H_\mathrm{m}$
assuming a semi-circular geometry.}
\end{table}
The values given in Table~\ref{tab4} for the maximum surface magnetic field
were determined assuming that all the magnetic energy is used to heat the
plasma that fills the flaring loops ($q=1$).
\citet{kop84} used $q = 0.003$ for a solar flare.
On the other hand,
during the analysis of a stellar flare, \citet{gue99} found acceptable solutions with $q < 0.05$
for $n = 2$ and $q \approx 0.01-0.02$ for $n = 3-4$. For event B
we found that small values of $q$ ($\sim 0.01-0.02$)
imply
very strong
photospheric magnetic fields in the flaring region
($B_\mathrm{m}$ $\approx 3 - 18$ kG).
Using $q = 0.05$, we obtained $B_\mathrm{m}$ $\approx 2$~kG for $n = 2$ and
$B_\mathrm{m}$ $\approx 3 - 8$~kG for $n = 3 - 10$.
\section{The fluorescent Fe 6.4 keV line}
\label{s:fluor}
During the inspection of the X-ray spectrum in the different time-intervals, we observed
a feature (excess emission not reproduced by the plasma model) close to the Fe K$_\alpha$
line at redder wavelengths.
We identified this feature as the Fe fluorescent line at 6.4~keV.
It was noticeable only during the time-segments 4 to 9, while it was
neither in time-segments 1 to 3 nor in the quiescent state
(see Fig.~\ref{fig6}). Unfortunately, we could not monitor
the time-variation of this emission line since the individual spectra
of each time-interval have no counts enough for accurately fitting the line.
Thus, to quantify the excess emission at 6.4~keV in our observations,
we performed spectral fitting
using an interstellar absorbed 3$T$-plasma model and an
additional Gaussian line component at 6.4~keV. We fitted, on
the one hand, the spectrum integrated from the quiescent to
time-segment 3 (inclusive) and, on the other hand, the
spectrum integrated from time-segment 4 to 9 (inclusive).
The gaussian flux obtained in this way for the former spectrum is zero.
The best fit results are shown in Table~\ref{tab5}.
Note that we left free only the temperature and the emission measure
of the third (hottest) thermal component and the gaussian, while the
rest of the parameters were fixed to the values obtained for the quiescent
state (Table~\ref{tab_quiescent}).
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm,clip=true]{f6a.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm,clip=true]{f6b.ps}
\caption{Left: PN spectrum of TWA 11B integrated in the
time-segments 4 -- 9, with the clear excess emission in 6.4~keV. The (red) continuous line
is the fitted 3$T$-model. In the small window, the (blue) dashed-line is the
fitted 3$T$-model + Gaussian component. The Gaussian
component is also plotted
as a dotted-dashed line. Right: Same as figure at
the left but in the time-segments 1 -- 3 plus quiescent. Here, the excess
emission in 6.4~keV is clearly not present.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[!t]
\small
\centering
\caption[]{Best fitting values
(3$T$ plasma model + Gaussian) for the spectrum integrated
in the time-segments 4 -- 9. Only the temperature and the emission measure of
the third thermal component and the Gaussian are
listed because the remaining parameters were fixed to the values estimated
for the quiescent state. The given $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ and d.o.f. values
refer to the total fit.}
\label{tab5}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$kT_3$ (keV) & = & $2.02^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$EM_3$ ($10^{52}$ cm$^{-3}$) & = & $4.7^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Gaussian central energy (keV) & = & $6.4^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Gaussian flux ($10^{-6}$ ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$) & = & $0.9^{+0.7}_{-1.3}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Gaussian $\sigma$ (eV) & = & $9.7^{+0.6}_{-9.7}$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$ [d.o.f.] & = & $0.96 \ [499]$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In the past,
fluorescent Fe emission
were commonly observed in classical T Tauri stars and protostars
\citep{tsu05, fav05, gia07, sci08}, where it has been attributed to the incidence
of X-ray emission onto the proto-planetary disk or into the circumstellar gas surrounding
very young objects. However, the Fe 6.4~keV line has been observed also in the giant
star HR~9024 \citep{tes08} and the RS~CVn system II~Peg \citep{ost07}. In the case of
HR~9024, the authors attributed its presence to the incidence of hard X-rays onto
the photosphere, in concordance with what is observed in the Sun. In II~Peg, the
excitation mechanism was ascribed to electron impact ionization of photospheric Fe.
In our observation, we have not statistics enough to perform a robust analysis of
the fluorescent line. Nevertheless, some constraints can be given. On the one hand, the
line is not observed during the first event. This may be consistent with the scenario of the
long loop for this event. The efficiency of the fluorescence decreases with the distance
of the X-ray source to the photosphere \citep[e.g.][]{dra08}. Therefore, if the fluoresce line
were produced by photoionization, it should not be observed during flares occurring in
long loops. On the other hand, the
presence of the line during the second event could be indicative of a not very high
loop system, if it were produced by photoionization. In contrast, if the line were
produced by collisional ionization, there would be none constraint to the loop
height. A result in favor with the non-photoionization nature of the fluorescence
line is shown in \citet{cze07}. In their study, the authors modeled the illuminating
input spectrum and obtained line fluxes below the observations. With our data,
the collisional production of the fluorescence line cannot be discarded.
\section{Final remarks and conclusions}
In this paper, we analyzed the long rise phase of a flare observed in an XMM-Newton
archive data of the $\sim 8$~Myr old star TWA~11B.
The analysis of the light curve, of the hardness-ratio curve, and of the
time-resolved spectra consistently indicates that probably the flare first involved
mainly a single loop and then propagated to a loop arcade becoming a proper
two-ribbon flare.
We split our analysis into three parts: the quiescent state, the single-loop flare
(event A), and the two-ribbon system (event B). Event A was studied with the
analysis described in \citet{rea07}. For event B, we used the stellar version of the
\citet{kop84}'s solar two-ribbon flare model that is able to provide
some limited information about the late flaring structures.
For the single loop, we obtained a semi-length of
approximately $1.8 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{11}$~cm ($\sim 4 \pm 1$~R$_\star$), with
a volume $V = 2.3 \times 10^{31}$~cm$^3$ and a cross-section $r/L \sim 2\%$.
These values are comparable to those found by \citet{fav05} in Orion members.
This fact makes us suggest that large and thin loops are common in young
active stars.
For the two-ribbon system, different results consistent with the observed data
were found. Good fits ($\chi^2 \sim 1$)
were obtained for both small and large values of $n$ (i.e. for high and
short loop arcades). Bearing the semi-length of the
first loop in mind, the more realistic
scenario for the two-ribbon system is that with long loops. In any case,
the estimated values of the maximum surface magnetic field in the
flaring region result to be
quite strong, reaching 2 -- 8 kG
when a large fraction
of the liberated magnetic energy ($q = 0.05$) is
assumed to heat the plasma, and up to 18 kG when
$q \sim 0.01$.
During the inspection of the X-ray spectrum,
we observed the Fe fluorescent line at 6.4~keV
during the time in which the two-ribbon system evolved
(time-segments $4-9$).
The absence of the line during the first event may be
consistent with the long loop scenario for event A. In contrast, the
detection of the fluorescence line during the second event could be
indicative of a not very high loop system involved in the two ribbon
flare, if the line were produced by photoionization. Otherwise,
there would be none constraint to the loop system height.
\acknowledgments
JLS acknowledges financial support by the
PRICIT project S-0505/ESP-0237 (ASTROCAM) of the Comunidad
Aut\'onoma de Madrid (Spain). ICC acknowledges
support from the Spanish {\it Ministerio de
Educaci\'on y Ciencia}, under the grant F.P.U. \mbox{AP2001-0475};
and from the Marie Curie Actions grant MERG-CT-2007-046535.
The Madrid group acknowledges partial support
by the Programa Nacional de Astronom\'{\i}a y Astrof\'{\i}sica of the Spanish
Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (MEC), under grants AYA2008-00695
and AYA2008-06423-C03-03. FR acknowledges support from Italian
Ministero dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca (MIUR).
GM acknowledges support from the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) and
the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF) under grant ASI-INAF I/088/06/0.
{We would like to thank the referee and the editor for useful comments
and discussion that helped us to improve this manuscript.}
|
\section{Introduction}
The nuclear matter symmetry energy, which is defined as the difference in energy per nucleon between the pure neutron matter and the symmetric nuclear matter, is an important quantity that determines the properties of objects such as the atomic nucleus and the neutron star \cite{LI08}. The study of symmetry energy and its dependence on nuclear density and temperature is currently a subject of great interest \cite{BAR05}. Theoretically, the symmetry energy can be determined from microscopic calculations such as the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) and the Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (DBHF) calculations, or the phenomenological calculations such as the Skyrme Hartree-Fock (SHF) and the relativistic mean field (RMF) calculations \cite{LI08}. These calculations currently predict wide range of symmetry energies for densities below and above normal nuclear density, $\rho_{o}$ = 0.16 fm$^{-3}$ (Fig. 1). Experimentally, the symmetry energy is not a directly measurable quantity and has to be extracted indirectly from observables that are related to the symmetry energy. The experimental determination of the symmetry energy is therefore dependent on how reliable the model that describes the experimental observable is. So far there has been very few experimental determination of the symmetry energy. These experimental studies are of two types:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{} where, a certain form of the density dependence of the symmetry energy is assumed in the theoretical calculation and the experimental observable reproduced using the dependence that best explains the data. Such studies \cite{SHE04,CHE05,LI05,SHET07,SHE07,FAM06,GAL09,TSA09} often make use of dynamical models such as, the Isospin Boltzmann Uehling Uhlenbech (IBUU04) \cite{LI04}, the Improved Quantum Molecular Dynamics (ImQMD) \cite{ZHA08}, the Boltzmann Nordheim Vlasov (BNV) transport calculation \cite{BAR05} and the Anti symmetrized Molecular Dynamics (AMD) \cite{ONO03}, to relate the symmetry energy to the experimental observable. The disadvantage in such studies is that they assume a single form of the symmetry energy for all densities, which may not be true. Such studies provide only a gross dependence of the symmetry energy without much insight into its evolution with the density. Also, these studies are highly model dependent as will be discussed in a later section.
\item{} where, the form of the density dependence of the symmetry energy is not known a priori and the symmetry energy is studied by mapping its value at each density. Such studies \cite{SHE07,SHE09,KOW07} require a detailed understanding of the relation between the symmetry energy, excitation energy, density and temperature. They make use of the Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMM) \cite{BOT02,TSA01} to relate the symmetry energy to the experimental observable. The advantage in such studies is that they provide a ``direct" means of studying the symmetry energy with density and temperature that can then be compared with any theoretical predictions. The difficulty in such studies is often the theoretical interpretation of the symmetry energy.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.0 in, height=2.2 in]{Shetty_Fig1.eps}
\caption{Density dependence of the symmetry energy as predicted by various theoretical calculations [1].}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this article, we review recent experimental studies on the symmetry energy and its density dependence obtained using the above two approaches.
\section{Nuclear matter symmetry energy below saturation density ($0.3$ $\rho_o$ $\le$ $\rho$ $\le$ $\rho_o$)}
The symmetry energy below saturation density has been studied in heavy ion multifragmentation reactions using fragments with A $>$ 4. Observables such as the fragment yield, isoscaling parameter, isospin diffusion transport ratio, double neutron-proton ratio, pre-equilibrium emission, and $\langle$N$\rangle$/Z has been used to extract the symmetry energy.
\subsection{Symmetry energy from dynamical multifragmentation model comparison}
The symmetry energy in this density region has been studied by comparing the experimental observables with the dynamical model calculations. Chen {\it {et al.}} \cite{CHE05}, compared the NSCL-MSU isospin diffusion data from $^{124}$Sn + $^{112}$Sn reaction at 50 MeV/A with the dynamical IBUU04 \cite{LI04} calculation, and obtained a symmetry energy of the form, E$_{sym}(\rho)$ = 31.6($\rho$/$\rho_{o}$)$^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma$ = 1.05. The NSCL-MSU isospin data was also compared with the IBUU04 by Li {\it {et al.}} \cite{LI05}, that included the isospin dependence of the in-medium nucleon-nucleon cross-section, giving symmetry energy of the form, E$_{sym}(\rho)$ = 31.6($\rho$/$\rho_{o}$)$^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma$ = 0.69. Shetty {\it {et al.}} \cite{SHE04,SHET07,SHE07}, extracted the symmetry energy by comparing the isoscaling parameters from $^{40}$Ar, $^{40}$Ca + $^{58}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni and $^{58}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni + $^{58}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni reactions with the dynamical AMD model calculation \cite{ONO03}, resulting in symmetry energy, E$_{sym}(\rho)$ = 31.6($\rho$/$\rho_{o}$)$^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma$ = 0.69. Famiano {\it {et al.}} \cite{FAM06}, studied the symmetry energy by comparing the experimental double neutron to proton ratio in $^{112}$Sn + $^{112}$Sn and $^{124}$Sn + $^{124}$Sn reactions with the BUU97 calculation \cite{LI97} and obtained a symmetry energy, E$_{sym}(\rho)$ = 32($\rho$/$\rho_{o}$)$^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma$ = 0.5. Galichet {\it {et al.}} \cite {GAL09}, studied the symmetry energy by comparing the isospin diffusion and pre-equilibrium emission data in $^{58}$Ni + $^{58}$Ni, $^{197}$Au reactions at 52 - 74 MeV/A with the BNV calculation, and obtained a symmetry energy that increase linearly with density. More recently, Tsang {\it {et al.}} \cite{TSA09}, compared the isospin diffusion and the neutron to proton double ratio for $^{124}$Sn + $^{112}$Sn reaction at 50 MeV/A with the ImQMD calculation \cite{ZHA08} and obtained a symmetry energy of the form, E$_{sym}(\rho)$ = 12.5($\rho$/$\rho_{o}$)$^{2/3}$ + 17.6($\rho$/$\rho_{o}$)$^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma$ = 0.4 - 1.05. The functional dependence of the symmetry energy obtained from all these comparisons are very similar to each other.
It must be mentioned that while both the IBUU04 and ImQMD comparisons lead to similar form of the density dependence of the symmetry energy for the isospin diffusion observable, the IBUU04 fails to adaquately explain the neutron to proton ratio \cite{LI06}. Furthermore, these comparisons lead to very different results for densities above saturation density \cite{XIA09,FEN10} (as discussed in section 5). The determination of the symmetry energy from the dynamical model comparison is therefore highly model dependent, and the assumption of a single form of the symmetry energy at different densities questionable.
\subsection{Symmetry energy from statistical multifragmentation model comparison}
The symmetry energy has also been studied by comparing the experimental observables with the statistical multifragmentation model (SMM) calculation \cite{BOT02} in this density region. In multifragmentation a nucleus expands with increasing excitation energy and its equilibrium density is reduced from the ground state density. Such a decrease should essentially map the density dependence of the symmetry energy. A detailed understanding of the relationship between excitation energy, density, and temperature is however required. An attempt has recently been made by Shetty {\it {et al.}} \cite{SHE07,SHE09} from the study of isoscaling parameters in $^{58}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni + $^{58}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni reactions at 30, 40 and 47 MeV/A. In this work, the symmetry energy was studied by correlating the experimentally observed decrease in the isoscaling parameter, density, and the flattening of temperature (caloric curve), with the increase in excitation energy.
The decrease in the symmetry energy with increasing excitation energy was also observed in the fragmentation of excited target residues following $^{12}$C + $^{124}$Sn, $^{112}$Sn reactions at 300 and 600 MeV/A by Le Fevre {\it {et al.}} \cite{FEV05}. It was also observed in $^{40}$Ar, $^{40}$Ca + $^{58}$Fe, $^{58}$Ni reactions at 25, 33, 45 and 53 MeV/nucleon by Iglio {\it {et al.}} \cite{IGL06}, and by Shetty {\it {et al.}} \cite{SHE04,SHE05}. Although in these work, a detailed understanding of the relation between temperature, excitation energy and nuclear density was not undertaken. Recently, Ogul {\it {et al.}} \cite{OGU09}, compared the MSU experimental isoscaling data ($\alpha$ = 0.36 and $\beta$ = -0.39) from $^{112}$Sn, $^{124}$Sn + $^{112}$Sn reaction with the SMM calculation, and observed that a significant reduction of the symmetry energy is necessary to reproduce the experimental data. Geraci {\it {et al.}} \cite{GER07}, studied $^{124}$Sn + $^{64}$Ni and $^{112}$Sn + $^{58}$Ni reactions at 35 MeV/A and observed a similar decrease in the symmetry energy with increasing excitation energy.
The reduction in the symmetry energy has also been observed in the projectile fragmentation of $^{64}$Ni + $^{64}$Ni, $^{86}$Kr + $^{64}$Ni, $^{124}$Sn, $^{208}$Pb reactions at 25 MeV/A using the observable $\langle$Z/A$\rangle$ by Souliotis {\it {et al.}} \cite{SOU06,SOU07}. More recently, Hudan {\it {et al.}} \cite{HUD09}, studied the projectile fragmentation in $^{124}$Xe + $^{112}$Sn reaction at E/A = 30 MeV and measured the $\langle$N$\rangle$/Z and isotope distribution of fragments with Z $>$ 6. They observed that a reduced value of the symmetry energy from 25 MeV to 14 MeV is essential for explaining the data. They further showed that fragments with Z $>$ 6 are even more sensitive to the variation in symmetry energy and can be an important probe for studying symmetry energy. A decrease in the symmetry energy was also implied by Wuenschel {\it {et al.}} \cite{WUE09}, in the study of $^{86,78}$Kr + $^{64,58}$Ni reactions at 35 MeV/A.
It has been argued \cite{SOUZ08} that the decrease in the symmetry energy to reproduce the experimental observables in these studies may not be necessary if the surface corrections to the symmetry energy are included in the mass parameterization used in the SMM model calculation. The possibility of modification of the symmetry energy and the surface energy coefficient of nuclear matter was studied recently by Ogul {\it {et al.}} \cite{OGU09}. They found that the isoscaling parameters are affected very little by the surface energy variation and are very sensitive to the symmetry energy. A decrease in the symmetry energy is therefore essential to explain the experimental data. W. Ye {\it {et al.}} \cite{YE09}, also studied the influence of the surface entropy on the isoscaling using the Extended Compound Nucleus (ECN) model and found that although the surface entropy increases the numerical values of isoscaling parameters it has only minor effect on the extracted symmetry energy. A clear theoretical interpretation of the symmetry energy in statistical model is therefore important.
\subsection{Symmetry energy from other studies}
The nuclear symmetry energy has also been studied from observables other than those studied using heavy ion reactions. Centelles {\it {et al.}} \cite{CEN09}, have studied the symmetry energy using the experimental neutron skin measured in 26 antiprotonic atoms. Klimkiewicz {\it {et al.}} \cite{KLI07}, have studied the symmetry energy from correlation between the symmetry pressure and the symmetry energy using the properties of Pygmy Dipole Resonance (PDR) in $^{208}$Pb nuclei. Trippa {\it {et al.}} \cite{TRI08}, have studied the symmetry energy from the correlation between the symmetry energy and the experimental centroid energy of the Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR) in $^{208}$Pb nuclei. Khoa {\it {et al.}} \cite{KHO05,KHO07}, have studied the symmetry energy from the folding model analysis of the charge exchange $p$($^{6}$He, $^{6}$Li)$n$ reaction measured at 41.6 MeV/A. Danielewicz \cite{DAN03} have studied the symmetry energy by constraining the binding energy, neutron skin and the isospin analogue state of finite nuclei. The symmetry energy has also been studied by fitting the binding energy of 1654 nuclei using the Thomas-Fermi model of Myers and Swiatecki \cite{MYE96,MYE98}. The results of these independent studies are shown in Fig. 2 and 3 and discussed in section 4.
\section{Nuclear matter symmetry energy below $\rho$ $<$ $0.3$ $\rho_o$}
Symmetry energy at very low densities (0.01 - 0.05) $\rho_o$ has been studied by Kowalski {\it {et al.}}\cite{KOW07}, in heavy ion collision of $^{64}$Zn + $^{92}$Mo, $^{197}$Au reactions at 35 MeV/A. It was shown that isoscaling analysis of the light clusters (A $\le$ 4) can be used to study the symmetry energy at such low densities. They observed that the experimental symmetry energy is somewhat higher than those expected from the mean field calculations. At such low densities cluster formation becomes important and mean field calculations do not take into account such effect. Recently, Natowitz {\it {et al.}} \cite{NAT10}, have shown that the symmetry energy at such low densities can be explained by quantum statistical calculation that includes cluster correlation in nuclear medium. At densities higher than 0.2 - 0.3 $\rho_o$ the many body correlation disappears and the symmetry energy follows the dependence predicted by the mean field calculations.
\section{Current status of the density dependence of the symmetry energy for ($\rho$ $\le$ $\rho_o$) }
The symmetry energy obtained from the studies discussed above are as shown in Fig. 2. The orange box on the extreme left of fig. 2 correspond to the values of symmetry energy extracted by Kowalski {\it {et al.}} \cite{KOW07,NAT10}. The green and the red solid points are the symmetry energies extracted from the correlation between temperature, density, isoscaling parameter and the excitation energy by Shetty {\it {et al.}} \cite{SHE09,SHE07}. The blue solid point in the figure correspond to the symmetry energy obtained by constraining the experimental energy of giant dipole resonance (GDR) in $^{208}$Pb by Trippa {\it {et al.}} \cite{TRI08}. The square solid point in the figure correspond to the symmetry energy obtained by fitting the experimental differential cross-section data in a charge exchange reaction using the isospin dependent interaction of the optical potential by Khoa {\it {et al.}} \cite{KHO05,KHO07}. The green solid curve in the figure is the one obtained from the dynamical AMD model comparison of the experimental isoscaling data assuming the sequential decay effect to be small \cite{SHE04,SHET07}. The symmetry energy extracted from the IBUU04 comparison of isosopin diffusion results by Li {\it {et al.}} \cite{LI05}, and the ImQMD comparison by Tsang {\it {et al.}} \cite{TSA09}, are similar to the green curve. The solid black curve is the symmetry energy extracted from the double neutron to proton ratio by Famiano {\it {et al.}} \cite{FAM06}, using the BUU97 model calculation. The red dashed curve corresponds to the one obtained from an accurately calibrated relativistic mean field calculation by Todd$-$Rutel and Piekarewicz \cite{TOD05} for describing the giant monopole resonance (GMR) in $^{90}$Zr and $^{208}$Pb, and the isovector giant dipole resonance (IVGDR) in $^{208}$Pb. The shaded region in the figure corresponds to those obtained by constraining the binding energy, neutron skin thickness and isospin analogue state in finite nuclei using the mass formula by Danielewicz \cite{DAN03}. The yellow curve correspond to the parametrization adopted in the studies of neutron star \cite{HEI00}. Current studies in the region, 0.3 $\rho_o$ $\le$ $\rho$ $\le$ $\rho_o$, can therefore be parameterized by a ``stiff" form of the symmetry energy, E$_{sym}(\rho)$ = 31.6$(\rho/\rho_{o})^{\gamma}$, with $\gamma$ = 0.5 - 0.7. This parameterization is in good agreement with the mean field calculation. In the density region, $\rho$ $<$ $0.3$ $\rho_o$, the experimental symmetry energy is observed to deviate from the mean field calculation due to the importance of cluster formation, and is in good agreement with the quantum statistic calculation \cite{NAT10}.
The slope parameter, L = 3$\rho_o$ ($\partial E_{sym}(\rho)/\partial \rho$), is an alternate way of constraining the symmetry energy near saturation density, $\rho_o$. Fig. 3 shows the slope parameter L, obtained from various studies discussed above. These comparison results in a constraint of 30 $<$ L $<$ 80 MeV for the symmetry energy slope at saturation density \cite{CEN09,CHO09}.
\section{Nuclear matter symmetry energy above saturation density ($\rho$ $>$ $\rho_o$) }
At densities higher than the normal nuclear matter density the theoretically determined symmetry energy as a function of density is largely unconstrained. Experimental determination of the symmetry energy at such densities have been very few and they are all from dynamical model comparison. The results are highly model dependent and contradicting.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in,height=3.2 in]{Shetty_Fig2.eps}
\caption{Density dependence of the symmetry energy extracted from various different studies as described in the text.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.5 in, height=3.5 in]{Shetty_Fig3.eps}
\caption{The slope parameter L, from various different observables as described in the text.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
One observable that has recently been studied is the $\pi^{-}$$/$$\pi^{+}$ ratio in $^{40}$Ca + $^{40}$Ca, $^{96}$Ru + $^{96}$Ru, $^{96}$Zr + $^{96}$Zr and $^{197}$Au + $^{197}$Au reactions at GSI by the FOPI collaboration \cite{REI07}. A comparison \cite{XIA09} of this data with the transport model IBUU04 calculation shows that it can be reproduced with a ``soft" (x = 1) form of the density dependence of the symmetry energy. This is in contrast to those obtained from the low density studies of the symmetry energy where a ``stiff" (x = 0) form of the symmetry energy reproduced the data well. More recently, the $\pi^{-}$$/$$\pi^{+}$ GSI data was also compared with the ImQMD calculation by Feng {\it {et al.}} \cite{FEN10}. The comparison favored a much stiffer form of the symmetry energy than those obtained from the low density studies, and in direct contradiction to those obtained from the IBUU04 model comparison. The symmetry energy results at such high densities is therefore currently controversial.
Another observable that has been suggested for probing the high density behavior of the symmetry energy is the relative and differential collective flow between triton and $^{3}$He particles \cite{YON09}. Preliminary calculation by Yong {\it {et al.}} \cite{YON09}, suggests that a ``stiff" (x = 0) dependence of the symmetry energy would lead to a linear behavior for the relative flow, whereas the``soft" (x = 1) dependence would give a non linear behavior with appreciable difference between the two. So it is expected that a measurement of this observable should provide important information on the high density behavior of the symmetry energy.
The theoretical determination of the symmetry energy at high density is a challenge. It is not known how reliable the dynamical model calculations can be at such high densities as it is not known how the quantum many body effects can be treated in these calculations, or how the effects of spin$-$isospin for three body force can be included. Also, the nuclear matter at such densities is not in a pure nucleonic state at thermodynamical equilibrium. The above comparison with the experimental data is therefore only a ``circumstantial'' evidence \cite{XIA09} and much theoretical work needs to be done before a definitive conclusion can be reached.
\section{How is the nuclear matter symmetry energy related to the symmetry energy of finite nuclei ?}
The symmetry energy of finite nuclei at saturation density is often extracted by fitting ground state masses with various versions of the liquid drop mass formula. For a finite nuclei it is important to decompose the symmetry term of liquid into bulk (volume) and surface contributions, and identify the volume symmetry energy coefficient as the symmetry energy derived from the nuclear matter at saturation density. Using the constraint obtained from the above studies on nuclear matter symmetry energy, the symmetry energy of a finite nucleus of mass $A$, $S_{A}(\rho)$, can be written as \cite{SHE09},
\begin{equation}
S_{A}(\rho) = \frac{\alpha(\rho/\rho_{\circ})^{\gamma}}{1 + [\alpha(\rho/\rho_{\circ})^{\gamma}/\beta A^{1/3}]}
\end{equation}
where, $\alpha$ = 31 - 33 MeV, $\gamma$ = 0.5 - 0.7 and $\alpha/\beta$ = 2.6 - 3.0. The quantities $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the volume and the surface symmetry energy at normal nuclear density. Presently, the values of $\alpha$, $\gamma$ and $\alpha/\beta$ remain unconstrained. The ratio of the volume symmetry energy to the surface symmetry energy ($\alpha/\beta$), is closely related to the neutron skin thickness \cite{DAN03}. Depending upon how the nuclear surface and the Coulomb contribution is treated, two different correlations between the volume and the surface symmetry energy have been predicted \cite{STE05} from fits to nuclear masses. Experimental masses and neutron skin thickness measurements for nuclei with $N/Z$ $>$ 1 should provide tighter constraint on the above parameters.
The above relation for the symmetry energy of finite nuclei has been compared \cite{SHE09} with the Thomas-Fermi calculation of Samaddar {\it {et al.}} \cite{SAM08}. It was observed that this empirical relation compares very well with the Thomas-Fermi calculation for wide range of nuclei. Future measurements of symmetry energy as a function of excitation energy for very light and heavy nuclei should provide further insight into the validity of this relation.
\section{Future measurements of symmetry energy at rare isotope beam facilities }
Currently, studies on the density dependence of the symmetry energy are being carried out using beams of stable nuclei. In order to study large isospin dependency beams of neutron-rich nuclei are needed. A number of observables sensitive to the symmetry energy that can be experimentally tested has been sugggested by Di Toro {\it {et al}} \cite{BAR05,DIT08}. It is hoped that future facilities for rare isotope beams such as FRIB, FAIR and SPIRAL II should provide increased precision in the measurement of symmetry energy using these observables over a wide range of density. These facilities will allow studies to be carried out at 2 - 3 times the normal nuclear density.
New detectors such as the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) at NSCL$/$MSU and the Time Projection Chamber, SAMURAI at RIKEN$/$Japan are therefore being planned to study the symmetry energy and the nuclear equation of state. These detectors will significantly enhance our understanding of the nuclear symmetry energy and their relation to atomic nuclei and neutron stars.
\section{Summary}
In summary, the experimental determination of the nuclear symmetry energy is reviewed. It is observed that despite the model dependent ways in which the symmetry energy is extracted significant progress has been made. These studies are the first step in an effort to constrain the symmetry energy that is important for studying the structure of neutrons stars and exotic nuclei. In the future, it is hoped that more measurements will be carried out where the symmetry energy is extracted for each densities and compared with theoretical calculations. These measurements using beams of neutron rich nuclei and robust theoretical interpretation of the symmetry energy will help refine some of these results. Furthermore, they will help constrain the symmetry energy at densities above normal nuclear density where experimental results are scarce.
|
\section{Introduction}
\bigskip
~
The relationship between energy and information has been investigated
extensively in the context of computation energy cost including a modern
analysis of Maxwell's demon \cite{L}-\cite{D}. In this Letter, we show a new
energy-information relation from a different point of view. Recently, it has
been reported that energy can be transported by local operations and classical
communication while retaining local energy conservation and without breaking
causality \cite{hotta1}-\cite{hotta3}. Such protocols are called quantum
energy teleportation (QET) and are based on ground-state entanglement of
many-body quantum systems including spin chains \cite{hotta1}, cold trapped
ions \cite{hotta2}\ and quantum fields \cite{hotta3}. By performing a local
measurement on a subsystem A of a many-body system in the ground state,
information about the quantum fluctuation of A can be extracted. Because the
post-measurement state is not the ground state in general, some amount of
energy is infused into A as QET energy input during this measurement, and the
ground-state entanglement gets partially broken. Next, the measurement result
is announced to another subsystem B of the many-body system at a speed much
faster than the diffusion velocity of the energy infused by the measurement.
Soon after the information arrives at B, energy can be extracted from B as QET
energy output by performing a local operation on B dependent on the announced
measurement data. The root of the protocols is a correlation between the
measurement information of A and the quantum fluctuation of B via the
ground-state entanglement. Due to the correlation, we are able to estimate the
quantum fluctuation of B based on the announced information from A and devise
a strategy to control the fluctuation of B. By the above-mentioned selected
local operation on B, the fluctuation of B can be more suppressed than that of
the ground state, yielding negative energy density around B in the many-body
system. The concept of negative energy density has been investigated in
quantum field theory for a long time \cite{BD}. Quantum interference among
total energy eigenstates can produce various states containing regions of
negative energy density, although the total energy remains nonnegative. The
regions of negative energy density can appear in general many-body quantum
systems by fixing the origin of the energy density such that the expectational
value vanishes for the ground state. In spite of the emergence of negative
energy density, \ the total energy also remains nonnegative for the general
cases. In the QET protocols, during the generation of negative energy density
at B, surplus positive energy is transferred from B to external systems and
can be harnessed as the QET output energy. Here it should be emphasized that
this output energy existed not at A but at B \textit{even} \textit{before} the
start of the protocol and was hidden inside the zero-point fluctuation of B.
Of course, this zero-point energy is not available by usual local operations
for B. However, by using a local operation dependent on A's information, it
becomes possible to dig out B's zero-point energy by pair creation of the
positive output energy from B and the negative energy of B. Hence, we do not
need to hire any physical carrier of energy from A to B like electric currents
and photons, at least, during short-time QET processes. Needless to say, after
the completion of QET process, the positive energy of A compensates for the
negative energy of B during late-time free evolution of the many-body system.
The amount of output energy from B is upper bounded by the amount of input
energy to A.
Using the usual protocols of quantum teleportation, quantum states can be
transported from one party to another by the consumption of shared
entanglement between the two parties \cite{qt}. As is well known \cite{nc},
transfer of a large number of quantum states requires a large amount of
consumption of shared entanglement as a physical resource. Taking into account
the fact, it seems natural for the QET protocols to expect that a large amount
of teleported energy also requests a large amount of consumption of the
ground-state entanglement between A and B. If such a non-trivial relation
exists between teleported energy and breaking of ground-state entanglement by
measurement, the relation may shed new light on the interplay between quantum
physics and quantum information theory. In this Letter, the first example of
the energy-entanglement relation for a minimal QET model is presented. The
minimal QET model is the smallest physical system for which non-trivial QET
can be implemented; this model consists of two qubits with an interaction of
the Ising spin chain in the presence of a transverse magnetic field. We
explicitly show that for the minimal model, the consumption of entanglement
between A and B during the measurement of A is lower bounded by a positive
value that is proportional to the maximum amount of energy teleported from A
to B. In addition, we obtain another inequality in which the maximum amount of
energy teleported from A to B is lower bounded by a different positive value
that is proportional to the amount of entanglement breaking between A and B by
the measurement of A. These energy-entanglement inequalities are of importance
because they help in gaining a profound understanding of entanglement itself
as a physical resource by relating entanglement to energy as an evident
physical resource.~
\section{Minimal QET Model}
\bigskip
~
First of all, we introduce the minimal QET model. The system consists of two
qubits A and B. Its Hamiltonian is the same as that of the Ising spin chain in
the presence of a transverse magnetic field as follows: $H=H_{A}+H_{B}+V$,
where each contribution is given by
\begin{align}
H_{A} & =h\sigma_{A}^{z}+\frac{h^{2}}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}},\label{1}\\
H_{B} & =h\sigma_{B}^{z}+\frac{h^{2}}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}},\\
V & =2k\sigma_{A}^{x}\sigma_{B}^{x}+\frac{2k^{2}}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}
},\label{3
\end{align}
and $h$ and$~k$ are positive constants with energy dimensions, $\sigma_{A
^{x}~\left( \sigma_{B}^{x}\right) $ is the x-component of the Pauli
operators for the qubit A (B), and $\sigma_{A}^{z}~\left( \sigma_{B
^{z}\right) $ is the z-component for the qubit A (B). The constant terms in
Eqs. (\ref{1})-(\ref{3}) are added in order to make the expectational value of
each operator zero for the ground state $|g\rangle$:
\[
\langle g|H_{A}|g\rangle=\langle g|H_{B}|g\rangle=\langle g|V|g\rangle=0.
\]
Because the lowest eigenvalue of the total Hamiltonian $H$ is zero, $H$ is a
nonnegative operator:$~H\geq0$. Meanwhile, it should be noticed that $H_{B}$
has a negative eigenvalue, which can yield negative energy density. The ground
state is given by
\[
|g\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{h}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}}}|+\rangle
_{A}|+\rangle_{B}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1+\frac{h}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}
}|-\rangle_{A}|-\rangle_{B},
\]
where $|\pm\rangle_{A}~\left( |\pm\rangle_{B}\right) $ is the eigenstate of
$\sigma_{A}^{z}~\left( \sigma_{B}^{z}\right) $ with eigenvalue $\pm1$.
When local operations are performed to this system, we connect the system with
a local appratus and (or) add local external forces like magnetic field.
However, time interval of the operations is assumed to be quite short, as
often argued in quantum information theory. Thus interaction terms between the
system and the external apparatus vanish in the Hamiltonian after the
short-time operation.
Let $S_{M_{A}}$ denote a set of POVM measurements \cite{nc} for A which
measurement operators $M_{A}(\mu)$ with measurement output $\mu$ commute with
the interaction Hamiltonian $V$. The measurement operator $M_{A}(\mu)$ takes
the form of
\[
M_{A}(\mu)=e^{i\delta_{\mu}}\left( m_{\mu}+e^{i\alpha_{\mu}}l_{\mu}\sigma
_{A}^{x}\right) .
\]
The coefficients $m_{\mu}$, $l_{\mu}$, $\alpha_{\mu}$ and $\delta_{\mu}$ are
real constants which satisfy
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\mu}\left( m_{\mu}^{2}+l_{\mu}^{2}\right) & =1,\\
\sum_{\mu}m_{\mu}l_{\mu}\cos\alpha_{\mu} & =0.
\end{align*}
The POVM corresponding to $M_{A}(\mu)$ is defined by
\[
\Pi_{A}(\mu)=M_{A}(\mu)^{\dag}M_{A}(\mu),
\]
which satisfies the completeness relation,
\[
\sum_{\mu}\Pi_{A}(\mu)=1_{A}.
\]
By introducing the emergence probability $p_{A}(\mu)$ of output $\mu$ for the
ground state and a real parameter $q_{A}(\mu)$, the POVM is written as
follows:
\[
\Pi_{A}(\mu)=p_{A}(\mu)+q_{A}(\mu)\sigma_{A}^{x}.
\]
By taking suitable values of $m_{\mu}$, $l_{\mu}$, and $\alpha_{\mu}$, all
values of $p_{A}(\mu)$ and $q_{A}(\mu)$ are permissible as long as they
satisfy $\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)=1$, $\sum_{\mu}q_{A}(\mu)=0$ and $p_{A}(\mu
)\geq\left\vert q_{A}(\mu)\right\vert $. The post-measurement state of the two
qubits with output $\mu$ is given by
\[
|A(\mu)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p_{A}(\mu)}}M_{A}(\mu)|g\rangle.
\]
This measurement excites the system and the average post-measurement state has
a positive expectational value $E_{A}$ of $H$, which energy distribution is
localized at A. In fact, the value defined by
\[
E_{A}=\sum_{\mu}\langle g|M_{A}(\mu)^{\dag}HM_{A}(\mu)|g\rangle
\]
is computed as
\begin{equation}
E_{A}=\sum_{\mu}\langle g|M_{A}(\mu)^{\dag}H_{A}M_{A}(\mu)|g\rangle
=\frac{2h^{2}}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}}\sum_{\mu}l_{\mu}^{2}. \label{4
\end{equation}
This infused energy $E_{A}$ is regarded as the QET energy input via the
measurement of A. During the measurement, $E_{A}$ is transfered from external
systems including the measurement device with a battery respecting local
energy conservation. The QET energy conservation law during local measurements
to a qubit of a spin chain has been discussed in \cite{hotta1}.
The key feature of this model is that any measurement of $S_{M_{A}}$ does not
increase the average energy of B at all. By explicit calculations, the average
values of the Hamiltonian contributions $H_{B}$ and $V$ are found to remain
zero after the measurement and are the same as those of the ground state. This
measurement does not yield instantaneous change of $V$. Therefore we have no
direct force of A affecting B after the measurement. Thus, we cannot extract
energy from B by the standard way soon after the measurement. In fact, if any
local unitary operation $W_{B}$ independent of A's measurement result is
performed to B, the post-operation state $\omega$ is given by
\[
\omega=W_{B}\left( \sum_{\mu}M_{A}(\mu)|g\rangle\langle g|M_{A}(\mu)^{\dag
}\right) W_{B}^{\dag}.
\]
The energy difference after the operation is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\operatorname*{Tr}\left[ \omega H\right] -E_{A}=\langle g|W_{B}^{\dag
}\left( H_{B}+V\right) W_{B}|g\rangle,\label{e01
\end{equation}
where we have used
\[
W_{B}^{\dag}H_{A}W_{B}=H_{A}W_{B}^{\dag}W_{B}=H_{A},
\
\[
\left[ W_{B}^{\dag}\left( H_{B}+V\right) W_{B},~M_{A}(\mu)\right] =0,
\]
and the completeness relation of the POVM's
\[
\sum_{\mu}M_{A}(\mu)^{\dag}M_{A}(\mu)=1_{A}.
\]
From Eq. (\ref{e01}), it is proven that the energy difference is nonnegative:
\[
\operatorname*{Tr}\left[ \omega H\right] -E_{A}=\langle g|W_{B}^{\dag
HW_{B}|g\rangle\geq0,
\]
because of a relation such that $\langle g|W_{B}^{\dag}H_{A}W_{B
|g\rangle=\langle g|H_{A}|g\rangle=0$ and the nonnegativity of $H$. Therefore,
as a natural result, no local operation to B independent of $\mu$ extracts
energy from the system.
After a while, the infused energy $E_{A}$ diffuses to B. The time evolution of
the expectational values $H_{B}$ and $V$ of the average post-measurement state
is calculated a
\[
\langle H_{B}(t)\rangle=\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)\langle A(\mu)|e^{itH
H_{B}e^{-itH}|A(\mu)\rangle=\frac{h^{2}\sum_{\mu}l_{\mu}^{2}}{\sqrt
{h^{2}+k^{2}}}\left[ 1-\cos\left( 4kt\right) \right] ,
\]
and $\langle V(t)\rangle=0$. Therefore, energy can be extracted from B after a
diffusion time scale of $1/k$; this is just a usual energy transportation from
A to B. Amazingly, the QET protocol can transport energy from A to B in a time
scale much shorter than that of the usual transportation. In the \ protocol,
the measurement output $\mu$ is announced to B. Because the model is
non-relativistic, the propagation speed of the announced output can be much
faster than the diffusion speed of the infused energy and can be approximated
as infinity. Soon after the arrival of the output $\mu$, we perform a local
operation $U_{B}(\mu)$ on B dependent on $\mu$. Then, the average state after
the operation is given b
\[
\rho=\sum_{\mu}U_{B}(\mu)M_{A}(\mu)|g\rangle\langle g|M_{A}(\mu)^{\dag
U_{B}(\mu)^{\dag}.
\]
In Figure 1, a schematic diagram of this QET model is presented. The
expectational value of the total energy after the operation is given by
\[
\operatorname*{Tr}\left[ \rho H\right] =\sum_{\mu}\langle g|M_{A}(\mu
)^{\dag}U_{B}(\mu)^{\dag}HU_{B}(\mu)M_{A}(\mu)|g\rangle.
\]
On the basis of the fact that $U_{B}(\mu)$ commutes with $H_{A}$ and Eq.
(\ref{4}), $E_{B}$ is computed as
\[
E_{B}=E_{A}-\operatorname*{Tr}\left[ \rho H\right] =-\operatorname*{Tr
\left[ \rho\left( H_{B}+V\right) \right] .
\]
Further, on the basis of the fact that $M_{A}(\mu)$ commutes with $U_{B}(\mu
)$, $H_{B}$ and $V$, the energy can be written as
\[
E_{B}=-\sum_{\mu}\langle g|\Pi_{A}(\mu)\left( H_{B}(\mu)+V(\mu)\right)
|g\rangle,
\]
where the $\mu$-dependent operators are given by $H_{B}(\mu)=U_{B}(\mu)^{\dag
}H_{B}U_{B}(\mu)$ and $V(\mu)=U_{B}(\mu)^{\dag}VU_{B}(\mu)$. Here, let us
write the general form of $U_{B}(\mu)$ as follows:
\[
U_{B}(\mu)=\cos\omega_{\mu}+i\vec{n}_{\mu}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{B}\sin\omega
_{\mu},
\]
where $\omega_{\mu}\,$\ is a real parameter, $\vec{n}_{\mu}=\left( n_{x\mu
},n_{y\mu},n_{z\mu}\right) \,$is a three-dimensional unit real vector and
$\vec{\sigma}_{B}$ is the Pauli spin vector operator of B. Then, an explicit
evaluation of $E_{B}$ becomes possible. The result is expressed as
\[
E_{B}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}}\sum_{\mu}Q(\mu),
\]
where $Q(\mu)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
Q(\mu)=X(\mu)\cos\left( 2\omega_{\mu}\right) -hkq_{A}(\mu)n_{y\mu
\sin(2\omega_{\mu})-X(\mu), \label{6
\end{equation}
where $X(\mu)$ is defined by
\[
X(\mu)=p_{A}(\mu)\left[ h^{2}\left( 1-n_{z\mu}^{2}\right) +2k^{2}\left(
1-n_{x\mu}^{2}\right) \right] -3hkq_{A}(\mu)n_{x\mu}n_{z\mu}.
\]
In order to maximize the teleported energy $E_{B}$ for a given POVM
measurement of A, let us first maximize $Q(\mu)$ in Eq. (\ref{6}) by changing
the parameter $\omega_{\mu}$. This maximum value is calculated a
\begin{equation}
\max_{\omega_{\mu}}Q(\mu)=\sqrt{X(\mu)^{2}+\left[ hkq_{A}(\mu)n_{y\mu
}\right] ^{2}}-X(\mu). \label{13
\end{equation}
Next, let us introduce a parametrization of $n_{x\mu}$ and $n_{z\mu}$ as
$n_{x\mu}=\sqrt{z}\cos\psi_{\mu}$ and $n_{z\mu}=\sqrt{z}\sin\psi_{\mu}$ for
fixed $z=1-n_{y\mu}^{2}$ which runs over $\left[ 0,1\right] $, where
$\psi_{\mu}$ is a real parameter. It is observed that $\max_{\omega_{\mu
}Q(\mu)$ in Eq. (\ref{13}) is a monotonically decreasing function of $X(\mu)$.
Thus, we must find the minimum value of $X(\mu)$ in terms of $\psi_{\mu}$. By
using the parametrization, we can minimize $X(\mu)$ a
\[
\min_{\psi_{\mu}}X(\mu)=\left( 1-\frac{z}{2}\right) p_{A}(\mu)\left(
h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) -\frac{z}{2}\sqrt{\left( h^{2}-2k^{2}\right) ^{2
p_{A}(\mu)^{2}+9h^{2}k^{2}q_{A}(\mu)^{2}}.
\]
Therefore, the maximum value of $\max_{\omega_{\mu}}Q(\mu)$ in terms of
$\psi_{\mu}$ is obtained as follows
\[
\max_{\omega_{\mu},\psi(\mu)}Q(\mu)=\sqrt{\left( \min_{\psi(\mu)
X(\mu)\right) ^{2}+h^{2}k^{2}q_{A}(\mu)^{2}(1-z)}-\min_{\psi(\mu)}X(\mu).
\]
Next, in order to maximize $\max_{\omega_{\mu},\psi_{\mu}}Q(\mu)$ in terms of
$z$, let us write it as a function $T(z)$ of $z$:
\[
T(z)=\max_{\omega_{\mu},\psi_{\mu}}Q(\mu)=\sqrt{\left( a-bz\right)
^{2}+c\left( 1-z\right) }-\left( a-bz\right) ,
\]
where $a$, $b$ and $c$ are positive constants given b
\begin{align*}
a & =p_{A}(\mu)\left( h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) ,\\
b & =\frac{p_{A}(\mu)}{2}\left( h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) +\frac{1}{2
\sqrt{\left( h^{2}-2k^{2}\right) ^{2}p_{A}(\mu)^{2}+9h^{2}k^{2}q_{A
(\mu)^{2}},\\
c & =h^{2}k^{2}q_{A}(\mu)^{2}.
\end{align*}
The derivative of $T(z)$ can be calculated as
\[
\partial_{z}T(z)=\frac{t(z)}{2\sqrt{\left( a-bz\right) ^{2}+c\left(
1-z\right) }},
\]
where $t(z)$ is a function given by
\[
t(z)=-c+2b\left( \sqrt{\left( a-bz\right) ^{2}+c\left( 1-z\right)
}-\left( a-bz\right) \right) .
\]
It can be verified that $t(z)$ and $\partial_{z}T(z)$ are nonpositive for
$z\in\left[ 0,1\right] $. This verification can be done as follows. Let us
first consider an equation $t(\bar{z})=0$. It turns out that, in the
transformation of this equation for solving $\bar{z}$, the dependence of
$\bar{z}$ gets lost and we get just a constraint condition on $p_{A}(\mu)$ and
$q_{A}(\mu)$ such that $q_{A}(\mu)^{2}\left( p_{A}(\mu)^{2}-q_{A}(\mu
)^{2}\right) =0$. Thus, if $p_{A}(\mu)^{2}=q_{A}(\mu)^{2}$ or $q_{A}(\mu
)^{2}=0$, the equation $t(z)=0$ holds for all $z\in\left[ 0,1\right] $. If
$p_{A}(\mu)^{2}\neq q_{A}(\mu)^{2}$ and $q_{A}(\mu)^{2}\neq0$, the solution
$\bar{z}$ does not exist and $t(z)$ has a definite sign for $z\in\left[
0,1\right] $. In order to check the sign, let us substitute $z=1$ into
$t(z)$. Then, when $a\geq b$, we get $t\left( 1\right) =-h^{2}k^{2}q_{A
(\mu)^{2}<0$, and when $a\leq b$, $t\left( 1\right) =-8h^{2}k^{2}(p_{A
(\mu)^{2}-q_{A}(\mu)^{2})<0$. Thus, it is verified that $t(z)$\ and
$\partial_{z}T(z)$ are nonpositive. Therefore, $T(z)$ takes the maximum value
at $z=0$. This implies that $Q(\mu)$ can be maximized as $\max_{U_{B}(\mu
)}Q(\mu):=\max_{\omega_{\mu},\psi_{\mu},z}Q(\mu)=T(0)$. This leads to our
final expression of the maximum teleported energy for the measurement, which
is clearly nonnegative, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\max_{U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}=\frac{h^{2}+2k^{2}}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}}\sum_{\mu
p_{A}(\mu)\left[ \sqrt{1+\frac{h^{2}k^{2}}{\left( h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) ^{2
}\frac{q_{A}(\mu)^{2}}{p_{A}(\mu)^{2}}}-1\right] . \label{21
\end{equation}
The operation $U_{\max}(\mu)$ which attains the maximum of teleported energy
is given by
\[
U_{\max}(\mu)=\cos\Omega_{\mu}+i\sigma_{B}^{y}\sin\Omega_{\mu},
\]
where $\Omega_{\mu}$ is a real constant which satisfie
\begin{align*}
\cos\left( 2\Omega_{\mu}\right) & =\frac{\left( h^{2}+2k^{2}\right)
p_{A}(\mu)}{\sqrt{\left( h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) ^{2}p_{A}(\mu)^{2}+h^{2
k^{2}q_{A}(\mu)^{2}}},\\
\sin\left( 2\Omega_{\mu}\right) & =-\frac{hkq_{A}(\mu)}{\sqrt{\left(
h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) ^{2}p_{A}(\mu)^{2}+h^{2}k^{2}q_{A}(\mu)^{2}}}.
\end{align*}
Besides, the teleported energy can be maximized among POVM measurements of
$S_{M_{A}}$. This is achieved when each POVMs are proportional to projective
operators and given b
\[
\max_{S_{M_{A}},U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}=\frac{h^{2}+2k^{2}}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}
}\left[ \sqrt{1+\frac{h^{2}k^{2}}{\left( h^{2}+2k^{2}\right) ^{2}
}-1\right] .
\]
\bigskip
\section{Relation between Entanglement Breaking and Teleported Energy}
\bigskip
~
Next, we analyze entanglement breaking by the POVM measurement of A and show
two inequalities between the maximum teleported energy and the entanglement
breaking. We adopt entropy of entanglement as a quantitative measure of
entanglement. The entropy of a pure state $|\Psi_{AB}\rangle$ of A and B is
defined as
\[
S_{AB}=-\operatorname*{Tr}_{B}\left[ \operatorname*{Tr}_{A}\left[ |\Psi
_{AB}\rangle\langle\Psi_{AB}|\right] \ln\operatorname*{Tr}_{A}\left[
|\Psi_{AB}\rangle\langle\Psi_{AB}|\right] \right] .
\]
Before the measurement, the total system is prepared to be in the ground state
$|g\rangle$. \ The reduced state of B is given by
\[
\rho_{B}=\operatorname*{Tr}_{A}\left[ |g\rangle\langle g|\right] .
\]
After the POVM measurement outputting $\mu$, the state is transferred into a
pure state $|A(\mu)\rangle$. The reduced post-measurement state of B is
calculated as
\[
\rho_{B}(\mu)=\frac{1}{p_{A}(\mu)}\operatorname*{Tr}_{A}\left[ \Pi_{A
(\mu)|g\rangle\langle g|\right] .
\]
The entropy of entanglement of the ground state is given by
\[
S_{AB}(g)=-\operatorname*{Tr}_{B}\left[ \rho_{B}\ln\rho_{B}\right]
\]
and that of the post-measurement state with output $\mu$ is given by
\[
S_{AB}(\mu)=-\operatorname*{Tr}_{B}\left[ \rho_{B}(\mu)\ln\rho_{B
(\mu)\right] .
\]
By using these results, we define the consumption of ground-state entanglement
by the measurement as the difference between the ground-state entanglement and
the averaged post-measurement-state entanglement
\[
\Delta S_{AB}=S_{AB}(g)-\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)S_{AB}(\mu).
\]
Interestingly, this quantity is tied to the quantum mutual information between
the measurement result of A and the post-measurement state of B. Let us
introduce a Hilbert space for a measurement pointer system $\bar{A}$ of the
POVM measurement, which is spanned by orthonormal states $|\mu_{\bar{A
}\rangle$ corresponding to the output $\mu$ satisfying $\langle\mu_{\bar{A
}|\mu_{\bar{A}}^{\prime}\rangle=\delta_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}$. Then, the average
state of $\bar{A}$ and B after the measurement is given by
\[
\Phi_{\bar{A}B}=\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)|\mu_{\bar{A}}\rangle\langle\mu_{\bar{A
}|\otimes\rho_{B}(\mu).
\]
By using the reduced operators $\Phi_{\bar{A}}=\operatorname*{Tr}_{B}\left[
\Phi_{\bar{A}B}\right] $ and $\Phi_{B}=\operatorname*{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\left[
\Phi_{\bar{A}B}\right] $, the mutual information $I_{\bar{A}B}$ is defined a
\begin{equation}
I_{\bar{A}B}=-\operatorname*{Tr}_{\bar{A}}\left[ \Phi_{\bar{A}}\ln\Phi
_{\bar{A}}\right] -\operatorname*{Tr}_{B}\left[ \Phi_{B}\ln\Phi_{B}\right]
+\operatorname*{Tr}_{\bar{A}B}\left[ \Phi_{\bar{A}B}\ln\Phi_{\bar{A
B}\right] .\nonumber
\end{equation}
By using $\operatorname*{Tr}_{B}\left[ \Phi_{\bar{A}B}\right] =\sum_{\mu
}p_{A}(\mu)|\mu_{\bar{A}}\rangle\langle\mu_{\bar{A}}|$ and $\operatorname*{Tr
_{\bar{A}}\left[ \Phi_{\bar{A}B}\right] =\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)\rho_{B
(\mu)=\rho_{B}$, it can be straightforwardly proven that $I_{\bar{A}B}$ is
equal to $\Delta S_{AB}$. This relation provides another physical
interpretation of $\Delta S_{AB}$.
Next, let us calculate $\Delta S_{AB}$ explicitly. All the eigenvalues of
$\rho_{B}(\mu)$ are given b
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\pm}(\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\left[ 1\pm\sqrt{\cos^{2}\varsigma+\sin
^{2}\varsigma\frac{q_{A}(\mu)^{2}}{p_{A}(\mu)^{2}}}\right] , \label{29
\end{equation}
where $\varsigma$ is a real constant which satisfies
\[
\cos\varsigma=\frac{h}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}},~\sin\varsigma=\frac{k}{\sqrt
{h^{2}+k^{2}}}.
\]
The eigenvalues of $\rho_{B}$ are obtained by substituting $q_{A}(\mu)=0$ into
Eq. (\ref{29}). By using $\lambda_{s}(\mu)$, $\Delta S_{AB}$ can be evaluated
as
\begin{equation}
\Delta S_{AB}=\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)f_{I}\left( \frac{q_{A}(\mu)^{2}}{p_{A
(\mu)^{2}}\right) , \label{30
\end{equation}
where $f_{I}(x)$ is a monotonically increasing function of $x\in\left[
0,1\right] $ and is defined b
\begin{align*}
f_{I}(x) & =\frac{1}{2}\left( 1+\sqrt{\cos^{2}\varsigma+x\sin^{2}\varsigma
}\right) \ln\left( \frac{1}{2}\left( 1+\sqrt{\cos^{2}\varsigma+x\sin
^{2}\varsigma}\right) \right) \\
& +\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\sqrt{\cos^{2}\varsigma+x\sin^{2}\varsigma}\right)
\ln\left( \frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\sqrt{\cos^{2}\varsigma+x\sin^{2}\varsigma
}\right) \right) \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\left( 1+\cos\varsigma\right) \ln\left( \frac{1}{2}\left(
1+\cos\varsigma\right) \right) \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\cos\varsigma\right) \ln\left( \frac{1}{2}\left(
1-\cos\varsigma\right) \right) .
\end{align*}
It is worth noting that the optimal teleported energy $\max_{U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}$
in Eq. (\ref{21}) takes a form similar to Eq. (\ref{30}) a
\begin{equation}
\max_{U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}=\sum_{\mu}p_{A}(\mu)f_{E}\left( \frac{q_{A}(\mu)^{2
}{p_{A}(\mu)^{2}}\right) , \label{003
\end{equation}
where $f_{E}(x)$ is a monotonically increasing function of $x\in\left[
0,1\right] $ and is defined by
\[
f_{E}(x)=\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}\left( 1+\sin^{2}\varsigma\right) \left[
\sqrt{1+\frac{\cos^{2}\varsigma\sin^{2}\varsigma}{\left( 1+\sin^{2
\varsigma\right) ^{2}}x}-1\right] .
\]
Expanding both $f_{I}(x)$ and $f_{E}(x)$ around $x=0$ yield
\begin{align*}
f_{I}(x) & =\frac{\sin^{2}\varsigma}{4\cos\varsigma}\ln\frac{1+\cos
\varsigma}{1-\cos\varsigma}x+O(x^{2}),\\
f_{E}(x) & =\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}\frac{\cos^{2}\varsigma\sin^{2}\varsigma
}{2\left( 1+\sin^{2}\varsigma\right) }x+O(x^{2}).
\end{align*}
By deleting $x$ in the above two equations, we obtain the following relation
for weak measurements with infinitesimally small $q_{A}(\mu)$
\[
\Delta S_{AB}=\frac{1+\sin^{2}\varsigma}{2\cos^{3}\varsigma}\ln\frac
{1+\cos\varsigma}{1-\cos\varsigma}\frac{\max_{U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}}{\sqrt
{h^{2}+k^{2}}}+O(q_{A}(\mu)^{4}).
\]
It is of great significance that this relation can be extended as the
following inequality for general measurements of $S_{M_{A}}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta S_{AB}\geq\frac{1+\sin^{2}\varsigma}{2\cos^{3}\varsigma}\ln\frac
{1+\cos\varsigma}{1-\cos\varsigma}\frac{\max_{U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}}{\sqrt
{h^{2}+k^{2}}}. \label{32
\end{equation}
This inequality is one of the main results of this Letter and implies that a
large amount of teleported energy really requests a large amount of
consumption of the ground-state entanglement between A and B. The proof of Eq.
(\ref{32}) is as follows. Let us introduce two rescaled functions as follows.
\begin{align*}
\bar{f}_{I}(x) & =4\frac{\cos\varsigma}{\sin^{2}\varsigma}\left( \ln
\frac{1+\cos\varsigma}{1-\cos\varsigma}\right) ^{-1}f_{I}(x),\\
\bar{f}_{E}(x) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}}\frac{2\left( 1+\sin
^{2}\varsigma\right) }{\cos^{2}\varsigma\sin^{2}\varsigma}f_{E}(x).
\end{align*}
It can be easily shown that $\bar{f}_{E}(x)$ is a convex function:
\[
\partial_{x}^{2}\bar{f}_{E}(x)<0.
\]
From this convexity and $\bar{f}_{E}(x)=x+O(x^{2})$, the function $\bar{f
_{E}(x)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}_{E}(x)\leq x \label{46
\end{equation}
for $0\leq x\leq1$. On the other hand, it is observed that $\bar{f}_{I}(x)$ is
a concave function, as shown below. The derivative of $\bar{f}_{I}(x)$ is
computed as
\[
\partial_{x}\bar{f}_{I}(x)=\frac{2\cos\varsigma}{\ln\frac{1+\cos\varsigma
}{1-\cos\varsigma}}g_{I}(y(x)),
\]
where $y(x)=\sqrt{\cos^{2}\varsigma+x\sin^{2}\varsigma}$ and $g_{I}(y)$ is a
positive function of $y$ defined as
\[
g_{I}(y)=\frac{1}{y}\ln\frac{1+y}{1-y}.
\]
It should be noted that $y(x)$ is a monotonically increasing function of $x$.
The derivative of $g_{I}(y)$ is calculated as
\[
\partial_{y}g_{I}(y)=\frac{s_{I}(y)}{y^{2}},
\]
where $s_{I}(y)$ is a function of $y$ given by
\[
s_{I}(y)=\frac{2y}{1-y^{2}}-\ln\left( \frac{1+y}{1-y}\right) ,
\]
and satisfies a boundary condition as $s_{I}(0)=0$. It is also easy to show
that the derivative of $s_{I}(y)$ is positive for $y>0$:
\[
\partial_{y}s_{I}(y)=\frac{4y^{2}}{\left( 1-y^{2}\right) ^{2}}>0.
\]
Thus, $s_{I}(y)$ and $\partial_{y}g_{I}(y)$ are positive for $y\in\left[
\cos\varsigma,1\right] $. From these results, it has been proven that
$\bar{f}_{I}(x)$ is concave for $x\in\left[ 0,1\right] $: $\partial_{x
^{2}\bar{f}_{I}(x)>0$. From this concavity and $\bar{f}_{I}(x)=x+O(x^{2})$, it
is shown that $\bar{f}_{I}(x)$ satisfies the relation
\begin{equation}
\bar{f}_{I}(x)\geq x. \label{45
\end{equation}
Because of Eqs. (\ref{46}) and (\ref{45}), we obtain the following inequality
\[
\bar{f}_{I}(x)\geq x\geq\bar{f}_{E}(x).
\]
This implies that the energy-entanglement inequality in Eq. (\ref{32}) holds.
In addition, we can prove another inequality between energy and entanglement
breaking. Because the convex function $\bar{f}_{E}(x)$ and the concave
function $\bar{f}_{I}(x)$ are monotonically increasing functions of
$x\in\left[ 0,1\right] $ which satisfy $\bar{f}_{E}(0)=$ $\bar{f}_{I}(0)=0$,
we have the following relation
\[
\bar{f}_{E}(x)\geq\frac{\bar{f}_{E}(1)}{\bar{f}_{I}(1)}\bar{f}_{I}(x).
\]
Consequently, the following inequality, which is another main result of this
Letter, is obtained for all measurements of $S_{M_{A}}$:
\begin{equation}
\max_{U_{B}(\mu)}E_{B}\geq\frac{2\sqrt{h^{2}+k^{2}}\left[ \sqrt{4-3\cos
^{2}\varsigma}-2+\cos^{2}\varsigma\right] }{\left( 1+\cos\varsigma\right)
\ln\left( \frac{2}{1+\cos\varsigma}\right) +\left( 1-\cos\varsigma\right)
\ln\left( \frac{2}{1-\cos\varsigma}\right) }\Delta S_{AB}. \label{770
\end{equation}
This ensures that if we have consumption of ground-state entanglement $\Delta
S_{AB}$ for a measurement of $S_{M_{A}}$, we can in principle teleport energy
from A to B, where the energy amount is greater than the value of the
right-hand-side term of Eq. (\ref{770}). This bound is achieved for non-zero
energy transfer by measurements with $q_{A}(\mu)=\pm p_{A}(\mu)$. The
inequalities in Eq. (\ref{32}) and Eq. (\ref{770}) help us to gain a deeper
understanding of entanglement as a physical resource because they show that
the entanglement decrease by the measurement of A is directly related to the
increase of the available energy at B as an evident physical resource.
\bigskip
\textbf{Acknowledgments}
I would like to thank Yasusada Nambu for a comment. This research has been
partially supported by the Global COE Program of MEXT, Japan, and the Ministry
of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan, under Grant No. 21244007.
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Several models with extra spatial dimensions~\cite{arkani,RS}
are nowadays available, in which Standard Model fields are
confined to a four-dimensional (thin) hypersurface
(the brane) embedded in the higher-dimensional space-time
(the bulk).
The existence of extra dimensions and a sufficiently small
fundamental scale of gravity would then allow for the possibility
to produce microscopic black holes~\cite{bhlhc,CH,BHreview,gingrich}
at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
\par
In this paper we shall, in particular, consider the
Randall-Sundrum (RS) brane-world of Ref.~\cite{RS}.
Our world is thus a three-brane
(with coordinates $x^i$, $i,j=0,\ldots,3$)
embedded in a five-dimensional bulk with the metric
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{d} s^2
=
e^{-\sigma\,|z|}\,g_{ij}\,\mathrm{d} x^i\,\mathrm{d} x^j
+ \mathrm{d} z^2
\ ,
\label{g5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $z$ runs along the fifth dimension and
$\sigma^{-1}$ is a length determined by the brane tension.
This parameter relates the four-dimensional Planck mass
$M_{\rm p}$ to the five-dimensional gravitational mass $M_{(5)}$
and one can have $M_{(5)}\simeq 1\,$TeV$/c^2$
(for bounds on $\sigma$, see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{harko})
and black holes with mass in the TeV~range.
Note that, experimental limits require $M_{(5)}\gtrsim 1\,$TeV,
but there is no strong theoretical evidence that places
$M_{(5)}$ at any specific value below $M_{\rm p}$.
The brane must also have a thickness, which we denote by
$L$, below which deviations from the four-dimensional
Newton law occur.
Current precision experiments require that
$L \lesssim 44\,\mu$m~\cite{Lbounds},
whereas theoretical reasons imply that
$L\gtrsim\ell_{(5)}\simeq \ell_{\rm p}\,M_{\rm p}/M_{(5)}\simeq 2\cdot 10^{-19}\,$m.
In this context, compact sources on the brane,
such as stars and black holes, have been investigated
extensively.
However, their description has proven rather complicated and
there is little hope to obtain analytic solutions such as
those found with one dimension less~\cite{emparan}.
The present literature does in fact provide solutions on
the brane~\cite{maartens,germani,cfm}, perturbative results
over the RS background~\cite{katz,tanaka} and numerical
treatments~\cite{shiro}.
(For recent reviews, see Refs.~\cite{BHreview,bwbh}.)
\par
In this paper we investigate the bulk for the specific family of
asymptotically flat, static and spherically symmetric solutions on
the brane found in Ref.~\cite{maartens}.
These metrics, besides the Adler-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass
$M$, depend on an apparently free extra parameter,
the so called tidal charge $q$.
Our main aim is thus to restrict $q$ by requiring the bulk be ``regular'',
meaning that it can only contain the compact extension of the brane
horizon and no signs of other real singularities corresponding to physical
sources extending off-brane.
The method we shall use was introduced in Ref.~\cite{cm}
and will be briefly reviewed in the next Section, along with
the results previously obtained for candidate black holes
of astrophysical size.
In Section~\ref{tcbh}, we shall then apply the method to
the case of microscopic black holes.
Regular bulks will then be obtained only for a tidal charge
larger than the ADM mass but smaller than the (inverse of the)
brane tension.
Incidentally, this picture is compatible with the phenomenologically
allowed cases, as per the analysis of Ref.~\cite{cfhm}.
\par
We set the brane cosmological constant to zero by fine
tuning the bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda$ to the brane
tension $\sigma$, i.e.~$\Lambda=-4\,\sigma^2$~\cite{RS,shiromizu}
and use units with $1=c=\hbar=M_{\rm p}\,\ell_{\rm p}=\ell_{(5)}\,M_{(5)}$,
where $M_{\rm p}\simeq 2.2\cdot 10^{-8}\,$kg and
$\ell_{\rm p}\simeq 1.6\cdot 10^{-35}\,$m
are the Planck mass and length related to the
four-dimensional Newton constant $G_{\rm N}=\ell_{\rm p}/M_{\rm p}$.
In our analysis we shall consider only the five-dimensional RS~scenario
with $M_{(5)}\simeq M_{\rm ew}\simeq 1\,$TeV ($\simeq 1.8\cdot 10^{-24}\,$kg),
the electro-weak scale, corresponding to the length
$\ell_{(5)}\simeq 2.0\cdot 10^{-19}$m.
\section{Reconstructing the bulk}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We start by reviewing the algorithm introduced in Ref.~\cite{cm}.
On projecting the five-dimensional vacuum Einstein equations
$^{(5)}R_{\mu\nu}=\Lambda\,g_{\mu\nu}=-4\,\sigma^2\,g_{\mu\nu}$
(with $\mu,\nu=0,\ldots,4$)
onto the brane and introducing Gaussian normal
coordinates $x^i$ and $z$ ($z=0$ on the brane),
one obtains the constraints
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.^{(5)}R_{iz}\right|_{z=0}=
\left.^{(4)}R\right|_{z=0}=0
\ ,
\label{Deq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $^{(4)}R$ is the four-dimensional Ricci scalar
and use has been made of the necessary junction
equations~\cite{israel}.
Eqs.~\eqref{Deq} are analogous to the momentum and
Hamiltonian constraints in the ADM decomposition and
select admissible field configurations along a given
hypersurface of constant $z$.
Acceptable configurations are then ``propagated''
off-brane by the remaining Einstein equations,
\begin{eqnarray}
^{(5)}R_{ij}
=-4\,\sigma^2\,g_{ij}
\ .
\label{Ein2}
\end{eqnarray}
The above ``Hamiltonian'' constraint is weaker
than the purely four-dimensional vacuum equations
$R_{ij}=0$, being equivalent to $R_{ij}=E_{ij}$,
where $E_{ij}$ is (proportional to) the (traceless)
projection of the five-dimensional Weyl tensor on
the brane~\cite{shiromizu}.
We then consider five-dimensional metrics of the
form~\eqref{g5} with
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2_{(4)}
\equiv
e^{-\sigma\,|z|}\,g_{ij}\,\mathrm{d} x^i\,\mathrm{d} x^j
=
-N(r,z)\,\mathrm{d} t^2+A(r,z)\,\mathrm{d} r^2+R^2(r,z)\,\mathrm{d}\Omega^2
\ ,
\label{g}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{d}\Omega^2\equiv\mathrm{d}\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,\mathrm{d}\phi^2$
and $N$, $A$ and $R$ are functions to be determined.
The momentum constraint is then identically solved
and the ``Hamiltonian'' constraint reads
\begin{eqnarray}
2\left(\frac{N_{\rm B}'}{N_{\rm B}}\right)'
+\left(\frac{N_{\rm B}'}{N_{\rm B}}+\frac{4}{r}\right)
\left(\frac{N_{\rm B}'}{N_{\rm B}}
-\frac{A_{\rm B}'}{A_{\rm B}}\right)
=\frac{4}{r^2}\left(A_{\rm B}-1\right)
\ ,
\label{H}
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscript B means that all functions are
evaluated on the brane at $z=0$,
$\ '\equiv \partial/\partial r$
and we set $R_{\rm B}=r$ thanks to (four-dimensional)
spherical symmetry~\cite{wald}.
\subsection{Propagating algorithm}
The bulk metric will be determined in three steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{step1}
choose a metric of the form~\eqref{g} whose projection
on the brane,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.\mathrm{d} s^2_{(4)}\right|_{z=0}
=-N_{\rm B}(r)\,\mathrm{d} t^2+A_{\rm B}(r)\,\mathrm{d} r^2+r^2\,\mathrm{d}\Omega^2
\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
solves the constraint~(\ref{H});
\item
\label{step2}
expand this metric in powers of $1/r$ (four-dimensional
{\em multipole expansion}) to order $n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
N_n(r,z) \\
A_n(r,z) \\
R^2_n(r,z)
\end{array}\right\}
\equiv\sum_{k=0}^n\,\frac{1}{r^k}
\,
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
n_k(z) \\
a_k(z) \\
r^2\,c_k(z)
\end{array}\right.
\ ,
\label{series}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_k(0)$, $a_k(0)$ and $c_k(0)$ reproduce the
solution chosen at step~\ref{step1} (to order $n$):
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{k=0}^n\,\frac{1}{r^k}
\,
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
n_k(0) \\
a_k(0) \\
r^2\,c_k(0)
\end{array}\right\}
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
N_{\rm B}(r) \\
A_{\rm B}(r) \\
r^2
\end{array}\right\}
+{\mathcal O}\left(\frac{1}{r^{n+1}}\right)
\ ;
\label{bou}
\end{eqnarray}
\item
\label{step3}
substitute the sum~\eqref{series} into Eq.~\eqref{Ein2}
and integrate analytically in $z$ the (three) equations
thus obtained for the functions $n_n(z)$, $a_n(z)$ and
$c_n(z)$.
\end{enumerate}
This procedure turns out to be particularly convenient
because it converts the Einstein equations~\eqref{Ein2}
into second order ordinary differential equations of
the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 f_n}{\mathrm{d} z^2}-\sigma^2\,f_n=F_{k<n}
\ ,
\label{f_eq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_n$ is any of the functions $n_n(z)$, $a_n(z)$ and
$c_n(z)$ ($n\ge 1$), and $F_{k<n}(z)$ a functional
of the lower order terms $f_{k<n}$'s and their first and
second derivatives.
The relevant boundary conditions are given by
Eq.~\eqref{bou} for $f_n(0)$ and the
junction conditions~\cite{israel}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.\frac{\mathrm{d} f_n}{\mathrm{d} z}\right|_{z=0}=-\sigma\,f_n(0)
\ .
\end{eqnarray}
For $n=0$ one has a system of three coupled second
order ordinary differential equations for the $f_0$'s
and the corresponding Cauchy problem is uniquely
solved by the usual warp factor, $f_0=\exp(-\sigma\,z)$.
The $F_{k<n}$'s then turn out to be such that
the Cauchy problem at order $n$ admits analytical solutions
and one can determine the functions $f_n$ recursively.
\par
Except for the algebraic constraints following from
Eq.~\eqref{H}, the coefficients $n_k(0)$ and $a_k(0)$,
which are related to the shape of the source,
can be chosen at will.
However, it is in general difficult
to pinpoint one parameter (among the coefficients of the
multipole expansion) whose ``smallness'' guarantees
that orders higher than $n$ be negligible.
Ideally, the resulting bulk metric is reliable
for those values of $r$ and $z$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{|f_{n+1}(z)|}{r^{n+1}}\ll
\left|\sum_{k=0}^{n}\,\frac{f_k(z)}{r^k}\right|
\ ,
\label{conv}
\end{eqnarray}
for given values of the parameters $n_k(0)$ and $a_k(0)$.
In general, for a given $z$, such a condition will only be
satisfied for sufficiently large $r$.
This implies that different choices
of $n_k(0)$ and $a_k(0)$ might lead to bulk space-times
which remain indistinguishable because the differences
are confined within too small a region close to $r=z=0$.
Conversely, by looking at the bulk metric in our approach,
we may not be able to distinguish the correct brane source
from other sources, e.g., those which spread slightly
into the bulk.
\subsection{Astrophysical examples}
As examples of brane metrics, Ref.~\cite{cm} considered
the solutions given in Refs.~\cite{maartens,germani,cfm}
which can be expressed in terms of the ADM mass
$M=r_{\rm h}/2$ ($r_{\rm h}$ is the event horizon)
and the post-Newtonian parameters
$\beta=\gamma=1+{1\over 3}\,\eta$~\cite{will}
on the brane.
Exact Schwarzschild on the brane, $\eta=0$,
is called black string (BS)~\cite{chamblin} and suffers
of serious stability problems~\cite{chamblin,gregory}.
One can therefore argue that brane-world black holes
have $\eta\not=0$ and cases with $\eta<0$
are favored, since $\eta>0$ implies anti-gravity effects~\cite{cfm}.
For astrophysical sources of solar mass size, Ref.~\cite{cm}
made use of the typical values
$M=10^7\,\sigma^{-1}\sim 1\,{\rm km}$ and
$\eta=-10^{-4}$.
In such a range,
\begin{eqnarray}
M\,\sigma\gg 1
\ ,
\label{astro}
\end{eqnarray}
(with $|\eta|\ll 1$),
one finds a qualitatively identical behavior for all
brane metrics in Refs.~\cite{maartens,germani,cfm}.
In particular, positive exponentials appear in the
metric functions, which are non-perturbative in
$z$, and make the expansion in $1/r$ preferable
(or complementary) to the expansion for small $z$.
\par
For $\eta<0$, it was found that, for
$n\ge 3$ and $r>0$, there exists a
$z=z_n^{\rm axis}(r)$ such that
$R_n^2(r,z_n^{\rm axis})=0$.
Since $4\,\pi\,R^2$ is the proper area of the sphere
$t=r=z=\,$constant, this suggests that the axis of
cylindrical symmetry is given by a line
$z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$.
Although the condition~\eqref{conv}
fails for $z=z_n^{\rm axis}$,
in the physically interesting range, the $1/r$ expansion
yields rather stable values of $z_n^{\rm axis}$
in a wide span of $n$, stability improves for larger
values of $r$ and becomes very satisfactory for
$r\gtrsim r_{\rm h}$.
For example, for $r\gg r_{\rm h}$, one finds
\begin{eqnarray}
z_5^{\rm axis}
\simeq
\frac{1}{2\,\sigma}\,
\ln\left(\frac{3\,\sigma^2\,r^3}{-\eta\,M}\right)
\ ,
\label{zaxis}
\end{eqnarray}
which numerically agrees fairly well with
$z_{5<n\le 19}^{\rm axis}$.
If the horizon closes in the bulk, then
it must cross the axis of cylindrical symmetry at
a point (the ``tip'') of finite coordinates
$(r^{\rm tip},z^{\rm tip})$, which can be obtained
approximately by solving
\begin{eqnarray}
N_n(r_n^{\rm tip},z_n^{\rm tip})
=
R^2_n(r_n^{\rm tip},z_n^{\rm tip})
=
0
\ .
\label{tip}
\end{eqnarray}
For $n=5$, one finds
\begin{eqnarray}
z_5^{\rm tip}
\simeq
\frac{1}{\sigma}\,
\ln\left(\frac{M\,\sigma}{\sqrt{-\eta}}\right)
\ .
\label{ztip}
\end{eqnarray}
For large values of $n$, one can only solve Eqs.~\eqref{tip}
numerically and finds a good parameterization for the horizon
is given by $r\simeq r_{\rm h}$ and
$0\le z\lesssim z^{\rm axis}(r_{\rm h})\simeq z^{\rm tip}$
(see Fig.~\ref{mazza}), which strongly suggests that the horizon closes in the
bulk, in accord with numerical analysis~\cite{shiro}.
One can also estimate how flattened the horizon
is towards the brane by comparing the proper length of a
circle on the brane-horizon, ${\mathcal C}_{||}=2\,\pi\,r_{\rm h}$,
with the length of an analogous curve perpendicular to
the brane, ${\mathcal C}_{\perp}\simeq 4\,z^{\rm tip}$.
Since their ratio is huge, one can in fact speak of a
``pancake'' horizon as was suggested, e.g., in Ref.~\cite{katz}.
In particular, the area of the (bulk) horizon is approximately equal
to the four-dimensional (brane) expression~\footnote{The
fundamental (possibly TeV scale) five-dimensional gravitational
coupling $G_{(5)}\sim G_N/\sigma$, where $G_N$ is the
four-dimensional Newton constant \cite{RS}.
Thus, from~\eqref{area}, one has
$^{(5)}{\mathcal A}/G_{(5)}
\sim
M^2/G_N
\sim\,^{(4)}{\mathcal A}/G_N$.},
\begin{eqnarray}
^{(5)}{\mathcal A}
\simeq
4\,\pi\,\int_0^{z_5^{\rm tip}} R^2(r_{\rm h},z)\,\mathrm{d} z
\simeq
\frac{16\,\pi}{\sigma}\,(2\,M)^2
\ ,
\label{area}
\end{eqnarray}
where we again used $M\,\sigma\gg 1$.
Drawing upon the above picture, in particular the
crossing of lines of constant $r$ with the axis of
cylindrical symmetry at finite $z$, one can infer
that the Kretschmann scalar in these space-times
is well-behaved~\cite{cm}, contrary to
the BS~\cite{chamblin}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\epsfxsize=2.9in
\epsfbox{fig2.eps}
\caption{Qualitative picture of bulk structure.
\label{mazza}}
\end{figure}
\par
We conclude by mentioning that cases with $\eta>0$
show a very different qualitative behavior.
One finds that $R_n^2(r,z)$ is generically a
(monotonically) increasing function of $z$ for all
(sufficiently large) values of $r$, as one would
indeed expect on a negative tension
brane~\cite{shiromizu}.
However, for any $r_1$, $r_2>0$ there now exists
$z^*_n(r_1,r_2)$ such that
$R^2_n(r_1,z^*_n)=R^2_n(r_2,z^*_n)$, i.e.,
space-like geodesics of constant $r$ display
caustics and the Gaussian coordinates $(r,z)$
do not cover the whole bulk~\cite{wald}.
\section{Tidal charged black holes}
\label{tcbh}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We now proceed to analyze the brane metric found in Ref.~\cite{maartens},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.\mathrm{d} s^2_{(4)}\right|_{z=0} =
- N_{\rm B}\,\mathrm{d} t^2 + N_{\rm B}^{-1}\,\mathrm{d} r^2 + r^2\,\mathrm{d}\Omega^2
\ ,
\label{tidal}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\rm B}=1-\frac{2\,M}{r}-\frac{Q}{r^2}
\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and~\cite{cfm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta=-\frac{2\,Q}{M^2}
\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The tidal charge $Q$ is assumed positive, so that there is one horizon at
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm H}=\left(M+\sqrt{M^2+Q}\right)
\ .
\label{rhq}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, the Einstein equations projected onto the brane do not relate the
ADM mass to the tidal charge, and $Q$ therefore appears as a free parameter.
We however expect that $Q$ vanishes when $M$ does, and the former should thus
be a function of the latter~\cite{CH}.
Nonetheless, we shall apply our propagating algorithm to the metric~\eqref{tidal}
with independent $M$ and $Q$.
\subsection{TeV-scale black holes}
Like in Refs.~\cite{CH,cfhm,cfh}, we are here interested in
microscopic black holes with a mass $M$ close to the assumed
value of $M_{(5)}$.
Since $\sigma^{-1}\gtrsim\ell_{\rm p}$, for such small black holes
the opposite of the condition~\eqref{astro} holds, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
M\, \sigma\ll 1
\ .
\label{csigmanob}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
The above relation allows one to constrain the relative
strength of tidal effects with respect to the Newtonian potential.
This kind of analysis was indeed performed earlier in Ref.~\cite{cfhm},
and we here review it briefly.
First of all, we recall that $Q$ is related to the charge $q$ of
Refs.~\cite{CH,cfhm,cfh} by
\begin{eqnarray}
Q=q\,\ell_{\rm p}^2\left(\frac{M_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^2
=\ell_{\rm p}^{2-\beta}\left(\frac{M_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{\alpha+\beta+2}M^\beta
\ ,
\label{Q}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta>0$ are parameters.
We then note that the tidal term in the metric dominates over the usual General
Relativistic term for $r\lesssim r_{\rm c}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
r_{\rm c}\simeq
\ell_{\rm p}^{~2-\beta}\,\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{\alpha+\beta+2}\,M^{\beta-1}
\ .
\label{rc}
\end{eqnarray}
This implies that $r_{\rm c}$ must be shorter than the length scale $L$
above which corrections to the Newtonian potential have not yet been detected.
That is, we impose
\begin{eqnarray}
r_{\rm c}\ll L
\ ,
\label{rcc}
\end{eqnarray}
and the black hole is therefore ``small'' provided
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm H}\llr_{\rm c}\ll L
\ .
\label{sbh}
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, for $R_{\rm H}\llr_{\rm c}$, the horizon radius can be approximated by the tidal part
of Eq.~\eqref{rhq},
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm H}\simeq
\ell_{\rm p}^{~\frac{2-\beta}{2}}\,\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha+\beta+2}{2}}
M^{\frac{\beta}{2}}
\ ,
\label{smallRh}
\end{eqnarray}
otherwise, it approaches the usual four-dimensional expression
$R_{\rm H}\simeq 2\,M$.
The effective four-dimensional Euclidean action~\cite{CH,gergely},
for small black holes, can be approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{(4)}^{\rm E}
=
\frac{M_{\rm p}\,(4\,\pi\,R_{\rm H}^2)}{16\,\pi\,\ell_{\rm p}}
\simeq
\ell_{\rm p}\,M_{\rm p}\,\left(\frac{M}{M_{\rm eff}}\right)^{\beta}
\ ,
\label{sS}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\rm eff}=
\ell_{\rm p}\left[\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{\alpha+\beta+2}\right]^{-\frac{1}{\beta}}
\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The area law then implies that the degeneracy of a black hole is
counted in units of $M_{\rm eff}$ and
a black hole is classical if its mass is much larger than $M_{\rm eff}$,
which implies that $M_{\rm eff}$ must be no larger than $M_{(5)}$ in order to have
TeV-scale black holes.
Since $\beta>0$, $M_{\rm eff}\lesssimM_{(5)}$ implies
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha\gtrsim -2
\ ,
\label{alpha-2}
\end{eqnarray}
for all values of $\beta$.
For $\beta\not=1$, one then has that $r_{\rm c}=L$ corresponds to a critical mass
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\rm c}=
\left[L\,\ell_{\rm p}^{~\beta-2}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{-\alpha-\beta-2}
\right]^{\frac{1}{\beta-1}}
\ .
\label{mc}
\end{eqnarray}
Further, for $\beta\not=2$, the condition that $r_{\rm c}=R_{\rm H}$ leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
M\simeq
M_{\rm H}
\equiv
\ell_{\rm p}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha+\beta+2}{\beta-2}}
\ ,
\label{mh}
\end{eqnarray}
whereas for $\beta=2$ is already assured by Eq.~\eqref{alpha-2}.
If we look at the conditions~\eqref{rcc} and \eqref{sbh}
for $\beta\neq 1$ and $\beta\neq 2$, so that $M_{\rm c}$ and $M_{\rm H}$ are
properly defined as above, we notice that the condition~\eqref{rcc}
implies
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{\beta-1}
\ll
L\,\ell_{\rm p}^{~\beta-2}\,\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{-\alpha-\beta-2}
\ ,
\label{rc_cond}
\end{eqnarray}
and we have the two cases
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
M\gtrsimM_{\rm c}
\ ,
\qquad
{\rm for}\ 0<\beta<1
\label{M>Mc}
\\
\nonumber
\\
&&
M\lesssimM_{\rm c}
\ ,
\qquad
{\rm for}\ \beta>1
\ .
\label{M<Mc}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, one can analyze the lower bound in Eq.~\eqref{sbh}.
Since we are only interested in small black holes, we
assume that the condition~\eqref{rc_cond} is satisfied.
Below the critical radius, where the tidal term dominates,
the horizon radius~\eqref{rhq} can be approximated by the
tidal component and $R_{\rm H}\llr_{\rm c}$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{\beta-2}
\gg
\ell_{\rm p}^{~\beta-2}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{-\alpha-\beta-2}
\ .
\end{eqnarray}
We again have two separate cases:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
M\lesssimM_{\rm H}
\ ,
\qquad
{\rm for}\ 0<\beta<2
\label{betall2}
\\
\nonumber
\\
&&
M\gtrsimM_{\rm H}
\ ,
\qquad
{\rm for}\ \beta>2
\ .
\label{betagg2}
\end{eqnarray}
A detailed discussion on the constraints on the parameters $\alpha$
and $\beta$ for small black holes can be found in Ref.~\cite{cfhm}.
The overall conclusion is that, for any positive value of the parameter $\beta$,
the parameter $\alpha$ is constrained in the range
\begin{eqnarray}
-2\lesssim\alpha\lesssim-1.1
\ .
\label{fc}
\end{eqnarray}
\par
Finally, let us remark that the parameterization~\eqref{Q} for $Q$ in terms of
$\alpha$ and $\beta$ is not necessary for the present investigation, and
was only recalled here to establish a connection with previous
results~\cite{CH,cfhm,cfh}.
\subsection{Analytical and numerical results}
Starting from the brane metric~\eqref{tidal}, we ran our propagating algorithm to obtain
the bulk metric with terms up to $n\le 29$ for any $M$, $Q$ and $\sigma$.
These analytical expressions can then be used to study how the axis of cylindrical
symmetry and the horizon~\eqref{rhq} propagate into the bulk numerically.
In particular, the axis of cylindrical symmetry should start on the brane at $r=z=0$ and,
in the $(r,z)$-plane, be again represented by the line $R^2(r,z^{\rm axis}(r))=0$
to the right of which $R^2>0$, whereas the region to the left of $z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$,
having $R^2<0$, is unphysical.
Analogously, a proper horizon should start from the brane horizon at $r=R_{\rm H}$, $z=0$
and be represented by a line $N(r,z^{\rm h}(r))=0$ inside the region to the right of
the axis $z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$.
As in Ref.~\cite{cm}, we are searching for those cases in which both the axis and
the horizon are regular and the horizon closes towards the axis along the extra
dimension.
We shall again call the ``tip'' the point where axis and horizon cross.
Existence of the tip would thus signal the fact that the real singularity is enclosed
within the horizon and the corresponding brane metric is a viable
candidate for a brane-world black hole.
\par
For example, the metric elements to order $n=5$ are simple enough for displaying, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
N_5(r,z)
&\!=\!&
e^{-\sigma\, z}
\left[1-\frac{2\,M}{r}-\frac{Q}{r^2}
+\frac{\left(e^{-\sigma\, z}-1\right)^2\,Q}{\sigma^2\, r^4}
-\frac{2\,\left(e^{-\sigma\, z}-1\right)^2\,Q\,M}{\sigma^2\, r^5}
\right]
\label{N5}
\\
A_5(r,z)
&\!=\!&
e^{-\sigma\, z}
\left\{1
+\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{4\,M^2+Q}{r^2}+\frac{4\,M\left(2\,M^2+Q\right)}{r^3}
\right.
\nonumber
\\
& &\phantom{e^{-\sigma z}~~}
\left.
+\frac{\left(e^{-\sigma z}-1\right)^2\, Q
+\sigma^2\left(16\,M^4+12\,M^2\, Q+Q^2\right)}{\sigma^2\, r^4}
\right\}
\nonumber
\\
& &\phantom{e^{-\sigma z}~~}
\left.
+\frac{2\,M
\left[\left(e^{-\sigma\, z}-1\right)^2\, Q+\sigma^2\left(16\,M^4+16\,M^2 Q+3\,Q^2\right)\right]}
{\sigma^2\,r^5}
\right\}
\label{A5}
\\
R_5^2(r,z)
&\!=\!&
r^2\, e^{-\sigma\, z}\left[1-\frac{\left(e^{-\sigma\, z}-1\right)^2\, Q}{\sigma^2\, r^4}\right]
\ .
\label{R5}
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq.~\eqref{R5}, the axis of cylindrical symmetry at order $n=4$ is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
z_4^{\rm axis}(r)
=
\frac{1}{\sigma}\,\ln\left(1+\frac{\sigma\, r^2}{\sqrt{Q}}\right)
\ ,
\label{zr5}
\end{eqnarray}
and, analogously, from Eq.~\eqref{N5}, the horizon at $n=4$ is located at
\begin{eqnarray}
z_{4}^{\rm h}(r)
=
\frac{1}{\sigma}\,\ln\left(1+\sigma\, r\,\sqrt{1+\frac{2\,M\,r}{Q}-\frac{r^2}{Q}}\right)
\ .
\label{zn5}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the horizon intersects the axis of symmetry at
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{l}
r^{\rm tip}_4
=
\strut\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left(M+\sqrt{M^2+2\,Q}\right)
\\
\\
z^{\rm tip}_4
=
\strut\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sigma}\,
\ln\left[1+\frac{\sigma}{4\,\sqrt{Q}}\left(M+\sqrt{M^2+2\,Q}\right)^2\right]
\ .
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $r^{\rm tip}_4$ and $r^{\rm tip}_4$ are always real and no constraint
is therefore derived for $M$, $Q$ and $\sigma$ at $n=4$ from requiring
the existence of a ``tip''.
However, looking at the term of order $n=5$ in Eq.~\eqref{N5},
one realizes that higher order terms will appear with possible alternating signs and
the picture become more involved, as we are now going to show.
\par
In fact, the propagating algorithm produces very cumbersome expressions rather quickly
as one raises the order $n$ of the multipole expansion.
In order to visualize the bulk structure, it is then convenient to consider
specific numerical values for the parameters $M$, $Q$ and $\sigma$ in the
range of interest for our study.
For this purpose, we also define the dimensionless quantities
$\bar{Q}=Q/\ell_{\rm p}^2$, $\bar{M}=M/\ell_{\rm p}$ and $\bar{\sigma}=\ell_{\rm p}\,\sigma$.
The condition~\eqref{csigmanob} then reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar M\ll \bar\sigma^{-1}
\ .
\label{csigma}
\end{eqnarray}
Further, the relation~\eqref{Q} can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{Q}=\bar{M}^{\beta}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_{\rm p}}{M_{(5)}}\right)^{\alpha+\beta+2}
\ .
\label{Qbar}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta>0$ and $\alpha$ satisfies Eq.~\eqref{fc}.
We therefore find that
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{Q}\gg\bar{M}
\ ,
\label{QM}
\end{eqnarray}
and microscopic tidal-charged black holes should look very similar to five-dimensional
Schwarzschild black holes, in agreement with perturbative calculations~\cite{katz}.
\par
From the metric elements evaluated to order $n=29$,
we found that the horizon is well-behaved and the bulk is regular provided
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar M\lesssim \bar Q\ll\bar \sigma^{-1}
\ .
\label{tc}
\end{eqnarray}
whereas the bulk shows some pathological behaviors when one of the conditions
in Eq.~\eqref{tc} fails, namely for $\bar Q<\bar M$ or $\bar\sigma^{-1}<\bar Q$.
Note that Eq.~\eqref{tc} implies both~\eqref{csigma} and \eqref{QM},
but the latter is required {\em a priori\/}, in order to have small black holes
(not for regularity purposes).
\par
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\bar Q$ & $10$ & $1$ & $10^{-1}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-3}$ & $10^{-4}$ & $10^{-5}$
\\
$\bar M$ & & & & & & & &
\\
\hline
\hline
$10^{-1}$ & & MsA MH & MsA OH & MH & MsA MH & MsA MH & MsA MH& MsA MH
\\
\hline
$10^{-2}$ & & MsA OH & MsA OH & MH & OH & MH & MsA MH & MsA MH
\\
\hline
$10^{-3}$ & & MsA MH & MsA MH & R & R & MlA & OH & MH
\\
\hline
$10^{-4}$ & & MsA OH & MsA MH & R & R & R & R & MlA OH
\\
\hline
$10^{-5}$ & & OH & MH & R & R & R & R & MlA OH
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Bulk pathologies (or absence thereof).}
\label{table}
\end{table}
The above result was obtained by performing an extended survey in the space of
the parameters $\bar M$ and $\bar Q$ with $\bar\sigma^{-1}=1$.
A sample is shown in Table~\ref{table}, where the entries represent the peculiar
features of each case, which we describe in details below.
Before that, we remark that we were not able to establish a one-to-one
correspondence between $Q$ and $M$, but we rather obtained a range
of possible values for $Q$ given a value of $M$.
This is a consequence of the multipole expansion: the cases with regular bulk
(labelled as R in Table~\ref{table}) for a given value of $M$ represent different
brane metrics whose bulks do not show any pathology within the level of precision
allowed by our method.
In particular, we expect each value of $Q$ corresponds to a different shape of
the source, but when the sources are localized very near $r=z=0$, the multipole
expansion cannot discern them and we are therefore not able to rule out cases
for which, e.g., the source spreads off-brane and is not point-like.
\subsubsection{Regular bulk (R)}
\label{R}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{gttrz.eps}
$\quad$
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{R2.eps}
\caption{Left panel: Plot of $N=-g_{tt}(r,z)\ge 0$.
Horizon is line $N=0$.
Right panel: Plot of $R^2(r,z)\ge 0$.
Axis of cylindrical symmetry is line $R^2=0$ right of which $R^2>0$
and space to left of axis ($R^2<0$) is unphysical.
(We set $\bar\sigma=1$, $\bar M=10^{-3}$ and $\bar Q=10^{-2}$)
}
\label{gttrz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{gttrzR2.eps}
$\quad$
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{gttrrz.eps}
\caption{Left panel:
Plot of $N=-g_{tt}(r,z)$ and $R^2(r,z)=0$ (thick line) from Fig.~\ref{gttrz}.
Right panel:
Plot of $N=-g_{tt}(R,z)\ge 0$.
Horizon is at $N=0$ and axis of cylindrical symmetry at $R=0$.
(We set $\bar\sigma=1$,
$\bar M=10^{-3}$ and $\bar Q=10^{-2}$)}
\label{gttRz}
\end{figure}
We denote with R the good candidates which show no pathology.
An example is given in Figs.~\ref{gttrz}-\ref{gttRz} for $\bar\sigma=1$,
$\bar M=10^{-3}$ and $\bar Q=10^{-2}$.
From the left panel in Fig.~\ref{gttrz}, we see a horizon at $r\simeq 0.1$
on the brane which closes towards smaller values of $r$ in the bulk.
The right panel shows $R^2$ plotted in the $(r,z)$-plane as well.
The space to the left of the line where $R^2=0$ is unphysical.
As mentioned before, for the horizon to close in the bulk, it must cross the axis
of cylindrical symmetry at a tip point, where $R^2=0$.
The left panel in Fig.~\ref{gttRz} shows that there is indeed such a point.
Finally, the right panel in Fig.~\ref{gttRz} displays $N$ directly as a function
of $(R,z)$ and shows that the horizon approaches the axis where $R=0$.
\par
A final remark is in order.
Some of the plots for regular cases show an axis that does not
exactly start from $r=z=0$.
This can be due to the limitations of the multipole expansion
and necessarily limited numerical precision.
We therefore do not consider this feature as evidence of
any pathologies.
\subsubsection{Multiple axis (MsA and MlA)}
\label{MA}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{R2MA2.eps}
$\qquad$
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{R2MA1.eps}
\\
MsA
\hspace{7cm}
MlA
\caption{Left panel: Plot of $R^2(r,z)\ge 0$
for $\bar M=10^{-1}$ and $\bar Q=10$.
One axis is in bottom left corner and one above it.
Right panel: Plot of $R^2(r,z)\ge 0$
for $\bar M=\bar Q=10^{-3}$.
One axis is in the left bottom corner and one
appears in the top right.
(We set $\bar\sigma=1$.)
}
\label{ma}
\end{figure}
There are cases which show more, apparently disconnected,
lines $z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$ along which $R^2=0$, as shown
by the two examples given in Fig.~\ref{ma}.
In the left panel, we see a first line $z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$ close to
the left bottom corner, and what looks like a larger copy of it still
emanating from $r=0$.
In this case, it is difficult to assess whether the two lines are
disconnected or rather meet around $r=0$, since the multipole expansion
is not reliable for small $r$.
We denote this first case as Multiple short Axis (MsA).
In the right panel, we see a similar $z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$
near the bottom left corner which winds around $r=z=0$,
and a second, V-shaped $z=z^{\rm axis}(r)$ in the right
top corner.
These two lines appear clearly disconnected and the larger one
is well separated from the brane axis at $r=z=0$.
We denote this case as Multiple large Axis (MlA).
\par
In general, we consider the presence of a multiple axis of the first kind
(MsA) as a warning sign that our approach might not be able to describe
the space-time reliably around the axis.
However, a multiple axis of the second kind (MlA) makes the bulk irregular
and unacceptable.
\subsubsection{Multiple horizon (MH)}
\label{MH}
With Multiple Horizon (MH) we denote cases in which there are more lines
$z=z^{\rm h}(r)$ in the region where $R^2>0$.
We consider the appearance of any $z=z^{\rm h}(r)$, beside the one generating
from $r=R_{\rm H}$, as a sufficient reason to discard the case.
Ideally, such situations should contain extra sources beside the point-like tidal black hole.
An example is given in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{mh}.
Near the left bottom corner, we see the brane horizon which closes towards the
axis as in the regular cases.
However, a second horizon appears in the bulk, near the right top corner,
where $R^2>0$.
\subsubsection{Open horizon (OH)}
\label{OH}
When the horizon starting from $r=R_{\rm H}$ at $z=0$ does not close
towards the axis, we have an Open Horizon (OH).
This is again considered a sufficient reason to discard the case, since it
presumably signal the source at $r=z=0$ is not point-like but extends off-brane,
or other off-brane sources are anyway present.
An example of this behavior is shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{mh}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{MH.eps}
$\qquad$
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{OH.eps}
\\
MH
\hspace{6cm}
OH
\caption{Left panel: Plot of $N=-g_{tt}(r,z)\ge 0$ and $R^2(r,z)= 0$ (thick line)
for $\bar M=10^{-2}$ and $\bar Q=10^{-3}$.
Horizon generating from brane is near bottom left corner and
crosses axis.
Second horizon appears near right top corner starting from axis.
Right panel: Plot of $N=-g_{tt}(r,z)\ge 0$ and $R^2(r,z)=0$ (thick line)
for $\bar M=10^{-1}$ and $\bar Q=1$.
Horizon starts from brane and never crosses axis.
(We set $\bar\sigma=1$)
}
\label{mh}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this paper, we studied the bulk corresponding to tidal charged brane-world
black holes for the case of microscopic masses within the energy range
of the LHC.
Such black holes are characterized by the four-dimensional ADM mass $\bar M$
and tidal charge $\bar Q$~\cite{maartens}.
To these (dimensionless) parameters, one must also add the brane density
$\bar\sigma$, and the conditions for black holes to be in the TeV-range are
then given in Eqs.~\eqref{csigma} and~\eqref{QM}.
\par
In order to reconstruct the bulk, we employed a propagating algorithm which
makes use of the three-dimensional multipole expansion of any brane metric
of choice, and then allows one to determine analytically the corresponding
five-dimensional metric elements.
Given a generic brane-world metric, it is possible that singularities of various
kind appear off the brane, thus signaling that the starting four-dimensional metric
is not a good candidate in RS.
For the specific family of brane-world metrics of interest here, we found that
the bulk structure is regular for $\bar M$, $\bar Q$ and $\bar \sigma^{-1}$
satisfying Eq.~\eqref{tc}.
By regular we mean that the brane-world horizon is propagated into the bulk
smoothly and closes towards the axis of cylindrical symmetry along the extra
dimension for $\bar M\lesssim \bar Q\ll\bar \sigma^{-1}$ [see Section~\ref{R}].
On the contrary, when any of these conditions~\eqref{tc} is violated
[keeping Eq.~\eqref{QM} in order for the black hole to be small],
the bulk shows very peculiar causal structures described
in Sections~\ref{MA}-\ref{OH}.
\par
By comparing this result with the form of the tidal charge~\eqref{Q} first given
in Ref.~\cite{cfhm}, we found that the values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$
which ensure~\eqref{tc} are indeed the same that were previously selected
in Ref.~\cite{cfhm} on purely phenomenological grounds.
We wish to stress, nonetheless, that the results presented here do no depend on
the specific form chosen to relate $Q$ to $M$ and other parameters in the
model, since they were all kept free when generating the bulk metric.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank B.~Harms for stimulating discussions.
R.C.~is supported by INFN grant BO11.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Within the field of galactic and stellar dynamics, it has become common practice to model kinematic observations of a galaxy in order to interpret the observations and to understand better the underlying dynamical structures within the galaxy. N-body modelling is one of the techniques employed. \citet{Syer1996} categorised methods for creating N-body systems into 3 groups namely distribution function based, moment or Jeans equation based and orbit based, placing their made-to-measure (M2M) method in a new particle based group. The M2M method is, however, similar to the methods in the orbit based group notably the method of \citet{Schwarz1979}. Schwarzschild's method since its inception has undergone both significant development (for example, \citealt{Chaname2008}) and exploitation (for example, \citealt{SauronX2007}). \citet{Chaname2008} extended the method to handle discrete stellar kinematic data sets, and \citet{SauronX2007} used Schwarzschild's method to model photometric and kinematic observations of elliptical galaxies from the SAURON survey. By comparison, Syer and Tremaine's M2M method remained largely unutilised until the bulge and disk model of the Milky Way in \citet{Bissantz2004}. More recently, the M2M method was enhanced by the inclusion of a capability to model kinematic data (\citealt{EJ2007}, \citealt{DL2007} and \citealt{DL2008a}), and was applied to model the elliptical galaxies NGC3377 and NGC4697. More recently still, \citet{Dehnen2009} implemented an alternative weight adaption mechanism within the M2M method.
In this paper we remain true to the outline in \citet{Syer1996} but reframe the M2M method (section \ref{sec:m2m}) slightly to improve the theoretical basis for the weight evolution equation, and introduce 2 further constraints - the first on the sum of the particle weights and the second on the isotropy of the velocity dispersion. We show how the parameters necessary to tune the model for a given situation may be determined (section \ref {sec:basicmodelcap}). We use the method to determine the mass-to-light ratio of a toy galaxy (section \ref {sec:appml}) and then to estimate the mass-to-light ratio of the dwarf spheroidal galaxy Draco (section \ref{sec:dracomain}). We aim to provide sufficient detail and advice to enable others to produce their own implementation of the M2M method. Our implementation is described in section \ref{sec:implementation}.
\section{The M2M Method}\label{sec:m2m}
\subsection{Outline}
In brief, the M2M method is concerned with modelling stellar systems and individual galaxies as a system of test particles orbiting in a gravitational potential. Weights are associated with the particles and are evolved over time (many orbital periods) such that, by using these weights, observational measurements of a real galaxy are reproduced. The method uses these observational measurements as constraints on the model. Whilst it is tempting to think of the particles as representing stars, the particles are more accurately described as phase space density elements \citep{Hernquist1992} whose motion is integrated along the characteristic curves of the collisionless Boltzmann equation. The gravitational potential may be prespecified or determined self-consistently, and may contain a dark matter component. \citet{Schwarz1979} uses a similar approach but does not modify the weights during the main modelling run obtaining them instead at the end via linear programming.
Reviewed in the next section, section \ref{sec:theory}, are the theoretical approaches taken in \citet{Syer1996} and \citet{DL2007}. We then recast the method from a maximum likelihood starting point paying particular attention to the origin of the derivative term in the weight evolution equation. The particle weight convergence analysis in \citet{Syer1996} is not revisited in this paper.
\subsection{Theory}\label{sec:theory}
The galactic observables used with a M2M model are moments of the distribution function and have the general form
\begin{equation}
Y_j = \int K_j(\bmath{r},\bmath{v}) f(\bmath{r},\bmath{v}) d^3\bmath{r}d^3\bmath{v},
\end{equation}
where subscript $j$ indicates an instance of the observable, $K_j$ is the kernel for the observation $Y_j$ and $f(\bmath{r},\bmath{v})$ is the phase space distribution function. In this context, typical observables are surface brightness and surface brightness times the luminosity weighted line-of-sight velocity dispersion squared. For a model of $N$ particles, this integral form is translated into
\begin{equation}
y_j(t) = \sum _i^N w_i(t)K_j(\bmath{r}_i (t), \bmath{v}_i (t)),
\end{equation}
where index $i$ runs from $1$ to $N$. Note that $K_j$ embodies a selection function such that only the particles which have a direct effect on the observation $y_j$ are included in the sum. The goal of the M2M method is to evolve the particle weights, $w_i(t)$, such that the time averaged model observations $y_j$ match the actual observations $Y_j$.
The weights, representing (in our case) the luminosity of individual particles implemented as a fraction of the total luminosity of the galaxy being modelled, are evolved using
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}w_i(t)=-\epsilon w_i(t) \sum _j^J \frac{K_j(\bmath{r}_i(t),\bmath{v}_i(t))}{Z_j}\Delta_j(t),
\label{eqn:wtsyer}
\end{equation}
where index $j$ runs from $1$ to $J$, $\Delta _j(t) = \frac{y_j(t)-Y_j}{Y_j}$, $Z_j$ is arbitrary, and the kernels $K_j$ are implemented by binning the model's particle data. $\epsilon$ is small, positive and constant. Calculations of the $\Delta _j$ from the model are exponentially smoothed to reduce the impact of particle counting effects using
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\tilde{\Delta}_j(t) = \alpha (\Delta _j(t) - \tilde{\Delta}_j(t)),
\label{eq:tempsmooth}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is small, positive and constant. $\Delta _j(t)$ is then replaced with $\tilde{\Delta}_j(t)$ in equation \ref{eqn:wtsyer}. \citet{DL2007} take the equivalent approach of smoothing $y_j$.
The weight evolution equation may be extended in 2 ways - firstly by the introduction of a profit function \citep{Syer1996} to constrain the overall weight evolution and smooth observable reproduction (regularisation), and secondly by the inclusion of observational errors \citep{DL2007}. The equation then becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{dw_i}{dt} = \epsilon w_i \frac{\partial F}{\partial w_i},
\label{eq:wtevolve}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F = \mu S - \frac{1}{2} \chi ^2
\label{eqn:firstf}
\end{equation}
and is to be maximised. $\epsilon$, $\alpha$ and $\mu$ in equations \ref{eqn:wtsyer}, \ref{eq:tempsmooth} and \ref{eqn:firstf} are discussed in more detail in \citet{Syer1996}. Here, the equivalent discussion is delayed until section \ref{sec:paramtuning}. Note that to arrive at equation \ref{eqn:wtsyer} from equation \ref{eqn:firstf} the kernels must not depend on the particle weights. $S$, the profit function, varyingly known as the relative entropy or Kullback-Leibler divergence from some initial value (prior) of the particle weights, is given by
\begin{equation}
S = - \sum _i^N w_i \ln \left( \frac{w_i}{m_i} \right),
\end{equation}
where the $m_i$ are the priors. $\chi ^2$ is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\chi ^2 = \sum_j^J \tilde{\Delta} _j^2,
\label{eq:chi2}
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{\Delta} _j$ being the exponentially smoothed form of either a relative difference between the model and target observations
\begin{equation}
\Delta_j = \frac{y_j - Y_j}{Y_j},
\label{eq:withouterror}
\end{equation}
or, if $\sigma(Y_j)$ represents the measurement error in $Y_j$, in a more usual $\chi^2$ form
\begin{equation}
\Delta_j = \frac{y_j - Y_j}{\sigma(Y_j)}.
\label{eq:witherror}
\end{equation}
If multiple classes ($K$) of constraining observables are used, it is computationally convenient to replace $F$ by
\begin{equation}
F = \mu S - \frac{1}{2} \sum _k^K \chi ^2 _k.
\end{equation}
The number of observations within each class may be different and may be subject to a different binning schemes.
Our derivation of the weight evolution equation is very similar to that above and is based on constructing a likelihood function giving the likelihood of the model reproducing the measured galactic observations and then maximising it (in log form) subject to a time derivative constraint on the relative entropy of the weights.
Redefining $F$ now as
\begin{equation}
F = - \frac{1}{2}\chi ^2 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\frac{dS}{dt} + \mu S,
\label{eqn:simplef}
\end{equation}
and substituting for $S$ gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{F = - \frac{1}{2}\chi ^2 - \frac{1}{\epsilon}\frac{d}{dt} \left [ \sum _i^N w_i(t) \ln \left(\frac{w_i(t)}{m_i} \right) \right]}\\
& & \mbox{} - \mu \sum _i^N w_i(t) \ln \left( \frac{w_i(t)}{m_i} \right).\nonumber
\label{eqn:newf}
\end{eqnarray}
Maximising $F$ with respect to the weights gives the \citet{Syer1996} weight evolution equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\frac{d}{dt}w_i(t)=-\epsilon w_i(t) \Biggl [ \sum _j^J \frac{K_j(\bmath{r}_i(t),\bmath{v}_i(t))}{\sigma(Y_j)}\Delta_j(t)}\\
& & \mbox{} + \mu \left(\ln (\frac{w_i(t)}{m_i}) + 1 \right) \Biggr ].\nonumber
\label{eqn:rjlweight}
\end{eqnarray}
The M2M method is similar to a maximum entropy method (for example, \citealt{Richstone1988}) but in this case the prior reflects the need for the particle weights to be constant over time.
Additional observational or modelling constraints may be included simply by modifying $F$. Whether the weights will converge or whether the observations will be reproduced requires either experimentation or a convergence analysis to be performed as per \citet{Syer1996}. In general, constraints which are expressed as squared `distance measures' appear to perform satisfactorily. A simple extension to the method which meets these caveats is to amend the $\chi^2$ term to take the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}} = \frac{1}{2} \sum _k ^K \lambda _k \chi_k ^2,
\label{eqn:chifactor}
\end{equation}
where the $\lambda_k$ are small positive parameters and may be used to rescale $\chi_k ^2$, or to express the relative priority of observable class $k$ within the M2M model. Note that, while not expressing $\chi ^2$ as in equation \ref{eqn:chifactor}, \citet{DL2007} employ a scaling factor, not dissimilar in function to the $\lambda _k$, in their `force of change' equation (their $\epsilon ''$).
Similarly, given that a weight is a fraction of the total galaxy luminosity $L$, that is
\begin{equation}
\sum _i^N L w_i = L,
\end{equation}
then it is not unreasonable to require that the method does not alter the total luminosity and an appropriate constraint to include is the following (minimisation) term in $F$
\begin{equation}
- \frac{1}{2} \lambda _{\rmn{sum}} \left( \sum _i^N w_i - 1 \right) ^2.
\label{eqn:sumwt}
\end{equation}
Re-normalisation of the weights was considered and rejected as it would destroy the smoothing history built up in the $\tilde{\Delta}_j$. \citet{Syer1996} and \citet{DL2007} contain no such similar constraint. \citet{Dehnen2009} has an alternative scheme for modifying $F$ to achieve weight conservation.
Discrete observables (for example, measurements of the line-of-sight velocities of individual stars) are incorporated into the method as follows. The probability, $p_{D,j} = p_{D,j}(\bmath{x}_{\perp j}, v_{\parallel j})$, of the model reproducing a discrete line-of-sight velocity measurement is found by convolving the line-of-sight velocity distribution (losvd) with a Gaussian incorporating the observational errors $\sigma _j$.
\begin{equation}
p_{D,j} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_j} \int \rmn{losvd}(\bmath{x}_{\perp j}, v_{\parallel}) \exp\left(-\frac{\left(v_{\parallel}-v_{\parallel j}\right)^2}{2\sigma _j^2} \right) dv_{\parallel},
\end{equation}
where the $\parallel$ and $\perp$ subscripts indicate parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight. Equation \ref{eqn:newf} gains an additional constraint term
\begin{equation}
L_{D} = \lambda _D \sum _j ^D \ln (p_{D,j}),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda _D$ is a small positive parameter. Note that this is not the only way of incorporating discrete observables. For example, the $p_{D,j}$ could have been included directly in the log likelihood function used to create $\chi ^2$.
From expressing the line-of-sight velocity distribution in terms of the distribution function
\begin{equation}
\rmn{losvd}(\bmath{x}_{\perp j}, v_{\parallel}) = \frac{\int dx_{\parallel} d^2 \bmath{v}_{\perp} f(\bmath{x}, \bmath{v})}{\int dx_{\parallel} d^3 \bmath{v} f(\bmath{x}, \bmath{v})},
\end{equation}
$p_{D,j}$ is calculated from the model as
\begin{equation}
p_{D,j} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma _j} \frac{\sum _i ^N \delta_{ij} w_i \exp\left(-\frac{\left(v_{\parallel i}-v_{\parallel j}\right)^2}{2\sigma _j^2} \right) }{\sum _i ^N \delta_{ij} w_i},
\label{eqn:indivobs}
\end{equation}
where the selection function $\delta_{ij}$ takes the value $1$ if particle $i$ contributes to observation $j$
and is $0$ otherwise. The contribution to the weight evolution equation is found by differentiating the log likelihood function $L_D$ with respect to the particle weights and independently exponentially smoothing the resulting numerator and denominator. \citet{DL2008a} arrive at an equivalent expression. Proper motion data could be incorporated into the method in a similar fashion but this is not explored further here.
If we require a model with an isotropic velocity dispersion, this may be achieved by defining a model observable
\begin{equation}
y_j = \frac{\sum _i ^N L w_i \left ( 2 v _{r,i} ^2 - v _{t,i} ^2 \right ) \delta _{ij}}{\sum _i ^N L w_i \delta _{ij}},
\label{eqn:iso1}
\end{equation}
where $v_r$ and $v_t$ are the radial and tangential velocities, and including
\begin{equation}
- \frac{1}{2} \lambda _{\rmn{iso}} \sum _j y _j ^2
\label{eqn:iso2}
\end{equation}
as a minimisation term in $F$. These expressions come directly from using luminosity weighted velocity dispersions in calculating the $\beta$ anisotropy parameter
\begin{equation}
\beta = 1 - \frac{\overline{v_t^2}}{2 \overline{v_r^2}}
\end{equation}
and then setting $\beta = 0$. The denominator $\sum _i ^N L w_i \delta _{ij}$ either should be exponentially smoothed as per equation \ref{eq:tempsmooth} to reduce particle counting effects, or alternatively may be replaced by an observationally derived value by recognising that $L_j = \sum _i ^N L w_i \delta _{ij}$ is the luminosity of radial shell $j$. There is a third option which is to create a composite constraint of luminosity times the original constraint. The $L_j$ approach is used for the isotropy constraint in the rest of this paper. These 3 options apply not just to the isotropy constraint but to all constraints where a sum of weights appears in the denominator. To be precise, the isotropy constraint is a constraint on $\beta$ and it will not enforce strict isotropy with the same dispersion in each of the 3 velocity components $v_r$, $v_{\theta}$ and $v_{\phi}$. Extending the constraint to the case where $\beta = \beta (r)$ is straightforward and has been implemented in \citet{Dehnen2009}.
\subsection{Model observables and kernels}\label{sec:obskernels}
In this section we list the model observables and kernels from which we use an appropriate subset in the M2M models described in this paper. We show the selection function separately from the actual kernel and also abbreviate $K_j(\bmath{r}_i (t), \bmath{v}_i (t))$ to $K_{ji}$. Within a given class of observables, one particle contributes to only one observable. No attempts have been made to smear particles to mimic the effects of an observational point-spread function, say, as in \citet{Syer1996} and \citet{DL2007}. The total luminosity of the galaxy being modelled is $L$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Luminosity density
\begin{eqnarray}
y_j & = & \sum _i ^N \delta _{ij} \frac{L w_i}{V_j}\\
K_{ji} & = & \frac{L}{V_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_j$ is the volume of the associated model bin.
\item Surface brightness
\begin{eqnarray}
y_j & = & \sum _i ^N \delta _{ij} \frac{L w_i}{A_j}\\
K_{ji} & = & \frac{L}{A_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_j$ is the area of the associated model bin.
\item \label{item:sblos}Surface brightness times luminosity-weighted line-of-sight second velocity moment
\begin{eqnarray}
y_j & = & \sum _i ^N \delta _{ij} L w_i \frac{v^2_{\parallel i}}{A_j}\\
K_{ji} & = & \frac{L v^2_{\parallel i}}{A_j}
\end{eqnarray}
\item Luminosity-weighted line-of-sight second velocity moment
\begin{eqnarray}
y_j & = & \sum _i ^N \delta _{ij} L w_i \frac{v^2_{\parallel i}}{A_j I_j}\\
K_{ji} & = & \frac{L v^2_{\parallel i}}{A_j I_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_j$ is the measured surface brightness. This form of the observable is an alternative to that in item \ref{item:sblos}.
\item Surface luminosity times line-of-sight velocity distribution Gauss-Hermite coefficient ($n$)
\begin{eqnarray}
y_j & = & \sqrt 2 \gamma ^{-1} L \sum _i ^N \delta _{ij} w_i H_n(v_{\rmn{norm},i}) \exp(- v_{\rmn{norm},i}^2 / 2)\\
K_{ji} & = & \sqrt 2 \gamma ^{-1} L H_n(v_{\rmn{norm},i}) \exp(- v_{\rmn{norm},i}^2 / 2)
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_{\rmn{norm},i} = (v_{\parallel i} - v_{\rmn{best}}) / \sigma _{\rmn{best}}$. $\gamma$, $v_{\rmn{best}}$ and $\sigma _{\rmn{best}}$ are the line strength, the mean line-of-sight velocity and dispersion from the best Gaussian fit to the observed line-of-sight velocity distribution data. To determine the Hermite polynomial values, we use the recurrence relationship
\begin{equation}
H_p(x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{p}} x H_{p-1}(x) - \sqrt{\frac{p-1}{p}}H_{p-2}(x), \; \; \; \; \; \; \; p \geq 2
\label{eqn:hermiterecur}
\end{equation}
with $H_0(x) = 0$ and $H_1(x) = \sqrt{2} x$.
Modelling the line-of-sight velocity distribution with a truncated Gauss-Hermite polynomial series is discussed in \citet{Gerhard1993} and \citet{Vandermarel1993}.
\end{enumerate}
We have not at this time implemented any schemes for deprojecting surface brightness to give a luminosity density distribution as in \citet{EJ2007} or \citet{DL2008a} where a multi-Gaussian expansion (\citealt{Emsellem1994}) is used to construct the distribution for their elliptical galaxies. Deprojection is not an integral part of M2M method. If we require a luminosity density, we assume that deprojection could be performed and just use a theoretical luminosity density, modified as in section \ref{sec:finitemodel}.
\section{Implementation}\label{sec:implementation}
We describe in this section some of the key practical issues to be addressed in designing and implementing a software system to meet the theoretical design in section \ref{sec:m2m}.
\subsection{Process and data flows}
We have decomposed the process and data flows into 3 main phases. The first phase, preparation, covers creating the particle initial conditions, and either creating from theoretical functions the observational constraints to be used, or manipulating observations of real galaxies into a form suitable for modelling. The second phase is the actual running of the M2M model, and the third phase is concerned with the analysis of the output from the modelling run. The analysis phase is split into 3 components namely particle weight convergence, reproduction of the observational constraints and particle kinematics.
The execution phase follows quite naturally from the equations in section \ref{sec:m2m} and is shown in Figure \ref{fig:flowchart}. Given the number of particles used in modelling runs, in our case $5 \times 10^4 - 2 \times 10^6$, we have parallelised our implementation so that multiple computer processors may be used to reduce the overall execution elapsed times. We adopt a simple strategy whereby 1 processor controls the modelling run and is responsible for the collation and smoothing of the model produced observations and calculating the weight evolution constraint terms. The other processors are responsible for orbiting their subset of the particles, calculating their contribution to the model observations and updating their particle weights. At the end of a run, the control processor collates all the particle data for subsequent analysis. We find that this parallelisation strategy, without change, works acceptably well across a range of hardware platforms from single dual processor machines, clusters of PCs and on high performance computing systems with fast inter-processor data connections. As shown in Table \ref{tab:scaling}, doubling the number of processors approximately halves the computer elapsed time. Note that our implementation does not as yet handle self-consistent potentials created by the particles themselves.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{MPI scaling}
\label{tab:scaling}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Processors} & \textbf{Elapsed time (m)} \\
\hline
8 & 18.3\\
16 & 8.0\\
32 & 4.0\\
64 & 2.0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
The elapsed time figures are from a $5 \times 10^5$ particle model with 3 observational constraints run for 100 dynamical time units in a high performance computing environment.
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/flow1o.eps}
\caption{Execution phase flowchart. The parallelised processes are contained within the dashed box.}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
The weight convergence algorithm described in section \ref{sec:wtobs} we have implemented in computer memory with the slave processors being responsible for monitoring the convergence of their own particles. At the end of a modelling run, the controlling processor collates the weight convergence data for subsequent analysis. Clearly, alternative schemes are possible, for example using filestore.
\subsection{Finite modelling}\label{sec:finitemodel}
All the models we use in this paper are either spherical or spheroidal. We set a maximum radius for a model and arrange that particles do not `escape' from the model by setting an energy constraint on their initial velocities ($v$). That is
\begin{equation}
v^2 \leq 2 \left[ \phi(\rmn{boundary}) - \phi(\rmn{initial \; position}) \right].
\end{equation}
In modelling galaxies, a system of large spatial extent, possibly infinite if theoretical functions are used, is being modelled in a computer system. Inevitably, model boundary effects occur primarily as a result of model observable values falling off faster with radius than would be the case with theoretical functions, and the limited number of particles close to the boundary. We solve this issue in one of two ways, either by the simple expedient of oversizing the models and only analysing the central portions, or by truncating the distribution function and constructing a tailored observable function. The distribution function is truncated by energy, limiting the energy to the range between the potential energy at the origin and at the model boundary, and setting the distribution function to zero for energies outside of this range. As \citet{Kashlinsky1988} points out, this is not the only way of truncating the distribution function. For example, truncation by radius, resulting in an increase in the number of (bound) circular orbits, may be appropriate but we have conducted no experiments using this approach.
Assuming a distribution function which is a function of energy only, we construct the luminosity density function via a particle realisation of the truncated distribution function over the radial extent of the M2M model. To ensure the correct radial distribution of particles, we determine the density of particles with a given energy, $\nu _{\rmn{E}} (r)$, by integrating the distribution function over velocity space to give
\begin{equation}
\nu _{\rmn{E}} (r) = 4 \pi f(E) \sqrt{2 \left( E - \phi (r) \right)}.
\label{eqn:rhoe}
\end{equation}
We obtain the radial position for a particle by sampling uniformly randomly from the `fraction within radius' function, $N _{\rmn{E}} (<r)$ given by
\begin{equation}
N _{\rmn{E}} (<r) = \frac{16 \pi ^2 \int _0 ^r \sqrt{2 \left( E - \phi (r) \right)} r^2 dr}{g(E)},
\label{eqn:fractione}
\end{equation}
where $g(E)$ is the density of states function.
Figure \ref{fig:densityplot} compares a luminosity density function created in this way with the usual analytic density function for a Plummer sphere (radii are in units of the core radius). As can be seen, the two functions match in the inner part of the model but with the constructed function going to zero as required at the boundary of the model. For data creation purposes, the constructed luminosity density function is used in tabular form and integrated numerically to create other luminosity related functions, for example surface brightness or luminosity weighted velocity dispersion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpsinitialr.eps}
\caption[Luminosity density function comparison]{Comparison for a Plummer sphere of the theoretical luminosity density function and the equivalent function from a particle realisation.}
\label{fig:densityplot}
\end{figure}
Luminosity density is an example of an observable which decreases with radius. Modelling observables which increase with radius, for example a rising velocity dispersion, the effects are more extreme. As can be seen from Figure \ref{fig:risingdispplot}, the inner part of the model where there is a good match between the theoretical function and the particle realisation is reduced to $\approx 25\%$ of the radial extent of the model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpsinitialv2.eps}
\caption[Rising velocity dispersion]{Comparison for a \citet{Wilkinson2002} model, with the potential power law parameter $\alpha = -0.5 $, of the rising theoretical velocity dispersion and the equivalent from a particle realisation. Only the inner $\approx 25\%$ of the model is usable.}
\label{fig:risingdispplot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Particle initial conditions} \label{sec:particleics}
All particles are given the same initial weight and prior equal to $1/N$, where $N$ is the number of particles in the model.
For the particles' initial spatial and velocity coordinates we use one of three schemes,
\begin{enumerate}
\item spatial coordinates allocated such that the particle distribution matches the luminosity distribution, and the velocity coordinates uniformly randomly distributed,
\item spatial coordinates allocated such that the particle distribution matches the luminosity distribution, and the velocity coordinates sampled randomly from a Gaussian distribution created from the velocity dispersion function (from solving the Jeans equations),
\item by assuming that the distribution function is a function of relative energy only, spatial and velocity cordinates obtained from from distributing the particles uniformly randomly in energy.
\end{enumerate}
In the third scheme, we sample uniformly, randomly from the integrated differential energy distribution (see \citealt{BT2008}) to obtain a particle's energy, use the energy to determine the maximum radius it implies, allocate the particle's spatial position within that radius using $\nu _{\rmn{E}} (r)$ (equation \ref{eqn:rhoe}), and finally use the energy difference between between the particle's energy and its spatial position to allocate the velocity components.
The first two schemes are appropriate when observational data from a real galaxy is being used, and the third scheme, when theoretical models are being used. All the schemes clearly need at least a potential to be specified in order to be used. We have however deliberately separated the creation of the initial conditions from the main modelling software to increase flexibility - we may choose to run the model with a different potential for example.
\subsection{Observational constraints}\label{sec:gobs}
Clearly any observations of a real galaxy will need to go through a process of manipulation and conversion in order to get them into a form where they can be used with a M2M model. For theoretical galaxy models, for the purposes of developing the M2M method, we create constraint data by sampling from a Gaussian distribution with mean the function value, and standard deviation calculated from a pre-specified relative error. We constrain data values so produced by limiting them to be within $n$-sigma of the function values ($n$ is typically $2$ or $3$).
\subsection{Weight convergence \& observable reproduction}\label{sec:wtobs}
In assessing whether or not a modelling run has been successful, we require, amongst other criteria, a high degree of weight convergence and consistent observable reproduction over a number of orbits. In practice, we choose some representative time period $T_c$ which will cover, for example, both the long and short period particle orbits. For weight convergence, we consider a particle's weight to have converged if its maximum relative deviation from its mean weight over time period $T_c$ is less than some predetermined model-wide tolerance, that is if
\begin{equation}
\rmn{max} \left \vert \frac{w_i - w_{\rmn{mean},i}}{w_{\rmn{mean},i}} \right \vert \leq \rmn{tolerance}.
\end{equation}
We take as our unit of time the local dynamical time at the half mass radius of the model
\begin{equation}
1\: \rmn{time \: unit} = \sqrt{\frac{3 \pi}{16 G \tilde{\rho}}},
\label{eqn:timeunit}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\rho}$ is the mean density inside the half mass radius. For a typical model run, we set $T_c$ to be $\approx 10\%$ of the model duration and use a tolerance of $5$ per cent or less.
Good model stability with respect to the particle weights is also required. Stability in this context means the degree to which a model's outputs vary if the particles are subsequently orbited with weight evolution turned off. This is particularly important if the particles are to be used in some further modelling process. Stability is affected by the number of particles with converged weights and the total weight associated with particles with unconverged weights, and is illustrated in section \ref{sec:basicmodelcap}.
We consider a M2M model to have reproduced the actual observations if the smoothed model observations match the actual observations to within the measurement errors on the actual observations, that is if
\begin{equation}
\left \vert \tilde{y} _j - Y_j \right \vert \leq \sigma (Y_j).
\end{equation}
$\tilde{y} _j$ may be calculated directly from $\tilde{\Delta} _j$ using the smoothed form of equation \ref{eq:witherror}. Note that observable non-reproduction does not necessarily imply that the method has failed - the smoothness of the constraining data needs to be taken into account as does the degree of smoothing employed in the model.
Given our success criteria for a model run and the mechanisms we use to measure whether they have been achieved, we do not deploy a `phase mixing' phase as described in \citet{DL2007}.
\subsection{Numerical methods}
For orbit integration, we use the standard interleaved second order leapfrog method (drift, kick, drift) with either a fixed or adaptive time step. We either specify the time step directly or allow the model to determine it from the local dynamical time at the origin. For adaptive time stepping we use a 3 level model, progressively decreasing a particle's time step by a factor of $2$ as it nears the origin. Over the duration of a typical modelling run of $250$ dynamical time units, we achieve an average maximum relative energy precision $\Delta E(t) / E(0) \approx 10^{-4}$ which represents a reasonable level of energy conservation and is satisfactory for M2M purposes. We have tried (and discarded pending further investigation) the `dimensionless time' orbit integration noted in \citet{Dehnen2009}. While it does increase the numbers of orbits of particles with long orbital periods, we find that weight convergence is reduced by $\approx 2\%$ and that there is no change regarding the type of particles with unconverged weights at the end of a modelling run - it remains the highest energy particles.
For integration of the weight evolution equation and exponential smoothing we use Euler's method. For example, the exponential smoothing equation (equation \ref{eq:tempsmooth}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:numsmooth}
\tilde{\Delta}_j(t+1) = \tilde{\Delta}_j(t) + \alpha \delta t \left[\Delta _j(t) - \tilde{\Delta}_j(t) \right].
\end{equation}
Rather than updating the particle weights every time step, we take the weight evolution time step as an integer multiple ($\leq 5$ for production runs) of the orbit integration time step. By reducing the inter-processor data traffic, a saving in computer elapsed time is achieved with no loss in effectiveness of the M2M method. For example, changing the multiple from $1$ to $5$ results in $\approx 50\%$ saving in elapsed time with minimal changes in both weight convergence and the model $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ value.
For three dimensional radially dependant observables, we use a radial binning scheme, and a polar scheme, with azimuthal binning if required, for two dimensional observables. The bin sizes may be either regular or irregular. Also, individual bins are only used if required by the distribution of the observational data - that is, we allow for gaps in the data. For the regular schemes, we use uniform or logarithmic bin sizes, or, to assist in the resolution of any central density peak, pseudo-logarithmic radial bin sizes as described in \citet{Sellwood2003}.
\begin{equation}
r_i = (r_{\rmn{max}} + 1)^{i/B} - 1,\; \; \; \; \; i=1, \cdot \cdot \cdot ,B
\end{equation}
where $r_{\rmn{max}}$ is the maximum radius, divided into $B$ bins, and $r_i$ is the radius of the $i^{th}$ bin boundary. The software for binning, and also that for numerical integration and interpolation, utilises the GNU Scientific Library\footnote{http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/}.
\section{Creating a M2M Model}\label{sec:basicmodelcap}
In this section, we consider various aspects of creating a M2M model and cover tuning its key parameters, the impact of different particle initial conditions, how many particles to use, and modelling incomplete data sets. Section \ref{sec:entropy} deals specifically with the impact of the relative entropy derivative constraint.
\subsection{Parameter tuning}\label{sec:paramtuning}
The parameters are the weight convergence rate $\epsilon$, $\alpha$ for exponential smoothing, $\mu$ governing regularisation, the observable constraint $\lambda _k$'s from equation \ref{eqn:chifactor}, and $\lambda _{\rmn{sum}}$ and $\lambda _{\rmn{iso}}$ for the sum of weights constraint and isotropic dispersion constraint. The parameters are treated as tunable with their values being determined prior to the start of a modelling run. Setting the parameters should be thought of as a process - we have identified no simple mechanism which will determine all the parameters required in one trial modelling run. The key to the process is to establish the initial values for the parameters. Having done this, it is straightforward to perform a series of modelling runs, increasing or decreasing the parameter values, to achieve a particular desired position.
We first explain how we assess the impact of the relative entropy (regularisation) term in the weight evolution equation. To recap, where constructed observable data are being used, we create the data using Gaussian sampling from the various functions of the associated mathematical model. The combination of relative error and sigma cut-off determine the spread of data points around the functions. In practice, what is needed from a M2M model, no matter whether the data is constructed or real, is not that the observable data points are individually reproduced but that a smooth curve approximating the data points and reflecting any key features in the data is generated. Given the method of data construction, the smooth curve approximating the data points should be the function the data were generated from. To give a measure of how effective a M2M model is in re-creating the underlying functions, the following relative sum of squares is calculated for every class $s$ of observable constraint.
\begin{equation}
C_s = \sum ^J _j \left ( \frac{x_j - X_j}{X_j} \right ) ^2
\label{eqn:smoothsq}
\end{equation}
where $X_j$ is the theoretical value for data point $j$ and $x_j$ is the equivalent smoothed value produced by the M2M model
\begin{equation}
x_j = Y_j + \tilde{\Delta}_j \sigma(Y_j).
\end{equation}
Where observations of a real galaxy are being used, the underlying functions will not be known. The solution then is to create a trial data set approximating the real data set, with known underlying functions, and to use that trial data to determine the degree of regularisation required (the value of $\mu$) when the real data is modelled. Note also that regularisation is model-wide and is not specific to any one constraint. Our preference is to start with a low value of $\mu$ initially ($\mu \approx 10^{-3}$). We find that as $\mu$ is increased it becomes necessary to reduce $\epsilon$ to maintain good weight convergence.
Given the above, our completion criteria for a tuning exercise are that a high degree of weight convergence has been achieved, that the amount of unconverged weight is low, that the observable $C_s$ values described above are stable (orbiting the particles with weight evolution turned off does not cause significant change), and that all other constraints have been met.
For the observable constraints, the weight evolution equation contains terms of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{K_{ji} \tilde{\Delta} _j}{\sigma (Y_j)}.
\end{equation}
In the following, we quantify the impact of the term numerically and relate it to the value of the relevant $\lambda _k$ parameter and to the relative strengths of the observable constraint terms in the weight evolution equation.
Replacing $\tilde{\Delta} _j$ by its unsmoothed form and replacing $\sigma (Y_j)$ by
\begin{equation}
\sigma (Y_j) = \alpha _j Y_j
\end{equation}
(where $\alpha _j$ is the fractional error) gives terms of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{K_{ji}}{\alpha _j ^2 Y_j} \frac{y_j - Y_j}{Y_j}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the right hand fraction is numerically comparable for all observables then it is the left hand fraction which dictates the constraint contribution to the weight evolution equation.
For example, using the expressions for the kernels in section \ref{sec:obskernels} and ignoring the total luminosity of the galaxy being modelled, the left hand fractions (evolution factors) for the surface brightness and dispersion constraints are
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\rmn{SB},j} & = & \frac{1}{\alpha _j ^2 Y_j A_j} \\
T_{\rmn{VD},j} & = & \frac{v^2_{\parallel _j}}{\alpha _j ^2 Y_j A_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_{\parallel j}$ is some line of sight velocity. For simplicity, $v_{\parallel j}$ is taken as the maximum velocity occurring in the model. When comparing model runs at different mass-to-light ratios, given that $v^2_{\parallel _j}$ scales according to the ratio $\Upsilon$, the balance of the terms in the weight evolution equation will change across the runs. This can be resolved by multiplying $T_{\rmn{VD},j}$ by $\Upsilon ^{-1}$.
From experience, we have found suitable start values for the observable constraint parameters by making the product of the typical evolution factor and parameter $\approx O(1)$, that is, the parameter is used to neutralise the evolution factor. For example, for surface brightness
\begin{equation}
T_{\rmn{SB},j} \lambda _{\rmn{SB}} \approx O(1)
\end{equation}
Clearly, the evolution factors will have a range of values perhaps spanning several orders of magnitude. For the models in this paper, taking the value at $2$ effective radii gives a suitable compromise.
Using a similar analysis to that above for the sum of weights and isotropic dispersion constraints, we set the product of the typical evolution factor and parameter to be $\approx 10^{-2}$. Setting the values initially to be lower than for the observable constraints means that observable constraints have a stronger influence in the weight evolution equation.
For the exponential smoothing parameter $\alpha$, we perform a series of modelling runs with no regularisation and with $\alpha$ being varied from $10^1$ (no smoothing, $\alpha = \delta t ^{-1}$ - see equation \ref{eqn:numsmooth}) to $5 \times 10 ^{-3}$. We find that, as the amount of exponential smoothing increases, weight convergence increases, the unconverged weight decreases and the magnitude of the $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ gradient increases. The statistical fluctuations in $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ are greatly reduced once $10^{-2} < \alpha < 10^{-1}$ where the exact value depends on the number of particles being used ($5 \times 10^4$ at the lower end to $10^6$ at the upper). It therefore turns out that the \citet{Syer1996} value of $\alpha = 5.24 \times 10^{-2}$ is in fact a reasonable default value to use over quite a wide range in particle numbers and bin configurations.
To summarise,
\begin{enumerate}
\item Parameter determination must be viewed as a process.
\item For the main observable constraints, setting the product of the typical evolution factor and parameter to be of $O(1)$ gives a means of determining the initial values of the parameters. For other $\lambda$ constraints, setting the product to $\approx 10^{-2}$ gives a usable start position.
\item For the other parameters, $\epsilon = 0.025$, $\alpha = 0.05$ and $\mu = 0.001$ are reasonable starting values.
\item The larger the observable errors and the greater the spread of data points, the more likely it is that smoothing / regularisation from the relative entropy term will be needed and a higher value of $\mu$ required. Quite how much regularisation is required (or desirable) is application specific. With increased regularisation it is highly likely that observable reproduction will reduce. Based on the experiments we have conducted, a higher value of $\mu$, changing the influence of terms in the weight evolution equation, requires a reduction in the value of $\epsilon$ to achieve acceptable results (for example, high weight convergence).
\item Regardless of the value of $\epsilon$, the rate of particle weight convergence should be monitored. Usable results may be obtainable from shorter modelling runs.
\end{enumerate}
As a final comment, particularly when comparing parameter values between papers, it is the $\epsilon$ parameter product (for example, $\epsilon \mu$ in equation \ref{eqn:newf}) which is important. Parameter values may be rescaled as required provided $\epsilon$ is rescaled correspondingly. Also, determination of the parameter values may appear onerous but it should be remembered that it is only necessary to include the constraints and parameters that are required. The \citet{Syer1996} $\mu$ adjustment process has not been used but the process or its equivalent may be applicable to other parameters and requires further investigation.
\subsection{Relative entropy and the derivative constraint}\label{sec:entropy}
We investigate the behaviour of the relative entropy regularisation term ($S$) and the relative entropy derivative constraint ($dS/dt$) as the $\mu$ parameter is increased from $10^{-3}$ to $10^3$. We perform 2 sets of runs, the first having no further constraints and the second using the total particle weight constraint. $5 \times 10^4$ particles are used and $\lambda_{\rmn{sum}} = 7 \times 10^2$ in the second set of runs.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Regularisation}
\label{tab:rawentropy}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Unconstrained Weight}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Constrained Weight}}\\
$\bmath{\mu}$ & $\bmath{S}$ & $\bmath{\sum w_i}$ & $\bmath{S}$ & $\bmath{\sum w_i}$ \\
\hline
$1.0 \: 10^{-3}$ & $3.52 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.00$ & $1.43 \: 10^{-6}$ & $1.00$ \\
$1.0 \: 10^{-2}$ & $3.36 \: 10^{-2}$ & $0.97$ & $1.43 \: 10^{-5}$ & $1.00$ \\
$1.0 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.21 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.74$ & $1.43 \: 10^{-4}$ & $1.00$ \\
$1.0 \: 10^{0}$ & $3.68 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.38$ & $1.43 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.00$ \\
$1.0 \: 10^{1}$ & $3.68 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.37$ & $1.40 \: 10^{-2}$ & $0.99$ \\
$1.0 \: 10^{2}$ & $3.68 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.37$ & $1.16 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.88$ \\
$1.0 \: 10^{3}$ & $3.68 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.37$ & $3.41 \: 10^{-1}$ & $0.52$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
Increasing regularisation ($\mu$) with and without the total weight constraint, and no other constraints.
\end{table}
The theoretical maximum in $S$ occurs when $w_i = m_i/e$ at which time, given that $m_i = 1/N$ where $N$ is the number of particles, $S_{\rmn{max}} = 1/e$ and $\sum w_i = 1/e$. For higher value of $\mu$, these values for $S_{\rmn{max}}$ and $\sum w_i$ can be seen in Table \ref{tab:rawentropy} in the `unconstrained weight' columns. However, there is a conflict between the value of $\sum w_i$ at $S_{\rmn{max}}$ and the requirement for $\sum w_i = 1$ to conserve the luminosity of the galaxy being modelled. Imposing the total weight constraint causes the requirement to be met but at a lower value of $S_{\rmn{max}}$ (the `constrained weight' columns of Table \ref{tab:rawentropy}). Where $\sum w_i \neq 1$, this can be resolved by increasing the value of $\lambda_{\rmn{sum}}$. For both sets of runs, $dS/dt$ does tend to zero with increasing time, with the timescale to do so reducing as $\mu$ is increased.
Within the maximisation of $F$, equation \ref{eqn:simplef}, $dS/dt$ behaves as the constraint $dS/dt = 0$ and not as a function to be maximised.
We now extend the model to include other constraints (as in Table \ref{tab:icmodel}) and the results are recorded in Table \ref{tab:entropy}. For completeness, we also include a run with $\mu = 0$, that is, with no regularisation.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{Impact of increasing regularisation}
\label{tab:entropy}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
$\bmath{\mu}$ & $\bmath{-F}$ & $\bmath{S}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^ 2 _{\rmn{SB}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^ 2 _{\rmn{V2}}}$ & \textbf{Particles} &\textbf{Uconv} & $\bmath{\sum w_i}$ & $\bmath{C _{\rmn{SB}}}$ & $\bmath{C _{\rmn{V2}}}$ \\
& & & & & & \textbf{Converged} & \textbf{Weight} \\
& & & & & & \textbf{(\%)} & \textbf{(\%)} \\
\hline
$0.0$ & $5.48 \: 10^{-2}$ & $-9.03 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.10 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.27 \: 10^1$ & $1.88 \: 10^1$ & $99.53$ & $0.62$ & $1.00$ & $3.01 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.63 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{-3}$ & $5.48 \: 10^{-2}$ & $-9.02 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.10 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.27 \: 10^1$ & $1.88 \: 10^1$ & $99.53$ & $0.62$ & $1.00$ & $3.01 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.63 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{-2}$ & $5.49 \: 10^{-2}$ & $-8.95 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.10 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.28 \: 10^1$ & $1.88 \: 10^1$ & $99.53$ & $0.63$ & $1.00$ & $3.00 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.63 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{-1}$ & $5.61 \: 10^{-2}$ & $-8.26 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.10 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.30 \: 10^1$ & $1.90 \: 10^1$ & $99.54$ & $0.62$ & $1.00$ & $2.93 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.57 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{0}$ & $6.27 \: 10^{-2}$ & $-3.28 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.17 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.51 \: 10^1$ & $2.04 \: 10^1$ & $99.44$ & $0.72$ & $1.00$ & $2.43 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.13 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{1}$ & $5.00 \: 10^{-3}$ & $1.34 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.40 \: 10^{-1}$ & $3.48 \: 10^1$ & $2.44 \: 10^1$ & $98.23$ & $1.96$ & $0.99$ & $1.23 \: 10^{-2}$ & $2.63 \: 10^{-2}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{2}$ & $-6.07 \: 10^{0}$ & $1.51 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.64 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.32 \: 10^2$ & $2.93 \: 10^1$ & $96.64$ & $3.53$ & $0.88$ & $3.99 \: 10^{-1}$ & $3.02 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1.0 \: 10^{3}$ & $-2.58 \: 10^{2}$ & $3.41 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.31 \: 10^{0}$ & $3.13 \: 10^3$ & $1.44 \: 10^2$ & $99.03$ & $1.01$ & $0.52$ & $7.29 \: 10^{0}$ & $5.47 \: 10^{0}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
Increasing regularisation ($\mu$) with the total weight constraint applied and other constraints as in Table \ref{tab:icmodel}. $C _{\rmn{SB}}$ and $C _{\rmn{V2}}$ are defined as per equation \ref{eqn:smoothsq}. At higher values of $\mu$, the weight evolution equation becomes `unbalanced'. $S$ increases as do the constraint $\chi ^2$ values.
\end{table*}
As before, the time by which $dS/dt \approx 0$ and $S \approx \rmn{constant}$ reduces at higher $\mu$ values (illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:compentflat}). Note that the initial value of $S$ is zero and that the M2M model may produce a negative final value of $S$. This is interpreted as the maximum value of $S$ that the method is able to generate given all the other constraints.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpycrelent1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpycrelent10.eps}\\
\caption{Relative entropy time evolution for $\mu = 1.0$ (top panel) and $\mu = 10.0$ (bottom panel). A relative entropy constant value is achieved after $\approx 750$ time units for the lower value of $\mu$ and after $\approx 100$ units for the higher value.}
\label{fig:compentflat}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Particle initial conditions}\label{sec:pics}
We examine the effect of the three different particle initial spatial and velocity conditions using a Plummer model with $2 \times 10^5$ particles run for $250$ time units. The full parameter set is recorded in Table \ref{tab:icmodel} and the results are shown in Table \ref{tab:ics}. All three schemes perform satisfactorily and, as might be expected, it is the distribution function \textit{energy}-based scheme (section \ref{sec:particleics}) which yields the best results. From Figure \ref{fig:comparespread}, it is clear that, for the \textit{random} velocity scheme, it is the high energy particles whose weights evolve furthest from their start values. The evolution over time of the model $\chi^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ values (Figure \ref{fig:comparechi2}) shows differences between the schemes. In particular, the \textit{energy}-based $\chi^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ shows no initial `overshoot' as the particles start orbiting.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Particle initial conditions modelling parameters}
\label{tab:icmodel}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Model Value} \\
\hline
Overall model size & $10$ units\\
Number of particles & $2 \times 10^5$\\
Model duration & $250$ units\\
Orbit integration time step & $0.02$ units\\
Weight convergence monitoring & $25$ units\\
Weight convergence tolerance & $5\%$\\
$\epsilon$ & $2.5 \times 10^{-3}$\\
$\alpha$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-2}$\\
$\mu$ & $1.0$\\
Surface brightness, $\lambda _{\rmn{SB}}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Second velocity moment, $\lambda _{\rmn{V2}}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Gauss-Hermite $h_4$, $\lambda _{\rmn{h4}}$ & $2.0 \times 10^{-3}$\\
Sum of weights, $\lambda _{\rmn{sum}}$ & $7.0 \times 10^2$\\
Isotropic dispersion, $\lambda _{\rmn{iso}}$ & $1.0 \times 10^{-1}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
Spatial distances are given in units of the projected half light radius and times or durations in units of the half mass dynamical time. $32$ bins are used for the surface brightness constraint and $24$ for the velocity related constraints.
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{Comparison of different particle initial conditions}
\label{tab:ics}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Run} & $\bmath{-F}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^ 2 _{\rmn{SB}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^ 2 _{\rmn{V2}}}$ & \textbf{Particles} &\textbf{Uconv} & $\bmath{C _{\rmn{SB}}}$ & $\bmath{C _{\rmn{V2}}}$ \\
& & & & & \textbf{Conv (\%)} & \textbf{Weight (\%)} \\
\hline
Energy & $6.60 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.23 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.20 \: 10^1$ & $2.20 \: 10^1$ & $98.25$ & $1.96$ & $2.54 \: 10^{-2}$ & $7.92 \: 10^{-2}$\\
Gaussian & $8.25 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.26 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.47 \: 10^1$ & $2.23 \: 10^1$ & $97.04$ & $1.96$ & $2.87 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.11 \: 10^{-1}$\\
Random & $2.09 \: 10^{-1}$ & $1.47 \: 10^{-1}$ & $5.35 \: 10^1$ & $2.30 \: 10^1$ & $94.86$ & $2.05$ & $1.43 \: 10^{-1}$ & $1.64 \: 10^{-1}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
\textit{Random} indicates that the spatial distribution matches the luminosity density with random velocity components while \textit{Gaussian} has the same spatial distribution as \textit{Random} but velocity components calculated by Gaussian sampling using the velocity dispersion. \textit{Energy} indicates that the particle energies have been calculated utilising the distribution function.
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpswtentropy_energy.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpswtentropy_random.eps}\\
\caption{End of run weight evolution comparison for the \textit{energy}-based (top panel) and \textit{random} velocity (bottom panel) schemes for creating particle initial conditions. The weights for the high energy particles in the \textit{random} velocity scheme evolve furthest from their start values.}
\label{fig:comparespread}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpschi1_energy.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsv2/zpschi1_gaussian.eps}\\
\caption{Time evolution of $\chi^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ for the \textit{energy}-based (top panel) and \textit{Gaussian} velocity (bottom panel) schemes for creating particle initial conditions.}
\label{fig:comparechi2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Number of particles}
We compare the effect of running a M2M model with different numbers of particles, from $10^4$ to $10^6$, and show the results in Table \ref{tab:numpart}. We use \textit{energy}-based particle initial conditions and the same parameter settings as in section \ref{sec:pics}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Impact of increasing the number of particles}
\label{tab:numpart}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Number} & $\bmath{-F}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^ 2 _{\rmn{SB}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^ 2 _{\rmn{V2}}}$ & \textbf{Particles} &\textbf{Uconv} & $\bmath{C _{\rmn{SB}}}$ & $\bmath{C _{\rmn{V2}}}$ \\
\textbf{Particles}& & & & & \textbf{Conv (\%)} & \textbf{Weight (\%)} \\
\hline
$1 \: 10^4$ & $7.20 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.29 \: 10^{-1}$ & $3.01 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.15 \: 10^{1}$ & $95.93$ & $4.50$ & $2.36 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.18 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$2 \: 10^4$ & $6.59 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.21 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.59 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.07 \: 10^{1}$ & $97.58$ & $2.67$ & $2.85 \: 10^{-2}$ & $9.59 \: 10^{-2}$\\
$5 \: 10^4$ & $6.31 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.18 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.52 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.03 \: 10^{1}$ & $98.76$ & $1.41$ & $2.51 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.20 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1 \: 10^5$ & $6.26 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.17 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.55 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.02 \: 10^{1}$ & $99.20$ & $0.96$ & $2.22 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.15 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$2 \: 10^5$ & $6.27 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.17 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.51 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.04 \: 10^{1}$ & $99.44$ & $0.72$ & $2.43 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.13 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$5 \: 10^5$ & $6.24 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.17 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.52 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.04 \: 10^{1}$ & $99.54$ & $0.58$ & $2.39 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.10 \: 10^{-1}$\\
$1 \: 10^6$ & $6.23 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.17 \: 10^{-1}$ & $2.57 \: 10^{1}$ & $2.03 \: 10^{1}$ & $99.59$ & $0.53$ & $2.28 \: 10^{-2}$ & $1.09 \: 10^{-1}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
Increasing the number of particles increases $F$, reduces the model $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$, increases particle weight convergence and reduces the total weight associated with particles with unconverged weights.
\end{table*}
For the constraints used, the M2M model performs well for all numbers of particles. As might be expected, increasing the number of particles increases $F$, reduces the model $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$, increases particle weight convergence and reduces the total weight associated with particles with unconverged weights.
Once an acceptable level of behaviour has been achieved from a M2M model, there is little to be gained by just increasing the number of particles without altering some other aspect of the model (for example, improving the spatial coverage of the observational constraints). Running the model with a low number of particles is attractive because of the reduced computer run times - the $10^4$ particle run in Table \ref{tab:numpart} took $\approx 2$ minutes on a 2.8 GHz `dual core' workstation. However, the weight stability of the application (running the model with weight evolution turned off) must be considered. The stability of a $10^4$ particle run is worse (more variation in the model outputs over time) than that of a $10^5$ or a $5 \times 10^5$ particle run.
Changing the particle initial conditions to the \textit{Gaussian} velocity scheme shows only a minor degradation in model behaviour - weight convergence, for example, reduces by less than $0.5\%$.
\section{Application - Mass-to-light Determination}\label{sec:appml}
\subsection{Overview}
We illustrate a practical application of the M2M method by using it to determine the mass-to-light ratio of a simple spherical Plummer model \citep{Plummer1911}. Assuming that mass follows light and that the mass-to-light ratio is constant, we create a data set, comprising surface brightness, line-of-sight velocity dispersion and $h_4$ Gauss-Hermite coefficient values, with a known mass-to-light ratio ($5$ in this case). We run our M2M implementation with different mass-to-light ratios and expect that the data mass-to-light ratio will be indicated by a minimum in the values of $-F$ and the model $\chi^2$ values.
\subsection{Model and data preparation}\label{sec:mldataprep}
We use constructed functions for luminosity density $\nu (R, x _{\parallel})$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma (R, x _{\parallel})$ as described in section \ref{sec:finitemodel}. In the following, we take the total luminosity as $1$, the gravitational constant $G = 1$, $\Upsilon$ as the mass-to-light ratio, $R$ as the projected radius and $r$ as the spherical radius. Spatial distances are given in units of the projected half light radius ($=1$ for our model). The key Plummer model expressions we require are
\begin{enumerate}
\item Surface brightness
\begin{equation}
I(R) = \int dx_{\parallel} \nu (R, x _{\parallel}).
\end{equation}
\item Luminosity weighted line-of-sight velocity dispersion
\begin{equation}
\sigma _{\parallel} ^2 (R) = \frac{\int dx_{\parallel} \nu (R, x _{\parallel}) \sigma ^2 (R, x _{\parallel})}{I(R)}.
\end{equation}
\item Distribution function
\begin{equation}
f( \left \vert E \right \vert) \propto \left \vert E \right \vert ^{7/2}.
\end{equation}
\item Potential
\begin{equation}
\phi(r) = -\frac{\Upsilon}{\left ( r^2 + 1 \right) ^{1/2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
The observational constraints are surface brightness, surface brightness times line-of-sight velocity dispersion squared and surface luminosity times the $h_4$ Gauss-Hermite coefficient. Surface brightness is limited to a radial extent of $8$ units and the velocity constraints to $5$. We bin all observables radially, with pseudo-logarithmic bin sizes \citep{Sellwood2003}, utilising $32$ bins for surface brightness and $24$ bins for the velocity constraints. For the error terms, $\sigma(Y_j)$, we use a relative error of $5$ per cent for surface brightness and $10\%$ for line-of-sight velocity dispersion. For $h_4$, we use an absolute error of $0.015$ which is consistent with the published SAURON rms error \citep{Sauron2}. We create the surface brightness and line-of-sight velocity dispersion data values as described in section \ref{sec:gobs} using a 2-sigma cut-off. For $h_4$, we just take the theoretical values (times the bin luminosity). In addition to the observational constraints , we also impose the total weight and the isotropic velocity dispersion constraints.
For the purposes of this mass-to-light illustration, the particle initial conditions are \textit{energy} based as described in section \ref{sec:particleics} and are created using the mass-to-light ratio of the model run, not the ratio with which the data was created. The particle initial weights and priors are set as $1/N$ where $N$ is the number of particles.
\subsection{Results}\label{sec:mlresults}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Mass-to-light modelling parameters}
\label{tab:mlmodel}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Model Value} \\
\hline
Data mass-to-light ratio & $5$\\
Overall model size & $10$ units\\
Number of particles & $5 \times 10^4$\\
Model duration & $250$ units\\
Weight convergence monitoring & $25$ units\\
Weight convergence tolerance & $5\%$\\
$\epsilon$ & $2.5 \times 10^{-3}$\\
$\alpha$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-2}$\\
$\mu$ & $1.0$\\
$\lambda _{\rmn{SB}}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
$\lambda _{\rmn{VD}}$ & $2.5 \times 10^{-3} / \Upsilon$ \\
$\lambda _{\rmn{h4}}$ & $2.0 \times 10^{-3}$\\
$\lambda _{\rmn{sum}}$ & $10^3$\\
$\lambda _{\rmn{iso}}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-1}$\\
Line of sight axis & x axis\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
Spatial distances are given in units of the projected half light radius and times or durations in units of the half mass dynamical time.
\end{table}
We execute the M2M model, using the parameters in Table \ref{tab:mlmodel}, for 9 different mass-to-light ratios and plot the resulting model $-F$, $-S$ and $\chi^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ values against mass-to-light ratio. As can be seen from Figure \ref{fig:m2mplot}, these model values have a minimum at a mass-to-light ratio of $\approx 5$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpszF_run9.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpszS_run9.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpszchi2_run9.eps}
\caption{End of run $-F$, $-S$ and $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ plotted against mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$. The minimum values are at $\Upsilon = 4.91$, $\Upsilon = 4.71$ and $\Upsilon = 4.97$ respectively.}
\label{fig:m2mplot}
\end{figure}
We fit smooth curves to $-F$, $-S$ and $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ using cubic spline interpolation and determine that the minimum values occur at mass-to-light ratios of $4.91$, $4.71$ and $4.97$ respectively. By removing the $\chi^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ factors (the $\lambda _k$ in equation \ref{eqn:chifactor}) and rescaling the $\chi ^2$ curve such that the $\chi ^2$ minimum value is equal to the number of degrees of freedom ($78$ in this case), we establish the $1 \sigma$ error bounds and give the model determined value of the mass-to-light ratio of the data set as $4.88 \pm 0.21$. To complete the $\chi ^2$ analysis, we show the individual observable $\chi ^2$ plots in Figure \ref{fig:indivchi2}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpszsb_run9.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpszvd_run9.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpszh4_run9.eps}
\caption{End of run $\chi^2 _{\rmn{SB}}$, $\chi^2 _{\rmn{VD}}$ and $\chi^2 _{\rmn{h4}}$ plotted against mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$. The minimum values occur at $\Upsilon = 4.59$, $\Upsilon = 4.90$ and $\Upsilon = 5.52$ respectively.}
\label{fig:indivchi2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Weight convergence and dispersion isotropy}
\label{tab:mltable}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
$\bmath{\Upsilon}$ & \textbf{Particles} & \textbf{Unconv} & $\bmath{\sum w_i}$ & $\bmath{\beta (0)}$ & $\bmath{\beta}$ \\
& \textbf{Converged} & \textbf{Weight} & & & \textbf{grad} \\
& \textbf{(\%)} & \textbf{(\%)}\\
\hline
$2.50$ & $93.5$ & $6.5$ & $1.0$ & $+0.001$ & $-0.026$ \\
$3.33$ & $98.3$ & $1.7$ & $1.0$ & $-0.003$ & $-0.011$ \\
$4.00$ & $98.3$ & $1.6$ & $1.0$ & $-0.003$ & $-0.006$ \\
$4.50$ & $99.1$ & $0.9$ & $1.0$ & $-0.009$ & $-0.002$ \\
$5.00$ & $98.7$ & $1.3$ & $1.0$ & $-0.016$ & $+0.003$ \\
$5.55$ & $98.3$ & $1.6$ & $1.0$ & $-0.014$ & $+0.002$ \\
$6.25$ & $98.3$ & $1.6$ & $1.0$ & $-0.014$ & $+0.002$ \\
$7.50$ & $98.3$ & $1.6$ & $1.0$ & $-0.017$ & $+0.006$ \\
$10.0$ & $97.8$ & $2.0$ & $1.0$ & $-0.020$ & $+0.006$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
Weight convergence peaks close to the true mass-to-light ratio. The total weight constraint is met for all runs and the velocity dispersion is isotropic except for $\Upsilon = 2.5$.
\end{table}
The total weight constraint is met (Table \ref{tab:mltable}) and so is the velocity dispersion isotropy constraint except at $\Upsilon = 2.5$. Weight convergence is high, peaking close to the true mass-to-light ratio, and, no less important, the weight associated with particles with unconverged weights is low at $<2\%$ of the total particle weight.
By examining the particle weight distribution in velocity space, we investigate how the M2M method behaves given a mass-to-light value which does not match the observational data set. For our Plummer model with the x-axis orientated to the line of sight, plotting the weight distribution contours perpendicular to the line of sight (in the $v_z - v_y$ plane) we would expect to see a circular pattern as in Figure \ref{fig:ml5vyvz} and also in the other two planes. The $\Upsilon = 5$ $v_x - v_y$ plot (Figure \ref{fig:vxvyplots}) is as expected.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpscontourvyvz_5.00_2.eps}
\caption{Particle weight distribution in velocity space perpendicular to the line of sight for $\Upsilon = 5$. The highest valued contours are in the centre with the lowest on the outside.}
\label{fig:ml5vyvz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpscontourvxvy_2.50_2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpscontourvxvy_5.00_2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpscontourvxvy_10.00_2.eps}\\
\caption{Particle weight distribution in velocity space parallel to the line of sight for $\Upsilon = 2.5$ (top), $\Upsilon = 5$ (target, centre) and $\Upsilon = 10$ (bottom). As described in section \ref{sec:mlresults}, the contours show stretching and compression in the $v_x$ direction as the M2M model tries to match the supplied velocity dispersion constraint for $\Upsilon$ values less than and greater than the target value. The reason for the double peak in the $\Upsilon = 2.5$ plot is not known.}
\label{fig:vxvyplots}
\end{figure}
However, the $\Upsilon = 2.5$ plot is stretched in the $v_x$ direction whilst the $\Upsilon = 10$ plot is compressed. Given the maximum velocity for $\Upsilon = 2.5$ is less than that of the data set ($\Upsilon = 5$), it is reasonable to expect that the M2M model selectively increases the weights of particles to try and reproduce the data set line-of-sight velocity dispersion. Similarly for $\Upsilon = 10$, with a greater maximum velocity, the weights of particles are selectively reduced. The end result is the distorted particle weight distributions.
In Figure \ref{fig:reprovd2.5}, we display plots for different mass-to-light ratios showing the model luminosity per unit energy $dL/dE$ compared with the theoretical function and the velocity dispersion constraint compared with the observable data. At lower mass-to-light ratios, calculating $dL/dE$ from the end-of-run particle table shows that it is increased at low energies and reduced at high energies by comparison with its initial values. The converse is true for higher mass-to-light ratios with $dL/dE$ being reduced at low energies and increased at high.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpsfinaldf1_2.50.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpsrecoversblosvd_2.50.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpsfinaldf1_5.00.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsml/zpsrecoversblosvd_5.00.eps}\\
\caption{Reproduction of $dL/dE$ and velocity dispersion. The rows, from the top, are for $\Upsilon = 2.5$ and $\Upsilon = 5$. The solid circles are the model produced values. In the left hand panels, the dotted line is the theoretical function. In the right hand panels, the solid line indicates the observable constraint data without error terms. The dispersion constraint is not met for $\Upsilon = 2.5$. The M2M model is unable to increase the particle weights sufficiently to reproduce the constraint. The $dL/dE$ plots show that is the high relative energy particles which are most obviously affected with the lower energy particle weights being adjusted to compensate. The converse arguments apply for mass-to-light ratios higher than the true ratio.}
\label{fig:reprovd2.5}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Different constraints and initial conditions}\label{sec:dcic}
Clearly there are other combinations of constraining observables and particle initial conditions we could have used. We now examine the effect of replacing surface brightness (run 9 in Table \ref{tab:dcictable}) by luminosity density as a constraint (run 12), using an alternative velocity dispersion constraint (run 14), changing the particle initial conditions from \textit{energy} based to \textit{Gaussian} velocity (run 15) and \textit{random} velocity (run 16), and finally increasing the number of particles from $5 \times 10^4$ to $2 \times 10^5$ (run 10). For the alternative velocity dispersion constraint, we remove the surface brightness multiplier so that the constraint is just line-of-sight velocity dispersion squared.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Different constraints and initial conditions}
\label{tab:dcictable}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\textbf{Run} & $\bmath{\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^2}$ & $\bmath{\chi ^2 _{\rmn{VD}}}$ \\
\hline
$9$ & $4.97$ & $4.88 \pm 0.21$ & $4.90 \pm 0.27$ \\
$12$ & $4.96$ & $4.88 \pm 0.18$ & $4.91 \pm 0.26$ \\
$14$ & $5.61$ & $5.37 \pm 0.28$ & $5.38 \pm 0.33$ \\
$15$ & $4.99$ & $4.92 \pm 0.22$ & $4.79 \pm 0.28$ \\
$16$ & $4.80$ & $4.65 \pm 0.27$ & $4.52 \pm 0.27$ \\
$10$ & $5.00$ & $4.89 \pm 0.22$ & $4.90 \pm 0.27$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
Run 9 is the main mass-to-light run described in section \ref{sec:mlresults}. Run 10 using $4$ times as many particles as run 9 shows little difference in the results. The remaining runs are as per section \ref{sec:dcic}.
\end{table}
We find that the largest variations from the true mass-to-light ratio come from using the alternative dispersion constraint and the \textit{random} velocity initial conditions. For the other runs, the true mass-to-light is within 1-sigma of the model estimates. Note that increasing the number of particles makes very little difference.
\subsection{Summary}
To conclude this section, we have demonstrated the M2M method in action determining the mass-to-light ratio of a galaxy modelled by a theoretical Plummer sphere model. All the constraining observables are simple combinations of observational measurements regularly taken of actual galaxies, that is surface brightness, line-of-sight velocity dispersion and the $h_4$ Gauss-Hermite coefficient and their associated errors. For our constructed data generated with a mass-to-light ratio of $5$, we are able to use the M2M method in a variety of ways to estimate that ratio. Using $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{VD}}$, our best estimate is $4.91 \pm 0.26$ with a spread of results from $4.52 \pm 0.27$ to $5.38 \pm 0.33$.
\section{Draco}\label{sec:dracomain}
\subsection{Introduction}\label{sec:dracointro}
Draco is a dwarf spheroidal satellite galaxy of the local group located some $75 \; \rmn{kpc}$ from the Sun and is interesting, both cosmologically and astrophysically, in that there is no currently accepted explanation for its stellar kinematics without invoking dark matter. \citet{Wilkinson2002} describe a mathematical model for modelling dwarf spheroidal galaxies and \citet{Kleyna2002} apply the model to Draco. In this section, we use the M2M method with the Draco data from \citet{Kleyna2002} plus the isotropic velocity distribution model from \citet{Wilkinson2002} to determine the mass-to-light ratio of Draco. The data set comprises 159 line-of-sight stellar velocity measurements with their errors. The spatial distribution of the measurements is shown in Figure \ref{fig:kleynadata}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/kleynazpshist1_1.eps}
\caption[Spatial distribution of Draco velocity measurements]{Spatial distribution of Draco velocity measurements from \citet{Kleyna2002}.}
\label{fig:kleynadata}
\end{figure}
Binning the data to create a second velocity moment shows that the moment is rising with increasing radius. Other key data taken from \citet{Kleyna2002} are the central velocity dispersion of $8.5\ \rmn{km} \ \rmn{s}^{-1}$, the effective radius of $9.71$ arcminutes ($\approx 214 \ \rmn{pc}$), and the central V-band surface brightness of $2.2 \times 10^6 \ \rmn{L}_{\odot}\ \rmn{kpc}^{-2}$. Following the analysis in \citet{Wilkinson2002} and elsewhere, the surface brightness data is taken to follow a spherical Plummer model.
For an isotropic velocity dispersion with a rising line-of-sight velocity dispersion curve, the key equations based on \citet{Wilkinson2002} are
\begin{enumerate}
\item Relative potential
\begin{equation}
\psi (r) = \frac{\psi _0}{\left ( 1 + r^2 \right ) ^{\alpha / 2}}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha < 0$.
\item Distribution function
\begin{equation}
f(E) \propto \left | E \right | ^{5 / \alpha - 3/2}.
\end{equation}
\item Circular velocity
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:wilkcirc}
v ^2 _{\rmn{circ}} = v ^2 _0 \frac{r^2}{\left ( 1 + r^2 \right ) ^{1 + \alpha / 2}}
\end{equation}
where $\psi _0 = v ^2 _0 / \alpha$. Given that the matter distribution is spherical, $v _{\rmn{circ}}$ may also be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:gencirc}
v ^2 _{\rmn{circ}} = \frac{G M(<r)}{r}.
\end{equation}
\item Surface brightness
\begin{equation}
I(R) = \frac{I _0}{\left ( 1 + R^2 \right ) ^2}
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the projected radius, and $I_0$ is the measured central surface brightness.
\item Line-of-sight second velocity moment
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:dracovd}
\sigma ^2 (R) = \frac{\sigma ^2 _0}{\left ( 1 + R^2 \right ) ^{\alpha / 2}}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma _0$ is the measured central line-of-sight value. The relationship between $\sigma _0$ and $v_0$ is
\begin{equation}
\sigma ^2 _0 = \frac{3 \sqrt{\pi} v ^2 _0 \Gamma (2 + \alpha / 2)}{4 (\alpha + 5) \Gamma (5/2 + \alpha / 2)}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Spatial distance are in units of the effective radius of Draco, and velocities, in effective radii per $10^7$ years.
The role of the M2M method is to determine the value of $\alpha$ which best fits the data, and then we use the circular velocity to determine the mass it implies (via equations \ref{eqn:wilkcirc} and \ref{eqn:gencirc}) and thus the mass-to-light ratio. We vary $\alpha$ in the same manner that the mass-to-light $\Upsilon$ ratio was varied in section \ref{sec:appml}.
\subsection{Proof of approach}\label{sec:dracoconcept}
Before using Kleyna's Draco data, we examine the ability of the M2M method to determine the Wilkinson $\alpha$ parameter. Surface brightness and line-of-sight second velocity moment data are created using the functions in section \ref{sec:dracointro} with $1\%$ relative errors for surface brightness and $10\%$ for the velocity moment. For this trial data set, $\alpha = -0.5$. We run the M2M models with $2 \times 10^5$ particles and for $250$ time units. The model parameters have values $\epsilon = 2.5 \times 10 ^{-3}$, $\mu = 1$, $\lambda _{\rmn{sum}} = 10^3$ and $\lambda _{\rmn{iso}} = 7 \times 10^{-2}$. $\lambda _{\rmn{SB}}$ has the fixed value $\lambda _{\rmn{SB}} = 10 ^{-5}$ while $\lambda _{\rmn{VD}}$ is varied to accommodate the different maximum velocities in the models as $\alpha$ is varied (from $\alpha = -0.8$ to $\alpha = -0.2$). We find that the modelling runs give clear minima (close to the true $\alpha$ value) in the $\chi^2$ values, with $\alpha = -0.51$ from $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{SB}}$ and $\alpha = -0.49$ from $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{VD}}$. That is, the approach works !
\subsection{Modelling Draco}\label{sec:modeldraco}
Binning the Draco velocity measurements (159 in total), using equal interval projected radius bins, to create a set of second velocity moment data points and error terms gives the plots in Figure \ref{fig:bindracodata}. As can be seen, the measurements are centrally clustered and the velocity moment data points at higher radii suffer from a lack of contributing measurements.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/dracozpszzz_losveldisp2_0.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/dracozpshist1_8_hist.eps}
\caption[Draco second velocity moment]{Draco second velocity moment from binned velocity measurements. The top panel shows the second velocity moment data points and error terms, and the bottom panel, the number of velocity measurements per bin. The projected radius $R$ is in units of the effective radius of Draco, and velocities are in effective radii per $10^7$ years.}
\label{fig:bindracodata}
\end{figure}
Comparing Figures \ref{fig:bindracodata} and \ref{fig:bintrialdata}, the trial data has more data points than the Draco data ($24$ versus $7$) and the spread of points reflects the generating function. The Draco data does not visibly reflect any underlying curve.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/trialzpszzz_losveldisp3_0.eps}
\caption[Trial second velocity moment data]{The trial second velocity moment data used in the proof of concept exercise in section \ref{sec:dracoconcept}.}
\label{fig:bintrialdata}
\end{figure}
After some experimentation, we run the M2M models for values of the Wilkinson $\alpha$ parameter in the range $-1.5$ to $-0.5$ with the same model parameters as in the proof of concept exercise in section \ref{sec:dracoconcept}. The results are captured in Table \ref{tab:dracoresults}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{M2M determination of Draco potential power law}
\medskip
\label{tab:dracoresults}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\textbf{Measure} & $\bm{\alpha}$ & \textbf{Error bounds} \\
\hline
$-F$ & $-1.18$ & \\
$\chi ^2 _{\rmn{LM}}$ & $-1.24$ & $+0.12$, $-0.16$ \\
$-S$ & $-0.96$ & \\
$\chi ^2$ & $-0.95$ & $+0.04$, $-0.06$ \\
$\chi ^2 _{\rmn{SB}}$ & $-0.96$ & $+0.03$, $-0.04$ \\
$\chi ^2 _{\rmn{VD}}$ & $-0.90$ & $+0.36$, $-0.35$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
The value of the potential power law index $\alpha$ determined from different M2M model outputs.
\end{table}
Weight convergence is high ($> 99\%$) in all runs except for $\alpha = -1.5$ where it is slightly lower ($96\%$). There are no issues associated with the sum of weights constraint and the isotropic dispersion constraint.
We repeat the runs and include the individual velocity measurements as constraints (see section \ref{sec:theory}, equation \ref{eqn:indivobs}) as well as the line-of-sight second moment. The individual measurements make very little difference to the results in Table \ref{tab:dracoresults}. Taking the model produced line-of sight velocity distribution and comparing it to the theoretical distribution at all of the individual velocity measurement points gives a measure of how well the M2M model has reproduced the theoretical distribution (Table \ref{tab:dracolosvd}).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Model vs theory line-of-sight velocity distribution}
\medskip
\label{tab:dracolosvd}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
$\bm{\alpha}$ & \textbf{\% within} $\mathbf{5\%}$ & \textbf{\% within} $\mathbf{10\%}$ \\
\hline
$-1.50$ & $66.0$ & $88.7$ \\
$-1.25$ & $84.3$ & $100.0$ \\
$-1.10$ & $89.3$ & $100.0$ \\
$-1.00$ & $93.7$ & $100.0$ \\
$-0.90$ & $99.4$ & $100.0$ \\
$-0.75$ & $88.1$ & $98.1$ \\
$-0.50$ & $81.8$ & $90.6$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\medskip
For different values of $\alpha$, the percentage of the individual velocity measurements that have model line-of-sight velocity distribution probabilities within $5\%$ and $10\%$ of their theoretical probabilities.
\end{table}
As can be seen the highest reproduction at the $5\%$ level occurs at $\alpha = -0.9$ which is also the value resulting for $\chi ^2 _{\rmn{VD}}$ in Table \ref{tab:dracoresults}.
Comparing how well the model line-of-sight second velocity moment matches the theoretical moment for a given value of $\alpha$ (Figure \ref{fig:dracoreprovd}) shows that a good match is achieved for $\alpha = -0.9$. For $\alpha = -0.5$, the model overestimates the theoretical moment implying that the magnitude of $\alpha$ needs to be increased, and for $\alpha = -1.5$ underestimates it implying that a reduction in the magnitude of $\alpha$ is required.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/run0.5zpsvelocitydisp210.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/run0.9zpsvelocitydisp210.eps}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{graphicsdraco/run1.5zpsvelocitydisp210.eps}\\
\caption[Draco second velocity moment reproduction]{Comparison of the model produced line-of-sight second velocity moment (solid points) with the theoretical moment for $\alpha = -0.5$ (top panel), $\alpha = -0.9$ (middle panel), and $\alpha = -1.5$ (bottom panel).}
\label{fig:dracoreprovd}
\end{figure}
Using $\alpha = -0.90^{+0.36} _{-0.35}$, the mass within 3 core radii is $(9.7\pm 2.3) \times 10^7 \ \rmn{M}_{\odot}$. \citet{Kleyna2002} achieved a value of $8 ^{+3} _{-2} \times 10^7 \ \rmn{M}_{\odot}$. Taking Draco's V-band luminosity as $(1.8 \pm 0.8) \times 10^5 \ \rmn{L}_{\odot}$ \citep{Irwin1995}, the mass-to-light ratio for Draco is $539\pm 136 \ \rmn{M}_{\odot}/\rmn{L}_{\odot}$. \citet{Kleyna2002} obtained a lower value of $440\pm 240 \ \rmn{M}_{\odot}/\rmn{L}_{\odot}$ which is not surprising given they were using an anisotropic dispersion model.
\section{Conclusion}
Other authors have commented on the potential of Syer \& Tremaine's made-to-measure-method. We hope in this paper that we have helped to expose some of that potential in a practical way. We believe we have added clarity to the construction of the weight evolution equation, shown how constraints may be incorporated and defined 2 further constraints. We have demonstrated a simple application of M2M modelling by determining the mass-to-light ratio of a theoretical Plummer model. With a variety of constraints and initial conditions, we arrive in all cases at a model value close to the true value. Using the method with an isotropic velocity dispersion model, we estimate the mass-to-light ratio of Draco and achieve a V-band value of $539\pm 136 \ \rmn{M}_{\odot}/\rmn{L}_{\odot}$.
We encourage others to use the method - particularly, for comparison purposes, those who have experience of using Schwarzschild's method. It should be noted that much of the preparatory work (whether theoretical, or manipulation of observational data, say) leading to the execution of a Schwarzschild or a M2M model is in fact common. The key difference in the methods is how the final particle weights are determined. Also, the orbit selection stage in a Schwarzschild model is not required for a M2M model. The only shortfall against Schwarzschild's method we are aware of is the modelling of proper motion data.
We have given insight into how a made-to-measure model may be implemented and provided some information on its behaviour and how to size and tune such a model. We have defined a simple mechanism for assessing the degree of particle weight convergence and are not aware of such a mechanism being used elsewhere with M2M models. From a software perspective, our first unparallelised implementation was less than $2000$ lines of C code so the effort required to establish a working prototype is not huge.
As this paper was being completed, \citet{Dehnen2009} became available and there is some overlap with this paper notably in total weight conservation and the use of the $\beta$ anisotropy parameter as a constraint.
Our next steps are to continue the move away from using theoretical models and apply the method to observations of more, real galaxies, and to understand practically the relative strengths of Schwarzschild's method and the made-to-measure method.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
RJL acknowledges receipt of an STFC postgraduate studentship. The authors would like to express their thanks to Scott Tremaine, James Binney and John Magorrian for various fruitful discussions, and to Wyn Evans for advice and guidance throughout.
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
The different {\it non-locality} theorems appeared in the literature
\cite{1} - \cite{6}, starting from the pioneer theorem of Bell,
were, and are, often interpreted as proofs of inconsistency between
quantum mechanics and the {\it principle of locality and reality}
introduced by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen \cite{7}, which consists
of the following two statements. \vskip.7pc\noindent (R) {\sl
Criterion of reality.}\quad{\it If, without in any way disturbing a
system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical
quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality
corresponding to this physical quantity.} \vskip.7pc\noindent (L)
{\sl Principle of locality}.\quad{\it Let ${\mathcal R}_1$ and
${\mathcal R}_2$ be two space-like separated regions. The reality in
${\mathcal R}_2$ is unaffected by operations performed in ${\mathcal
R}_1$.} \vskip1pc\noindent In sections 3, 4, 5, we give equivalent
reformulations of the main non-locality theorems, which show that
what each of them proves is an inconsistency of quantum mechanics
with the following assumption involving quantum correlations.
\vskip0.7pc\noindent (EQC) {\sl Extension of quantum
correlations}.\quad {\it Let $A$ and $B$ be two observables whose
measurements require operations in regions ${\mathcal R}_1$ and
${\mathcal R}_2$, respectively, space-like separated from each
other. If quantum mechanics predicts correlations, in the state
$\psi$, between the outcomes of actually performed measurements of
$A$ and $B$, then every specimen $x$ of the physical system in the
state $\psi$ possesses objective values of $A$ and $B$ which satisfy
these correlations.} \vskip0.7pc\noindent The proved inconsistency
unavoidably leads to conclude that quantum mechanics violates the
principles of locality and reality if (EQC) could be inferred from
the principle of locality and reality, and, eventually, from quantum
theory. Such an inference can be established only if a {\it wide
interpretation} of the criterion of reality (R) is adopted,
expressed as law (wR) in section 2.
\par
The {\it strict} interpretation of (R), expressed as (sR) in
section 2, in not able to justify (EQC). Indeed, this last
interpretation leads to an extension (sEQC) of quantum
correlations which is strictly smaller than (EQC).
\par
In this work we explore the possibility of interpreting the
inconsistency proved by non-locality theorems as a failure of just
(EQC), without provoking conflicts between the principle (R,L) and
quantum mechanics. This program entails that interpretation (wR)
must be abandoned, because it implies (EQC); but (sR) must be
retained, because it is implied by (R,L). Furthermore, contrary to
(EQC), statement (sEQC) should not conflict with quantum mechanics,
because it is a consequence of (sR). In fact, we show that by
replacing (EQC) by (sEQC) in the main non-locality theorems, no
inconsistency between quantum theory and the principle of locality
and reality can be proved. Thus, the meaning of the present work is
that quantum mechanics can coexist with locality if the criterion of
reality is interpreted according to its strict sense.
\par
In section 2 we show how by strictly interpreting the criterion of
reality (R), only a weaker form (sEQC) of the extension law (EQC)
can be derived. Sections 3, 4, and 5 are devoted to show that the
non-locality theorems fail when the strict interpretation is
adopted, i.e. when (sEQC) replaces (EQC). We have proved such a
failure for the theorem \cite{6} proved by Greenberger, Horne,
Shimony, Zeilinger (GHSZ) in section 3, for the theorem of Hardy
\cite{4} in section 4 and for the classic Bell's theorem \cite{1}
in section 5. In fact, these three theorems follow three different
logical schemes, every non-locality theorem can be traced back to.
\section{Weak extension of quantum correlations.}
In this section we derive an extension of quantum correlations from
(R,L), as it can be inferred by a strict interpretation of the
criterion of reality (R). Our argument requires the formal
introduction of terms to suitably represent the concepts to be
handled. Given a quantum state vector $\psi$ of the Hilbert space
$\mathcal H$ which describes the physical system, let ${\mathcal
S}(\psi)$ be a {\it support} of $\psi$, i.e. a concrete set of
specimens of the physical systems whose quantum state is $\psi$. Let
$A$ be any 1-0 observable, i.e. an observable having only the
possible values 1 and 0, and hence represented by a projection
operator $\hat A$. In correspondence with $A$ we introduce the
following peculiar subsets of ${\mathcal S}(\psi)$. By ${\mathcal
A}$ we denote the set of the specimens of ${\mathcal S}(\psi)$ which
objectively possess a value of the observable $A$. By ${\mathcal
A}_1$ (resp., ${\mathcal A}_0$) we denote the set of specimens of
${\mathcal A}$ which possess the objective value 1 (resp., 0) of
$A$; hence we can assume that ${\mathcal A}_1\cup {\mathcal
A}_0={\mathcal A}$ holds. By ${\bf A}$ we denote the concrete set of
specimens of ${\mathcal S}(\psi)$ which actually undergo a
measurement of $A$. By ${\bf A}_1$ (resp., ${\bf A}_0$) we denote
the set of specimens of ${\bf A}$ for which the outcome 1 (resp., 0)
of $A$ has been obtained; hence we can assume that ${\bf A}_1\cup
{\bf A}_0={\bf A}$ holds. Moreover, we define the two mappings
$a:{\mathcal A}\to\{1,-1\}$ and ${\bf a}:{\bf A}\to\{1,-1\}$ as
follows.
$$a(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}\;\;\;1,\;x\in{\mathcal A}_1\, ,\\
-1, \; x\in{\mathcal A}_0\, ;\\
\end{array}\right.
\quad
{\bf a}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}\;\,\;1,\;x\in{\bf A}_1\, ,\\
-1,\;x\in{\bf A}_0\, .\\
\end{array}\right.
\eqno(1)
$$
According to standard quantum theory the following statement holds
$${\bf A}_1\subseteq{\mathcal A}_1\hbox{ and }{\bf A}_0\subseteq{\mathcal A}_0,
\eqno(2.i)
$$
because the reality of the outcome of an actually performed
measurement cannot be denied. Moreover, two observables $A$ and
$B$ can be measured together if and only if the corresponding
operators commute with each other; therefore the following
statements hold.
$$
[\hat A, \hat B]\neq{\bf 0}\quad\hbox{implies}\quad {\bf
A}\cap{\bf B}=\emptyset\hbox{ for all }{\mathcal
S}(\psi).\eqno(2.ii)
$$
$$
\quad [\hat A, \hat B]={\bf 0}\quad\hbox{ implies }
\quad\forall\psi\;\;\exists{\mathcal S}(\psi)\hbox{
such that }{\bf A}\cap{\bf B}\neq\emptyset.\eqno(2.iii)
$$
\vskip.7pc Let $A$ and $B$ be two {\it separated} observables,
written $A\bowtie B$, i.e. observables whose measurements require
operations to be performed in space-like separated regions
${\mathcal R}_1$ and ${\mathcal R}_2$. Since (L) applies, the
following statement holds.
$$
A\bowtie B\quad\hbox{implies}\quad[\hat A,\hat B]={\bf 0},\;\hbox{
hence } {\mathcal S}(\psi) \hbox{ exists such that } {\bf
A}\cap{\bf B}\neq\emptyset. \eqno(3)
$$
\par
The principle of locality and reality (R,L) leads to further
implications in the case that the separated observables $A$ and
$B$ are {\it correlated}. Let us consider the case that the
correlation $A\to B$ holds in the quantum state $\psi$, which
means that whenever both $A$ and $B$ are measured, i.e. if
$x\in{\bf A}\cap{\bf B}$, then ${\bf a}(x)=1$ implies ${\bf
b}(x)=1$. Hence, the correlation $A\to B$ holds if and only if
${\bf A}_1\cap {\bf B}\subseteq {\bf B}_1$ or if and only if
$({a}(x)+1)({b}(x)-1)=0$ for all $x\in{\bf A}\cap {\bf B}$;
equivalently, $A\to B$ if and only if ${\bf B}_0\cap {\bf
A}\subseteq {\bf A}_0$. Now, if $A\bowtie B$ and $A$ is measured
on $x\in{\bf A}$ obtaining ${\bf a}(x)=1$, then the principle of
locality (L) and the criterion of reality (R) imply $x\in{\mathcal
B}$ and $b(x)=1$. Therefore, ${\bf A}_1\subseteq {\mathcal B}_1$
and the correlation $(a(x)=1)\Rightarrow (b(x)=1)$ holds for all
$x\in{\bf A}_1$. The reasoning repeated by exchanging $A$ with $B$
leads to conclude that ${\bf B}_0\subseteq {\mathcal A}_0$ and
that the correlation $(a(x)=1)\Rightarrow (b(x)=1)$ holds for
every $x\in{\bf B}_0$. Thus the correlation extends to ${\bf
A}_1\cup{\bf B}_0$. Hence from (R,L) and quantum mechanics we
infer the following statement. \vskip.7pc\noindent (sEQC) {\sl
Weak extension of quantum correlations}.\quad{\it Let $A$ and $B$
be space-like separated 1-0 observables. If $A\to B$ then
$$\quad(a(x)+1)(b(x)-1)=0,\;\;\forall x\in({\bf
A}_1\cup{\bf B}_0)\cup({\bf A}\cap{\bf B}) .\eqno(4.i)
$$}
\vskip.7pc \noindent The quantum correlation $A\leftrightarrow B$,
i.e. $A\to B$ and $B\to A$, means that the correlation
$(a(x)=1)\Leftrightarrow (b(x)=1)$ holds for all $x\in{\bf
A}\cap{\bf B}$. In this case, by (sEQC) we derive that
$(a(x)=1)\Leftrightarrow (b(x)=1)$ holds for all $x\in({\bf
A}_1\cup{\bf B}_0)\cup({\bf B}_1\cup{\bf A}_0)\cup({\bf A}\cap{\bf
B})={\bf A}\cup{\bf B}$. Hence, (sEQC) incorporates the following
extension of quantum correlations.
$$A\bowtie B\hbox{ and }A\leftrightarrow B\quad\hbox{imply}
\quad a(x)=b(x),\;\; \forall x\in{\bf A}\cup{\bf B}. \eqno(4.ii)
$$
\par
We remark that in deriving (sEQC) we have applied the {\it strict}
interpretation (sR) of the criterion of reality, according to
which if $A\bowtie B$ and $A\to B$ we can predict with certainty
the value of an eventual measurement of $B$ (resp., $A$) only once
a measurement of $A$ with concrete outcome ${\bf a}(x)=1$ (resp.,
$B$ with concrete outcome ${\bf b}(x)=0$) is performed. If
$x\notin{\bf A}_1$ (resp., $x\notin{\bf B}_0$) no prediction of
the value of $B$ (resp., $A$) can be made by a strict application
of (R). \vskip.7pc The larger extension stated by (EQC) can be
derived from (R,L) only if a wider interpretation (wR) is adopted,
according to which for ascribing reality to $B$ it is sufficient
the ``possibility'' of performing a measurement whose outcome
would allow for the prediction, with certainty, of the outcome of
an eventual measurement of $B$. Note 10 in \cite{6} highlights the
importance of this twofold possibility in interpreting the
criterion of reality.
\section{GHSZ theorem does not extend to (sEQC)}
In this section we show that the argument of GHSZ cannot be used
for proving inconsistency between quantum mechanics and statement
(sEQC). In so doing, we first reformulate GHSZ proof to make clear
the role of law (EQC). \vskip.7pc The theorem of GHSZ makes use of
seven 1-0 observables of a particular quantum system, separated
into four classes
$$
\omega_A=\{A^\alpha,A^\beta\},\;\omega_B=\{B\},
\;\omega_C=\{C^\alpha,C^\beta\},\;\omega_D=\{D^\alpha,D^\beta\}.
$$
These observables have been singled out by GHSZ in such a way that
\vskip.5pc\noindent (5.i)\quad two observables in two different
classes are separated from each other. \vskip.5pc\noindent (5.ii)
\quad $[\hat{A^\alpha},\hat{A^\beta}]\neq{\bf 0}$,
$[\hat{C^\alpha},\hat{C^\beta}]\neq{\bf 0}$,
$[\hat{D^\alpha},\hat{D^\beta}]\neq{\bf 0}$. \vskip.5pc\noindent
The state vectors $\psi$ is chosen so that the following
correlations between actually measured outcomes hold, according to
quantum mechanics. {\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
$$
\begin{array}{llll}
\textrm{ i)}\quad &{\bf a}^\alpha(x){\bf b}(x)&=-{\bf
c}^\alpha(x){\bf d}^\alpha(x)\quad
&\forall x\in({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B})\cap({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\equiv{\bf X},\\
\textrm{ ii)}\quad &{\bf a}^\beta(y){\bf b}(y)&=-{\bf
c}^\beta(y){\bf d}^\alpha(y)\quad
&\forall y\in({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B})\cap({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\equiv{\bf Y},\\
\textrm{ iii)}\quad &{\bf a}^\beta(z){\bf b}(z)&=-{\bf
c}^\alpha(z){\bf d}^\beta(z)\quad
&\forall z\in({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B})\cap({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\beta)\equiv{\bf Z},\\
\textrm{ iv)}\quad &{\bf a}^\alpha(t){\bf b}(t)&={\bf
c}^\beta(t){\bf d}^\beta(t)\quad
&\forall t\in({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B})\cap({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\beta)\equiv{\bf T}.\\
\end{array}
\eqno(6)
$$}
In terms of 1-0 observables, equations (6.i), (6.ii), (6.iii),
(6.iv) express the quantum correlations $A^\alpha \ast
B\leftrightarrow 1-C^\alpha\ast D^\alpha$, $A^\beta\ast
B\leftrightarrow 1-C^\beta\ast D^\alpha$, $A^\beta\ast
B\leftrightarrow 1-C^\alpha\ast D^\beta$, $A^\alpha\ast B
\leftrightarrow C^\beta\ast D^\beta$, respectively, where we have
put $A\ast B=1-(A-B)^2$.
\par
If (EQC) holds, then correlations (6) must be
extended to the following correlations between objective values.
{\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
$$
\left.
\begin{array}{llll}
\textrm{ i)}\quad &{a}^\alpha(x){b}(x)&=-{c}^\alpha(x){d}^\alpha(x),\\
\textrm{ ii)}\quad &{a}^\beta(x){b}(x)&=-{c}^\beta(x){d}^\alpha(x),\\
\textrm{ iii)}\quad &{a}^\beta(x){b}(x)&=-{c}^\alpha(x){d}^\beta(x),\\
\textrm{ iv)}\quad &{a}^\alpha(x){b}(x)&={c}^\beta(x){d}^\beta(x),\\
\end{array}\right\}
\quad\forall x\in{\mathcal S}(\psi). \eqno(7)
$$}
GHSZ prove that the correlations (7) are inconsistent because
(i)-(iv) in (7) hold for a same $x\in{\mathcal
S}(\psi)\neq\emptyset$. Indeed, from (7.i) and (7.iv) we get
$$
{c}^\alpha(x){d}^\alpha(x)=-{c}^\beta(x){d}^\beta(x). \eqno(8)
$$
On the other hand, from (7.ii) and (7.iii) the equality
${c}^\alpha(x){d}^\beta(x)={c}^\beta(x){d}^\alpha(x)$ follows,
which is equivalent, since
${d}^\beta(x){d}^\beta(x)={d}^\alpha(x){d}^\alpha(x)=1$, to
$$
{ c}^\alpha(x){d}^\alpha(x)={c}^\beta(x){d}^\beta(x) \eqno(9)
$$
which contradicts (8). \vskip.7pc Now we prove that this proof of
inconsistency does not work if we replace (EQC) by (sEQC). To this
end, it is worth to remark that the contradiction between (8) and
(9) cannot be derived from (6) alone, without the extension to (7)
implied by (EQC), because (6.i)-(6.iv) cannot hold simultaneously
for a same $x=y=z=t$; indeed,
$[\hat{A^\alpha},\hat{A^\beta}]\neq{\bf 0}$ by (5.ii); hence,
according to quantum theory, ${\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf
A}^\beta=\emptyset$ by (2.ii), and therefore ${\bf X}\cap{\bf
Y}\cap{\bf Z}\cap{\bf T}=\emptyset$.
\par
The extension of correlations (6) validated by (sEQC) in this case
are obtained by applying (4.ii), i.e. {\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
$$
\begin{array}{llll}
\textrm{ i)}\quad &{ a}^\alpha(x){ b}(x)=-{ c}^\alpha(x){
d}^\alpha(x)\quad
&\forall x\in({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B})\cup({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\equiv{\tilde{\bf X}},\\
\textrm{ ii)}\quad &{ a}^\beta(y){ b}(y)=-{ c}^\beta(y){
d}^\alpha(y)\quad
&\forall y\in({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B})\cup({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\equiv{\tilde{\bf Y}},\\
\textrm{ iii)}\quad &{ a}^\beta(z){ b}(z)=-{ c}^\alpha(z){
d}^\beta(z)\quad
&\forall z\in({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B})\cup({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\beta)\equiv{\tilde{\bf Z}},\\
\textrm{ iv)}\quad &{ a}^\alpha(t){ b}(t)={ c}^\beta(t){
d}^\beta(t)\quad
&\forall t\in({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B})\cup({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\beta)\equiv{\tilde{\bf T}}.\\
\end{array}
\eqno(10)
$$
In order that the GHSZ argument -- which leads to the contradiction
from (7) to (9) through (8)-- can be successfully repeated from
(10), the first step requires that (10.i) and (10.iv) should hold
for the same specimen $x_0$; therefore the condition ${\tilde{\bf
X}}\cap{\tilde{\bf T}}\neq\emptyset$ should hold; the second step
requires that also (10.ii) and (10.iii) should hold for such a
specimen. Thus, the condition
$${\tilde{\bf X}}\cap{\tilde{\bf
Y}}\cap{\tilde{\bf Z}}\cap{\tilde{\bf T}}\neq\emptyset\eqno(11)$$
should be satisfied. Now, from (5.ii) and (2.ii) we derive
$$\emptyset=
({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B})\cap({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B})= ({\bf
C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\cap({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)=
$$ $$=({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\cap({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf
D}^\beta)= ({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\cap({\bf
C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\beta)= \eqno(12)$$ $$= ({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf
D}^\alpha)\cap({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\beta)= ({\bf
C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\alpha)\cap({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf D}^\beta)=$$
$$
=({\bf C}^\alpha\cap{\bf D}^\beta)\cap({\bf C}^\beta\cap{\bf
D}^\beta).
$$
To obtain the set ${\tilde{\bf X}}\cap{\tilde{\bf
Y}}\cap{\tilde{\bf Z}}\cap{\tilde{\bf T}}$ the distributive law
for $\cap$ and $\cup$ of elementary set theory can be applied; in
so doing, (12) imply
$${\tilde{\bf X}}\cap{\tilde{\bf Y}}\cap{\tilde{\bf
Z}}\cap{\tilde{\bf T}}=\emptyset,
$$
which denies condition (11) necessary to prove the inconsistency.
Thus, GHSZ proof cannot be extended to prove inconsistency between
quantum mechanics and the strict interpretation of the principle
of locality and reality.
\section{Hardy's theorem}
The scheme of the theorem of Hardy involves four 1-0 observables
$A^\alpha$, $B^\alpha$, $A^\beta$, $B^\beta$, chosen in such a way
that \vskip.5pc\noindent (13.i)\quad $A^\alpha\bowtie B^\alpha$,
$A^\alpha\bowtie B^\beta$, $A^\beta\bowtie B^\alpha$
$A^\beta\bowtie B^\beta$;
\par\noindent
(13.ii)\quad $[\hat{A^\alpha},\hat{A^\beta}]\neq{\bf 0}$ and
$[\hat{B^\alpha},\hat{B^\beta}]\neq{\bf 0}$. \vskip.5pc\noindent The
state vector $\psi$ is chosen so that according to quantum theory
the correlations $A^\alpha\to B^\alpha$, $B^\alpha\to A^\beta$,
$A^\beta\to B^\beta$ hold, which can be equivalently expressed as
follows. {\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\textrm{ i)}\quad &(a^\alpha(x)+1)(b^\alpha(x)-1)&=0,\quad \forall
x\in{\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B}^\alpha
\\
\textrm{ ii)}\quad &(b^\alpha(y)+1)(a^\beta(y)-1)&=0,\quad \forall
y\in{\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\alpha
\\
\textrm{ iii)}\quad &(a^\beta(z)+1)(b^\beta(z)-1)&=0,\quad \forall
z\in{\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\beta.
\\
\end{array}
\eqno(14)
$$}
A further constraint satisfied by the choice of $\psi$ in Hardy's theorem
is the
following statistical prediction of quantum mechanics,
$$
\langle\psi\mid \hat{A^\alpha}({\bf
1}-\hat{B^\beta})\psi\rangle\neq 0. \eqno(15.i)
$$
which means that there is a non-vanishing probability of obtaining
$(1,0)$ as pair of outcomes of a measurement of $A^\alpha$ and
$B^\beta$. Hence, a support ${\mathcal S}(\psi)$ exists such that
${\bf A}^\alpha_1\cap{\bf B}^\beta_0\neq\emptyset$, i.e.
$$
{\mathcal S}(\psi)\hbox{ and }x_0\in{\mathcal S}(\psi)\hbox{ exist}
\quad\hbox{such that}\quad a^\alpha(x_0)=1\hbox{ and
}b^\beta(x_0)=-1.\eqno(15.ii)
$$
If (EQC) is assumed to hold, then from correlations (14) we infer
that {\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\textrm{ i)}\quad &(a^\alpha(x)+1)(b^\alpha(x)-1)&=0,
\\
\textrm{ ii)}\quad &(b^\alpha(x)+1)(a^\beta(x)-1)&=0,
\\
\textrm{ iii)}\quad &(a^\beta(x)+1)(b^\beta(x)-1)&=0
\end{array}
\eqno(16)
$$}
are satisfied for any
$x\in{\mathcal S}(\psi)$, for every support ${\mathcal
S}(\psi)$.
Now,
if a specimen $x$ satisfies (16.i,ii,iii), then by using elementary algebra
we imply that
$$
(a^\alpha(x)+1)(b^\beta(x)-1)=0 \eqno(17) $$ holds for such $x$.
Therefore (17) holds for every $x\in{\mathcal S}(\psi)$, for every
support ${\mathcal S}(\psi)$. Thus, (15.ii) turns out to be
contradicted, because $(a^\alpha(x_0)+1)(b^\beta(x_0)-1)=-4$.
\vskip.7pc Now we show that no contradiction arises if we replace
(EQC) by (sEQC). The extension of correlations (14) obtained by
applying (sEQC) is expressed by {\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
$$
\begin{array}{llll}
\textrm{ i)}\quad &(a^\alpha(x)+1)(b^\alpha(x)-1)&=0,\quad
&\forall x\in{\bf A}_1^\alpha\cup{\bf B}_0^\alpha\cup({\bf
A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B}^\alpha)={\bf X}
\\
\textrm{ ii)}\quad &(b^\alpha(y)+1)(a^\beta(y)-1)&=0,\quad &\forall
y\in{\bf A}_1^\beta\cup{\bf B}_0^\alpha\cup({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf
B}^\alpha)={\bf Y}
\\
\textrm{ iii)}\quad &(a^\beta(z)+1)(b^\beta(z)-1)&=0,\quad &\forall
z\in{\bf A}_1^\beta\cup{\bf B}_0^\beta\cup({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf
B}^\beta)={\bf Z}.
\\
\end{array}
\eqno(18)
$$}
These extensions no longer imply (17). Indeed, equation
$(a^\alpha(x)-1)(b^\beta(x)-1)=0$ can be derived from (18) if all
three equations therein hold for the same specimen $x$, i.e. if
$x\in{\bf X}\cap{\bf Y}\cap{\bf Z}$. But this last set is empty;
indeed $({\bf A}^\alpha\cup{\bf B}^\alpha)\cap({\bf A}^\beta\cup{\bf
B}^\alpha)\cap({\bf A}^\beta\cup{\bf B}^\beta)=\emptyset$ follows
from (13.ii) and (2.ii); on the other hand, from the definition of
${\bf X}$, $\bf Y$ and $\bf Z$ in (18) we have ${\bf X}\cap{\bf
Y}\cap{\bf Z}\subseteq({\bf A}^\alpha\cup{\bf B}^\alpha)\cap({\bf
A}^\beta\cup{\bf B}^\alpha)\cap({\bf A}^\beta\cup{\bf B}^\beta)$,
and thus ${\bf X}\cap{\bf Y}\cap{\bf Z}=\emptyset$.
\section{\bf Bell's theorem}
Six 1-0 observables $A^\alpha$, $A^\beta$, $A^\gamma$, $B^\alpha$,
$B^\beta$, $B^\gamma$ are involved in Bell's theorem, which satisfy
the following conditions \vskip.5pc\noindent (19.i)\quad Each
$A$-observable is space-like separated from every $B$-observable;
\vskip.5pc\noindent (19.ii)\quad
$[\hat{A^\lambda},\hat{A^\mu}]\neq{\bf 0}$ and
$[\hat{B^\lambda},\hat{B^\mu}]\neq{\bf 0}$ if
$\lambda\neq\mu$,\hbox{ where }
$\lambda,\mu\in\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}$. \vskip.5pc\noindent The
state vector $\psi$ is singled out so that quantum correlations
$A^\beta\leftrightarrow 1- B^\beta$ and $A^\gamma\leftrightarrow
1-B^\gamma$ hold, i.e.
$$ \hbox{(i)}\quad a^\beta(x)=-b^\beta(x)\qquad \hbox{and\qquad(ii)\quad
}a^\gamma(x)=-b^\gamma(x), \eqno(20)
$$
where (20.i) holds for all
$x\in{\bf
A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\beta$ and (20.ii) holds for all
$x\in{\bf A}^\gamma\cap{\bf
B}^\gamma$.
Following Bell's proof, if
$Y=\{x_1,x_2, \ldots,x_N\}$ is any finite set of specimens of
the physical system such that both (20.i) and (20.ii) hold for every $x_k\in Y$,
then the following (Bell's) inequality
$$
\left\vert\overline{a^\alpha b^\beta}-\overline{a^\alpha
b^\gamma}\right\vert\leq 1-\overline{a^\beta
b^\gamma}
\eqno(21)
$$
can be derived for the mean values $\overline{a^\alpha b^\beta}$,
$\overline{a^\alpha b^\gamma}$, $\overline{a^\beta b^\gamma}$
(for instance, $\overline{a^\alpha b^\beta} = [\sum_{x_k\in
Y}a^\alpha(x_k) b^\beta(x_k)]/N$, and so on), all computed on the
same sample $Y$.
Quantum mechanics, by itself, does not conflict with Bell's inequality (21),
because according to quantum theory the correlations (20.i) and (20.ii)
hold together only if $x\in{\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\beta\cap{\bf A}^\gamma\cap{\bf
B}^\gamma=\emptyset$.
\par
But if (EQC) is assumed to hold, then (20) extends to
$$ \hbox{(i)}\quad a^\beta(x)=-b^\beta(x),\;\forall x\in{\mathcal S}(\psi);\qquad
\hbox{(ii)}\quad a^\gamma(x)=-b^\gamma(x),\;\forall x\in {\mathcal S}(\psi).
\eqno(22)
$$
Therefore, (EQC) makes valid Bell's inequality (21) whenever the
involved mean values are evaluated for the ``objective'' values on
{\it any} finite sample $Y\subseteq{\mathcal S}(\psi)$. Now, quantum
theory cannot predict the three mean values in (21) evaluated on a
same sample $Y$, because they refer to the three non-commuting (by
19.ii) observables $A^\alpha\ast B^\beta$, $A^\alpha\ast B^\gamma$,
$A^\beta \ast B^\gamma$. Quantum mechanics can predict the mean
values $\overline{a^\alpha b^\beta}$, $\overline{a^\alpha
b^\gamma}$, $\overline{a^\beta b^\gamma}$ evaluated on {\it
different} samples $Y_1\subseteq{\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B}^\beta$,
$Y_2\subseteq{\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf B}^\gamma$, $Y_3\subseteq{\bf
A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\gamma$, each of them contained in the domain of
validity of (21); these mean values agree, according to quantum
theory, with the quantum expectation values
$\langle\psi\mid\hat{A^\alpha}\ast\hat{B^\beta}\mid\psi\rangle$,
$\langle\psi\mid\hat{A^\alpha}\ast\hat{B^\gamma}\mid\psi\rangle$,
$\langle\psi\mid\hat{A^\beta}\ast\hat{B^\gamma}\mid\psi\rangle$. If
the mean values are replaced by these expectation values, a
violation of Bell's inequality (21) is found\footnote{In order that
the mean values in (21) can be replaced by the quantum expectation
values, the following further hypothesis has been assumed in Bell's
type theorems. \vskip.5pc\noindent {\sl Fair sampling
assumption.}\quad{\it The sample of physical systems which actually
undergo a measurement fairly represent the entire population
${\mathcal S}(\psi)$.} \vskip.5pc\noindent The validity of the fair
sampling assumption has been submitted to deep investigations, as
for instance in \cite{8,9} and references therein, which show that
it can be seriously questioned without violating physical principles
or statistical regularity. This assumption is not necessary in the
theorems of GHSZ and Hardy which, for this reason, are more
effective in showing inconsistency between quantum mechanics and
(EQC).}. \vskip.7pc Now we show that if (EQC) is replaced by (sEQC)
then the domain of validity of (21) becomes smaller than ${\mathcal
S}(\psi)$, so that the predictions of quantum theory about the mean
values in (21) cannot longer apply, because they refer to samples
$Z$ which are outside of the domain of validity of (21).
\par
By using (4.ii), we imply that (20.i) holds for all $x\in{\bf
A}^\beta\cup{\bf B}^\beta$, whereas (20.ii) is valid for all
$x\in{\bf A}^\gamma\cup{\bf B}^\gamma$; therefore both (20.i) and
(20.ii) hold for all $x\in {\bf X}= ({\bf A}^\beta\cup{\bf
B}^\beta)\cap({\bf A}^\gamma\cup{\bf B}^\gamma)$. Since $[\hat{
A}^\beta,\hat{ A}^\gamma]\neq{\bf 0}$ and $[\hat{ B}^\beta,\hat{
B}^\gamma]\neq{\bf 0}$ we have ${\bf X}=({\bf A}^\beta\cup{\bf
B}^\beta)\cap({\bf A}^\gamma\cup{\bf B}^\gamma)=({\bf
A}^\beta\cap{\bf A}^\gamma)\cup({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf
B}^\gamma)\cup({\bf B}^\beta\cap{\bf A}^\gamma)\cup(\hat{\bf
B}^\beta\cap\hat{\bf B}^\gamma)= ({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf
B}^\gamma)\cup({\bf B}^\beta\cap{\bf A}^\gamma)$ by (2.ii). On the
other hand by (19.i), (3) and (2.iii) we infer that a support
${\mathcal S}(\psi)$ exists such that $({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf
B}^\gamma)\neq\emptyset$ (or $({\bf A}^\gamma\cap {\bf
B}^\beta)\neq\emptyset$), and hence ${\bf X}\neq\emptyset$.
Therefore, a result of the substitution of (EQC) with (sEQC) is that
Bell inequality (21) holds only for samples ${\bf Y}\subseteq{\bf
X}=({\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\gamma)\cup({\bf B}^\beta\cap{\bf
A}^\gamma)$. \par Such a limited validity {\it does not violates
quantum mechanics}. Indeed, the quantum mechanical prediction
$\langle \psi\mid\hat{A^\alpha}\ast\hat{B^\beta}\mid \psi\rangle$
for $\overline{a^\alpha b^\beta}$ in (21) holds for samples $Z_1$
such that at least $Z_1\subseteq{\bf A}^\alpha$ is satisfied. But
since $[\hat{ A}^\alpha,\hat{ A}^\beta]\neq{\bf 0}$ and $[\hat{
A}^\alpha,\hat{ A}^\gamma]\neq{\bf 0}$, by (2.ii) we have
$$
{\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf X}=({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf A}^\beta\cap{\bf B}^\gamma)\cup
({\bf A}^\alpha\cap{\bf A}^\gamma\cap{\bf B}^\beta)=\emptyset.\eqno(23)
$$
Hence the quantum mechanical prediction for
$\overline{a^\alpha b^\beta}$ refer to samples for which the limited
Bell's inequality does not hold.
\par
To conclude, (sEQC) bounds the validity of Bell inequality in
such a way that \vskip.5pc\noindent (i)\quad it holds for samples
which make Bell inequality neither verifiable by experiment, nor
comparable with the statistical predictions of quantum theory;
\vskip.5pc\noindent (ii)\quad it is consistent with the principle
of reality and locality and with the predictions of quantum
theory.
|
\section{Introduction}
Interest in the field of charmonium spectroscopy has been renewed with the recent discovery of numerous charmonium and charmonium-like states~\cite{X3872a, X3872b, X3872c, X3872d, X3940, Y3940a, Y3940b, Y4260a, Y4260b, Y4360a, Y4360b}. However very little is known about the first radially excited $\chi_{cJ}(2P)$ states which are expected to exist in the mass region from $3.9$ to $4.0\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, just above the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ threshold~\cite{Go85}. The Belle collaboration has observed the $Z(3930)$ state in $\gamma\gamma$ production of the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ system~\cite{Ue06}, and this is considered a strong candidate for the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(2P)$ state; indeed it is so-labelled in Ref.~\cite{Pd08}. The Belle analysis obtained a mass of $m = (3929 \pm 5 \pm 2)\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a total width of $\Gamma = (29 \pm 10 \pm 2)\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, with quantum numbers $J^{PC} = 2^{++}$ preferred. The partial width $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(Z(3930)\to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ was determined as $(0.18 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.03)\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, where $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$ is the radiative width of the $Z(3930)$ state, under the assumption that $J = 2$. The observation of this state has not been confirmed so far~\cite{Pd08}.\\
\indent In this paper the process $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$, illustrated by the Feynman diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggfeyn}, is studied in a search for the $Z(3930)$ state. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ggfeyn}, the initial state positron, $\ensuremath{e^+}\xspace$ (electron, $e^{-}$), emits the virtual photon $\gamma_{1}^{\ast}$ ($\gamma_{2}^{\ast}$), yielding the final state positron, $e^{+\prime}$ (electron, $e^{-\prime}$); the momentum transfer to $\gamma_{1}^{\ast}$ ($\gamma_{2}^{\ast}$) is $q_{1}$ ($q_{2}$). The virtual photons interact to produce the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ final state. When the $e^{+\prime}$ and the $e^{-\prime}$ are emitted along the beam directions the values of $q_{1}^{2}$ and $q_{2}^{2}$ are predominantly close to zero, and the two photons can be considered to be quasi-real. Since in this case neither the $e^{+\prime}$ nor the $e^{-\prime}$ are detected, the analysis is termed {\it untagged}.\\
\indent The data sample used in this analysis corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $384\ensuremath{\mbox{\,fb}^{-1}}\xspace$ recorded at the $\Y4S$ resonance ($10.58\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$) and at a center of mass (c.m.)~energy of $10.54\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ by the \babar~detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace$ collider.\\
\indent The \babar~detector is described briefly in Sec.~\ref{sec_babdet}, and the principal criteria used in the selection of candidate two-photon-interaction events are discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec_ggsel}. The reconstruction of $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ pair events is presented in Sec.~\ref{sec_reco}, and the relevant Monte Carlo simulations are detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec_mcstud}. The purity and reconstruction efficiency of the $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ event sample are considered in Secs.~\ref{sec_puri} and~\ref{sec_effi}, respectively, and the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ signal yield and invariant mass resolution are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec_fit}; the mass and total width for the $Z(3930)$ state are obtained from a fit to the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ invariant mass distribution. The angular distribution in the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ rest frame for the $Z(3930)$ mass region is studied in Sec.~\ref{sec_ang}, and the implications for the spin of the $Z(3930)$ state are discussed. In Sec.~\ref{sec_rawi} the partial radiative width of the $Z(3930)$ state is extracted. Sources of systematic uncertainty are detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec_syst}, and the results of the analysis are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec_summ}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{Two-photon production of the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ system.}
\label{fig:ggfeyn}
\end{figure}
\section{The \babar~Detector}
\label{sec_babdet}
The \babar~detector is described in detail elsewhere~\cite{Au02}. Charged particles are detected, and their momenta measured, with a combination of five layers of double-sided silicon microstrip detectors (SVT) and a 40-layer cylindrical drift chamber (DCH), both coaxial with the cryostat of a superconducting solenoidal magnet which produces a magnetic field of $1.5~\mathrm{T}$. Charged particle identification is achieved by measurements of the energy loss $dE/dx$ in the tracking devices and by means of an internally reflecting, ring-imaging Cherenkov detector (DIRC). Photons and electrons are detected and their energies measured with a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), covering $90\%$ of the $4\pi$ solid angle in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame. The instrumented flux return of the magnetic field is used to identify muons and \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle L}}\xspace.
\section{Selection of Two-photon-interaction events}
\label{sec_ggsel}
The selection of two-photon-interaction events for an untagged analysis is based on established procedures (see for instance Refs.~\cite{Au04,Au09}). Due to the small scattering angles involved, most of the incoming beam energy is carried away by the $e^{+\prime}$ and $e^{-\prime}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ggfeyn}). This results in a large value of the missing mass squared
\begin{equation}
m_{\rm miss}^{2} = (p_{\ensuremath{e^+}\xspace} + p_{e^{-}} - p_{D} - p_{\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace})^{2}
\label{eq:mmass}
\end{equation}
where $p_{e^{\pm}}$ are the four-momenta of the beam electron and positron and $p_{D}$, $p_{\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace}$ are the four-momenta of the final state $D$ and $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mesons, respectively. In addition, for these events, the resultant transverse momentum of the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ system $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ is limited to small values. \\
\indent In order to establish selection criteria for $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ events, the reaction
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace X
\label{eq_crea}
\end{equation}
is studied first using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $235\ensuremath{\mbox{\,fb}^{-1}}\xspace$. The system $X$ contains no additional charged particles. This reaction has been chosen because it has the same particle configuration as one of the final states we consider in this analysis. The charged kaons and pions are identified as described in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec_reco}. Neutral pions are reconstructed from pairs of photons with deposited energy in the EMC larger than $100\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. It is required that no \ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace meson candidate be found in a selected event.\\
\indent Two-photon production of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ system should yield large values of $m_{X}^{2}$, the missing mass squared,
\begin{equation}
m_{X}^{2} = (p_{\ensuremath{e^+}\xspace} + p_{e^{-}} - p_{\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace} - p_{\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace} - p_{\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace} - p_{\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace})^{2}.
\label{eq:mmassX}
\end{equation}
In addition, production of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ system via Initial State Radiation (ISR) should yield the small values of $m_{X}^{2}$ associated with the ISR photon, for which detection is not required. The observed distribution of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ invariant mass, $m(\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$, resulting from the reaction of Eq.~(\ref{eq_crea}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(a). \\
\indent There are clear signals corresponding to the production of $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$, $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$, and $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$, and, since these states all have positive $C$-parity, it is natural to associate them with two-photon production. Similarly, the large $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ signal observed would be expected to result from ISR-production, because of the negative $C$-parity of the $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$. For the parameters of these states, see Table~\ref{tab:charmon}.\\
\indent The distribution of $m_{X}^{2}$ for $2.8 \leq m(\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace) \leq 3.8\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(b). The large peak near zero is interpreted as being due mainly to ISR production of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ system, while two-photon-production events would be expected to occur at larger values of $m_{X}^{2}$. This is shown explicitly by the distributions of Figs.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) and~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d), which correspond to the requirements $m_{X}^{2} < 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$ and $m_{X}^{2} > 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$, respectively. \\
\indent In Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) there is a large $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ signal, and a much smaller $\psi(2S)$ signal can also be seen. For $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace$ collisions at a c.m. energy $10.58\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, the ISR production cross section for $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ is about three times larger than for $\psi(2S)$; also ${\cal B}(\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ is approximately nine times larger than the corresponding $\psi(2S)$ branching fraction value~\cite{Pd08}. \\
\indent It follows that the observed $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ signal would be expected to be $\approx 27$ times larger than that for $\psi(2S)$. The signals in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) seem to be consistent with this expectation, and they are also in agreement with the detailed analysis of ISR production of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ system in Ref.~\cite{Au07b}. There is a $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ signal in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) which is comparable in size to the $\psi(2S)$ signal. The branching fraction for $\psi(2S) \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ is $\approx 7.5\times10^{-4}$~\cite{Pd08}, while the product ${\cal B}(\psi(2S) \to \gamma\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P))\times {\cal B}(\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)\to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ is $\approx 7.8\times10^{-4}$~\cite{Pd08}, so that the presence of such a $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ signal is consistent with the expected transition rates. For the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c1}}\xspace(1P)$, ${\cal B}(\psi(2S) \to \gamma\ensuremath{\chi_{c1}}\xspace(1P))\times {\cal B}(\ensuremath{\chi_{c1}}\xspace(1P)\to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace) \approx 4.0\times 10^{-4}$, and so a $\ensuremath{\chi_{c1}}\xspace(1P)$ signal of approximately half the size of the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ signal would be expected in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c); again the data seem to be in reasonable agreement with this expectation. \\
\indent Finally, for the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$, ${\cal B}(\psi(2S) \to \gamma\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P))\times {\cal B}(\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)\to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace) \approx 16.8\times 10^{-4}$, and the corresponding signal in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) would be expected to be about twice the size of the $\psi(2S)$ signal. The $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ signal seems to be larger than that of the $\psi(2S)$, but not by a factor of two; this may be because the larger energy photon from the $\psi(2S) \to \gamma\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ transition, when combined with the ISR photon, can yield a value of $m_{X}^{2}$ which is larger than $10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$. In summary, the signals observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) appear consistent with those expected for an ISR production mechanism, especially since there is no indication of any remnant of the large $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(a). Furthermore, the $\chi_{cJ}$ signals in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(c) are removed by requiring that the transverse momentum of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ system be less than $50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ (see discussion of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d) below), which indicates clearly that they do not result from two-photon production.\\
\indent In Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d), the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ signal of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(a) appears to have survived the $m_{X}^{2} > 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$ requirement in its entirety, and the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ and $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ signals have been reduced slightly, as discussed in the previous paragraph; in both Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(a) and~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d) there is some indication of a small signal in the region of the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(2S)$ mass. A $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ signal of about one third of that in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(a) is present also in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d). This is interpreted as being primarily due to a) the emission of more than one initial state photon, with the consequence that values of $m_{X}^{2}$ greater than $10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$ are obtained, b) the ISR production of the $\psi(2S)$ with subsequent decay to $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ + neutrals, and c) two-photon-production of the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ followed by $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P) \to \gamma \ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$, which has a $20\%$ branching fraction~\cite{Pd08}. \\
\indent It follows from the above that the requirement $m_{X}^{2} > 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$ significantly reduces ISR contributions to the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ final state while leaving signals associated with two-photon-production essentially unaffected. For this reason, the requirement that $m_{\mathrm{miss}}^{2}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:mmass}) be greater than $10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$ is chosen as a principal selection criterion for the isolation of events corresponding to $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$.\\
\indent As mentioned above, it is expected that for an untagged analysis of $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$, the transverse momentum $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ should be small. In order to quantify this statement, the data of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d) were divided into intervals of $50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ in the transverse momentum of the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ system with respect to the $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace$ collision axis, which is considered also to be the collision axis for two-photon-production events. For each interval a fit was made to the $m(\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ mass distribution in the mass region $2.7 \leq m(\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace) \leq 3.3\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. The function used consists of a second-order polynomial to describe the background, a Gaussian function for the $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ signal and a Breit-Wigner for the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ signal convolved with a Gaussian to account for the resolution. The $p_{t}$-dependence of the resulting $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ yield is shown is Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(a), and that of the $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ yield is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(b). The shapes of the distributions are quite similar for $p_{t} > 100\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$, but the interval from $50 - 100\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ contains $\approx 180$ more $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ signal events, and that for $0 - 50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ exhibits an excess of $\approx 800$ signal events. This behaviour is expected for two-photon-production of the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$. Thus, the requirement $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace) < 50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ is imposed as the second principal selection criterion for the extraction of $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ events.\\
\indent Since the two-photon reactions $\gamma\gamma \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ and $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ are quasi-exclusive in the sense that only the final state $\ensuremath{e^+}\xspace$ and $e^{-}$ are undetected it is required in both instances that the total energy deposits $E_{\mathrm{EMC}}$ in the EMC which are unmatched to any charged-particle track be less than $400\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. The net effect is a small reduction in the smooth background. The histogram of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(c) corresponds to the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ candidates of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel}(d) after requiring $p_{t}(\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace) < 50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ and that the EMC energy sum be less than $400\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. The $p_{t}$ criterion reduces the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ signal by a factor $\approx 2$, while the $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ signal is reduced by a factor $\approx 5$, as is the continuum background at $2.7\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. More significantly, the continuum background at $3.7\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, just below the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ threshold, is reduced by a factor $\approx 10$. \\
\indent It follows that the net effect of the three principal selection criteria described above (missing mass $m_{\rm miss}^{2} > 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$, resultant transverse momentum $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace) < 50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ and total energy deposit in the calorimeter $E_{\mathrm{EMC}}< 400\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$) is to significantly enhance the number of two-photon-production events relative to the events resulting from ISR production, continuum production, and combinatoric background.\\
\indent Concerning the histogram of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(c), the product $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S))\times {\cal B}(\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)\to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ is $1.7 \pm 1.0$ times that for the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ state~\cite{Pd08}, and in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(c) the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ signal contains $\approx 950$ events ({\it cf}.~the $0 - 50\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ interval of Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(a)), while the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ signal contains $\approx 550$~events. It follows that the signal sizes agree well with the ratio expected on the basis of a two-photon production mechanism. In a similar vein, the ratio of the partial width $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}(\chi_{cJ})\times {\cal B}(\chi_{cJ} \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ for $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ and $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ is $9 \pm 2$~\cite{Pd08}, so that after taking into account the $(2J+1)$ spin factors, the signals observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(c) would be expected to be approximately in the ratio $1.8 \pm 0.4$. The $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ signal contains $\approx 200$ events, and so is consistent with this expectation.
\begin{table}
\caption{Charmonium states observed in the $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace X$ test data sample~\cite{Pd08}.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
& Mass [$\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$] & $J^{PC}$ \\ \hline
$\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ & $(2980.3\pm 1.2)$ & $0^{-+}$ \\
$\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace(1S)$ & $(3096.916\pm 0.011)$ & $1^{--}$ \\
$\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P)$ & $(3414.75\pm 0.31)$ & $0^{++}$ \\
$\ensuremath{\chi_{c1}}\xspace(1P)$ & $(3510.66\pm 0.07)$ & $1^{++}$ \\
$\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$ & $(3556.20\pm 0.09)$ & $2^{++}$ \\
$\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(2S)$ & $(3637\pm 4)$ & $0^{-+}$ \\
$\psi(2S)$ & $(3686.09\pm 0.04)$ & $1^{--}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:charmon}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig2b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig2c.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig2d.eps}
\caption{(a) $\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ mass distribution for all events without any requirement on $m_{X}^{2}$; (b) corresponding $m_{X}^{2}$ distribution; (c) $m(\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ with the requirement $m_{X}^{2} < 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$; (d) $m(\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ with the requirement $m_{X}^{2} > 10~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$.}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-1.5,10.5){(a)}
\put(4.,10.5){(b)}
\put(-1.5,5.5){(c)}
\put(4.,5.5){(d)}
\put(-3.8,10.8){$\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace$}
\put(-3.0,11.){$\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$}
\put(-2.1,9.8){$\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace$}
\put(-1.4,9.3){$\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace$}
\end{picture}
\label{fig:ggsel}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig3a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig3b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig3c.eps}
\caption{Signal yield dependence on $p_{t}(\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace)$ for (a) $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$; (b) $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$. The vertical lines mark the $p_{t}(\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace) < 0.05~\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$ region for selecting two-photon events. (c) Resulting $\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ mass distribution after applying the principal selection criteria discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec_ggsel}.}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-4.,5.5){(a)}
\put(1.5,5.5){(b)}
\put(7.,5.5){(c)}
\put(4.9,6.3){$\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace$}
\put(5.,5.5){$\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$}
\put(6.2,5.2){$\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace$}
\put(6.8,4.5){$\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace$}
\end{picture}
\label{fig:ggsel2}
\end{figure*}
\section{Reconstruction of {\boldmath $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$} events}
\label{sec_reco}
Candidate $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ events are reconstructed in the five combinations of $D$ decay modes listed in Table~\ref{tab:dmodes} (the use of charge conjugate states is implied throughout the text). Events are selected by requiring the exact number of charged-particle tracks defined by the relevant final state. \\
\indent Track selection requirements include transverse momentum $p_{t} > 0.1\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$, at least 12 coordinate measurements in the DCH, a maximum distance of closest approach (DOCA) of $1.5 \ensuremath{{\rm \,cm}}\xspace$ to the $z$-axis, with this point at a maximum DOCA of $10 \ensuremath{{\rm \,cm}}\xspace$ to the $xy$-plane at $z=0$. \\
\indent Kaon candidates are identified based on the normalized kaon, pion and proton likelihood values ($L_{K}$, $L_{\pi}$ and $L_{p}$) obtained from the particle identification system, by requiring $L_{K}/(L_{K}+L_{\pi}) > 0.9$ and $L_{K}/(L_{K}+L_{p}) > 0.2$. Tracks that fulfill $L_{K}/(L_{K}+L_{\pi}) < 0.82$ and $L_{p}/(L_{p}+L_{\pi}) < 0.98$ are selected as pions. Additionally, in both cases the track should be inconsistent with electron identification.\\
\begin{table}
\caption{$D$ decay final states studied in this analysis; for channels N5, N6, and N7, inclusion of the corresponding charge conjugate combination is implied.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Channel} & $D$ decay mode & $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ decay mode \\ \hline
N4 & $\ensuremath{\Dz {\kern -0.16em \Dzb}}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ \\
N5 & $\ensuremath{\Dz {\kern -0.16em \Dzb}}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ \\
N6 & $\ensuremath{\Dz {\kern -0.16em \Dzb}}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\pim\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ \\
N7 & $\ensuremath{\Dz {\kern -0.16em \Dzb}}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\pip\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ \\
C6 & $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace$ & $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\pip$ & $\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\pim$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:dmodes}
\end{table}
\indent Photon candidates are selected when their deposited energy in the EMC is larger than $100\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. Neutral pions are reconstructed from pairs of photons with combined mass within $[0.115,0.155]~\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a $\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ mass constraint is applied to them. \\
\indent The $D$ candidate decay products are fitted to a common vertex with a $D$ meson mass constraint applied; candidates with a $\chi^{2}$ fit probability greater than $0.1 \%$ are retained. Accepted $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ pairs are refitted to a common vertex consistent with the $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace$ interaction region, and those with a $\chi^{2}$ fit probability $p_{v}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ greater than $0.1 \%$ are retained. Events with $\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ candidates other than those from a $D$ or $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ decay of interest are rejected. These preselection criteria are identical for all five combinations of $D$ decay modes.\\
\indent The signal regions for accepted, unconstrained $D$ candidates are then fitted using a multi-Gaussian signal function
\begin{equation}
R(m)=\int_{\sigma_0}^{r\sigma_0} \frac{1}{r\sigma^2}e^{-\frac{(m-m_{0})^2}{2\sigma^2}}\mathrm{d}\sigma
\label{eq:mulg}
\end{equation}
with free parameters $\sigma_{0}$, $r$ (minimal and maximal width) and $m_{0}$; the background is described by a polynomial. The full width at half maximum ($\mathrm{FWHM}$) of the signal lineshape in data is used to define each $D$ signal region; $D$ candidates are selected from a region of width $\pm 1.5~\mathrm{FWHM}$ around the mean mass. The mass windows are listed in Table~\ref{tab:sel}. \\
\indent From the list of accepted $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ candidates those produced in two-photon events are then selected by applying the three criteria defined in Sect.~\ref{sec_ggsel} (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:sel2}). These criteria are also identical for all combinations of $D$ decay modes. \\
\indent Depending on the decay mode, up to $2.5\%$ of the events have multiple candidates which passed all selection criteria. In this case, the candidate with the best fit probability $p_{v}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ is chosen. Based on MC studies, the correct candidate is selected in more than $99 \%$ of the cases with this method. \\
\indent The resulting invariant mass spectra for $D$ meson candidates after all selection criteria have been applied are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dplots} for events in which the mass of the recoil $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ candidate lies within the defined signal region. In all modes, clear signals with small backgrounds are obtained. The resulting $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ invariant mass distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ddmass}(a) and~\ref{fig:ddmass}(b) for the neutral modes (N4, N5, N6, N7), and for the charged mode (C6), respectively. The combined spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ddmass}(c). An enhancement near $3.93\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ is visible.\\
\indent To estimate the amount of combinatoric background in the signal region, the two-dimensional space spanned by the invariant masses of the $D$ and $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ candidates is divided into nine regions: one central signal region and eight sideband regions above and below the signal region as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ntile} for the $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\pip/\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\pim$ (C6) mode. The mass range for the signal region is $\pm~1.5~\mathrm{FWHM}$ around the mean mass. The sideband regions are $1.5~\mathrm{FWHM}$ wide, leaving a gap of $1.5~\mathrm{FWHM}$ between signal and sideband. No significant contribution from combinatoric background is observed in the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig:ddmass}(c)).\\
\indent An attempt was made to isolate the signal in Fig.~\ref{fig:ddmass}(c) by a weighting method. This assumes that signal and background events have different angular distributions, and was successfully used in a previous \babar~analysis~\cite{DuZ07}. Simulations with a $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ signal (generated with its correct angular distribution) plus background showed that the method works well with high signal statistics and moderate background, but is not reliable with the limited statistics and background of the current analysis. Therefore, the method was not considered further in the present analysis.
\begin{table}
\caption{Summary of selection criteria used for identifying $D\kern 0.2em\overline{\kern -0.2em D}{}\xspace$ candidates.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
Channel & number & $D$ mass window & $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass window \\
& of \ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace & [$\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$] & [$\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$] \\ \hline
N4 & 0 & $1863.4 \pm 22$ & $1863.4 \pm 22$ \\
N5 & 1 & $1863.4 \pm 22$ & $1863.4 \pm 43$ \\
N6 & 0 & $1863.4 \pm 22$ & $1863.4 \pm 16$ \\
N7 & 1 & $1863.4 \pm 16$ & $1863.4 \pm 43$ \\
C6 & 0 & $1868.5 \pm 18$ & $1868.5 \pm 18$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:sel}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Summary of requirements used for selecting only $D\kern 0.2em\overline{\kern -0.2em D}{}\xspace$ candidates from two-photon events. These criteria are identical for all decay modes.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
Channel & $m_{\mathrm{miss}}^2$ & $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ & $E_{\mathrm{EMC}}$\\
& [$(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$] & [$\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace$] & [$\!\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$] \\ \hline
all modes & $> 10.0$ & $<0.05$ & $<0.4$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:sel2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4c.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4d.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig4e.eps}
\caption{Candidate $D$ invariant mass distributions after all selection criteria. The mass of the accompanying $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ candidate is required to lie within its signal region as defined in Table~\ref{tab:sel}. (a) $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ in N4; (b) $\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ in N5; (c) $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\pip\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ in N6; (d) $\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ in N7; (e) $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\pip$ in C6.}
\label{fig:dplots}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-7.,11.){(a)}
\put(-1.5,11.){(b)}
\put(4.,11.){(c)}
\put(-4.3,5.9){(d)}
\put(1.3,5.9){(e)}
\end{picture}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig5a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig5b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig5c.eps}
\caption{$D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ invariant mass distribution for the (a) $\ensuremath{\Dz {\kern -0.16em \Dzb}}\xspace$ and (b) $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace$ channels. (c) The combined $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ invariant mass distribution. The open histogram in (c) shows the combinatoric background estimated from the $D$-mass sidebands.}
\label{fig:ddmass}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-4.,5.5){(a)}
\put(1.5,5.5){(b)}
\put(7.,5.5){(c)}
\end{picture}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{$\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace\pim$ mass {\it vs} $\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\pip$ mass for the channel C6 of Table~\ref{tab:dmodes}. The boxes correspond to the signal and sideband regions.}
\label{fig:ntile}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig7.eps}
\caption{Distribution of $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ for data in the $Z(3930)$ signal region. The fitted lineshape consists of the expected $\gamma\gamma$ lineshape obtained from MC plus a linear background (dotted line). The vertical line shows the $p_{t}$ criterion for selecting $\gamma\gamma$ events. The histogram shows the shape of the $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ distribution from simulated $\ensuremath{D^*}\xspace\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ events with missing $\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ or $\gamma$. The bump in this distribution is not seen in the data distribution, indicating that any $\ensuremath{D^*}\xspace\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ background is small.}
\label{fig:pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig8.eps}
\caption{Mass dependence of the weighted reconstruction efficiency calculated using Eq.~(\ref{eq:meaneff}), described by a straight line.}
\label{fig:effi}
\end{figure}
\section{Monte Carlo Studies}
\label{sec_mcstud}
For modeling the detector resolution, efficiency studies and the estimation of the two-photon width $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$ of the resonance, Monte Carlo (MC) events were generated which pass the same reconstruction and analysis chain as the experimental data. For each signal decay channel about $10^{6}$ events were generated. Additional events were generated for background modes involving $\ensuremath{D^*}\xspace$ mesons. The {\tt GamGam} two-photon event generator was used to simulate $\gamma\gamma \to Z(3930) \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ events, while the decays of the $D$ and $\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mesons were generated by {\tt EvtGen}~\cite{La01}. The detector response was simulated using the {\tt GEANT4}~\cite{Ag03} package. The program {\tt GamGam} uses the BGMS formalism~\cite{Bu75}. It was developed for CLEO and was used for example in the analysis of $\ensuremath{\chi_{c0}}\xspace(1P),\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P) \to 4\pi$ decays~\cite{Ei01}. {\tt GamGam} was later adapted to \babar~and used for the analysis of $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S,2S) \to K_{S}^{0}K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$~\cite{Au04}.\\
\indent
For small photon virtualities $|q_{1,2}|^{2}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ggfeyn}) the differential cross section for the process $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace \to \ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\gamma\gamma, \gamma\gamma \to X$ is given by the product $L\times F \times \sigma(\gamma\gamma\to X)$, where $L$ is the two-photon flux. The form factor $F$ extrapolates the process to virtual photons and is {\it a priori} not known. A plausible model
\begin{equation}
F = \left(\frac{1}{1-q_{1}^{2}/m_{v}^{2}}\right)^{2}\times\left(\frac{1}{1-q_{2}^{2}/m_{v}^{2}}\right)^{2}
\label{eq_ff}
\end{equation}
is used~\cite{Po86}, with $m_{v}$ being the mass of an appropriate vector boson ($\rho$, $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$, $Z^{0}$). In the calculations relevant to this analysis $m_{v} = m(\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace)$ was used, as the $Z(3930)$ is expected to be a charmonium state. An alternative model was used in order to evaluate systematic uncertainties associated with MC simulations (see Section~\ref{sec_syst}).\\
\indent To validate the {\tt GamGam} generator its output was compared to that of another two-photon generator ({\tt TREPS}) used by Belle~\cite{Ue96}. The cross sections for the reactions $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to \ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\gamma\gamma, \gamma\gamma \to \ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S,2S)$ were calculated in {\tt GamGam} and compared to the Belle values~\cite{Ue08}. In order to compare the different generators, the cross sections were calculated using the hypothetical values $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S,2S)\to {\rm final~state}) = 1\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, and $q_{1,2}^{2}$ was restricted to values smaller than $1~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace)^{2}$. The {\tt TREPS} results were $2.11~\mathrm{pb}$ for $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$ and $0.86~\mathrm{pb}$ for $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(2S)$. The corresponding {\tt GamGam} values were $2.13~\mathrm{pb}$ and $0.84~\mathrm{pb}$, respectively. The two generators are in agreement at the level of a few percent.\\
\indent For a global check, the cross sections for the continuum reaction $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to \ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\gamma\gamma, \gamma\gamma \to \ensuremath{\mu^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\mu^-}\xspace$ were calculated with {\tt GamGam} for various CM energies and compared to QED predictions~\cite{Be84,Ber84}, which describe the data with high accuracy~\cite{Ad82}. Here, the agreement was slightly worse, due to the imperfect tuning of the {\tt GamGam} program for these reactions. Similar results were obtained when checking against calculations with non-relativistic models for $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$\ and $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(1P)$~\cite{Sc98}. Nevertheless this comparison showed that {\tt GamGam} works properly under these conditions also. These studies lead to the assignment of a total systematic uncertainty of $\pm 3~\%$ associated with the MC simulation (see Sec.~\ref{sec_syst}).
\section{\boldmath{Purity of the $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ sample}}
\label{sec_puri}
The selection criteria used to enhance the two-photon content of the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ sample were discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec_ggsel}. They were developed by investigating the reaction $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace \to \ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace X$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq_crea}). Figure~\ref{fig:ggsel2}(c) shows that after the selection procedure the signals associated with $\gamma\gamma$-reactions, like that for the $\ensuremath{\eta_c}\xspace(1S)$, are enhanced, while signals such as that for the $\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$, which are typical of ISR production, are suppressed. The $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ distribution is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pt} for events in the $Z(3930)$ signal region, defined as the region from $3.91$ to $3.95\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. Here the $p_{t}(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ selection criterion has not been applied. The data are fitted with a curve for $\gamma\gamma$ events obtained from MC, plus a linear background derived from sideband studies of the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass spectrum. The fit indicates that the majority of $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ candidates in the signal region result from two-photon interactions.
\section{Reconstruction efficiency}
\label{sec_effi}
The reconstruction efficiency for each decay mode is calculated as a function of $m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ using MC events which pass the same reconstruction and selection criteria as real events and includes detector acceptance, track reconstruction- and particle identification efficiencies. The mass-dependent efficiency $\epsilon_{i}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$ for each channel $i$ is fitted with a polynomial in $m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ and is found in each case to decrease with increasing $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass. For the combination of modes (Fig.~\ref{fig:ddmass}(c)), an overall weighted efficiency $\epsilon^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$, which includes the branching fractions for the $D$ decays, is computed using
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)) = \frac{5}{2}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{5}N_{i}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))}{\sum_{i=1}^{5}\frac{N_{i}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))}{\epsilon_{i}^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))}},
\label{eq:meaneff}
\end{equation}
as was done in Ref.~\cite{Au07}; $N_{i}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$ is the number of $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ candidates in the data mass spectrum for channel $i$, and $\epsilon_{i}^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$ is defined as the product of the efficiency $\epsilon_{i}$ as parameterized by the fitted polynomial and the branching fraction ${\cal B}_{i}$ for the $i$-th channel, as follows
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{i}^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)) = \epsilon_{i}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))\times {\cal B}_{i}.
\label{eq:eff}
\end{equation}
The factor $\frac{1}{2}$ originates from referring to $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ ($\ensuremath{\Dz {\kern -0.16em \Dzb}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace$) events; the factor 5 from summing over the five channels. Figure~\ref{fig:effi} shows the mass dependence of $\epsilon^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$, which is parameterized by a straight line. The large uncertainties are due to the limited statistics available in the data samples. The error bars do not contain the uncertainties in the branching fractions; these will be discussed separately in Sec.~\ref{sec_syst} in the context of systematic error estimation. The data are weighted by this mean efficiency, which is scaled by a constant value $d$ to obtain weights near one,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)) = d\times \epsilon^{B}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))
\label{eq:effscale}
\end{equation}
as weights far from one might result in incorrect errors for the signal yield obtained in the maximum likelihood fit~\cite{Fr79}. The resulting $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass distribution will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec_fit}.
\section{Detector resolution and signal yield}
\label{sec_fit}
Monte Carlo events are used for the calculation of the mass-dependent detector resolution. The mass resolution is determined by studying the difference between the reconstructed and the generated $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass ($\Delta m_{\rm res}$). As an example, the distribution for channel C6 is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reso}(a). A good description of the distribution is obtained using a multi-Gaussian fit (Eq.~(\ref{eq:mulg})). The parameters $r$ and $\sigma_{0}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$ were determined for every decay channel. The variation of $\sigma_{0}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace))$, which is parameterized by a second order polynomial, and of the width (FWHM) of the resolution function with increasing mass are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:reso}(b) and~\ref{fig:reso}(c). For channel C6, $r = 5.380 \pm 0.137$ and $\sigma_{0}(m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)) = (-0.038 + 0.018m - 0.002m^{2})~\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, where $m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ is given in units of $\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. The distributions of Fig.~\ref{fig:reso} are well-described by the fitted curves shown. Comparing the generated $Z(3930)$ mass with the reconstructed MC value shows that the latter is systematically low by about $0.9\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, independently of the fit model. This effect is observed both in the combined fit and in fits to the individual channels. The measured \ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace mass in the $\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$ test sample (Sect.~\ref{sec_ggsel}) differs by the same value from the world average~\cite{Pd08}; this offset has been seen in other $\gamma\gamma$ studies at \babar~\cite{Au04} as well. Accordingly, the mass value obtained from the fit to data will be corrected by $+0.9\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. This offset value will also be used as a conservative estimate of the systematic uncertainty in the mass scale. The difference between the generated and reconstructed decay width values amounts to $0.14\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, and is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec_syst} with respect to systematic error estimation.\\
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig9a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig9b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig9c.eps}
\caption{(a) Detector resolution $\Delta m_{\rm res}$ for channel C6; the fitted curve is described in the text; (b) mass-dependence of the resolution function parameter $\sigma_{0}$; (c) mass-dependence of the FWHM of the resolution function.}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-6.5,5.7){(a)}
\put(-1.,5.7){(b)}
\put(4.5,5.7){(c)}
\end{picture}
\label{fig:reso}
\end{figure*}
\indent In order to describe the signal structure in data around $3.93\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ a relativistic Breit-Wigner function $BW(m)$ is used, where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_relBWspin}
BW(m) = \left(\frac{p_{m}}{p_{m_{0}}}\right)^{2L+1}\left(\frac{m_{0}}{m}\right)\frac{F_{r}^{2}}{(m_{0}^{2}-m^{2})^{2}+\Gamma_{m}^{2}m_{0}^{2}}
\end{equation}
with $m_{0}$ as the nominal mass of the resonance; the Blatt-Weisskopf coefficients $F_{r}$ for different angular momentum values $L$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{r}(L=0) & = & 1 \\
F_{r}(L=1) & = & \frac{\sqrt{1+(Rp_{m_{0}})^{2}}}{\sqrt{1+(Rp_{m})^{2}}}\\
F_{r}(L=2) & = & \frac{\sqrt{9+3(Rp_{m_{0}})^{2}+(Rp_{m_{0}})^{4}}}{\sqrt{9+3(Rp_{m})^{2}+(Rp_{m})^{4}}},
\end{eqnarray}
and the value
\begin{center}
$R=1.5~(\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}}\xspace)^{-1}$\\
\end{center}
is used, corresponding to the value given in Ref.~\cite{Hi72}. The mass-dependent width is given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{m} = \Gamma_{r}\biggl(\frac{p_{m}}{p_{m_{0}}}\biggr)^{2L+1}\biggl(\frac{m_{0}}{m}\biggr)F_{r}^{2}
\end{equation}
with $\Gamma_{r}$ the total width of the resonance. Here the existence of other possible decay modes is ignored. The momentum of a given $D$ candidate in the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ center of mass frame is denoted by $p_{m}$; $p_{m_{0}}$ is the corresponding value for $m = m_{0}$. In the standard fit, spin $J = 2$ ($L = 2$) is chosen on the basis of the angular distribution analysis described in Sec.~\ref{sec_ang}. \\
\indent The signal function is convolved with the mass- and decay-mode-dependent resolution model parameterized as discussed previously in this section. The background is parameterized by the function
\begin{equation}
D(m) \propto \sqrt{m^{2}-m_{t}^{2}}\left(m-m_{t}\right)^{\alpha}\exp\left[-\beta(m-m_{t})\right]
\label{eq_bibg}
\end{equation}
which takes the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ threshold $m_{t}$ into account. In the lower mass region, the lineshape does not describe the background exactly. Other functional forms were tried (Sec.~\ref{sec_syst}), but no improvement was obtained. The data and the curves which result from the standard ($J=2$) fit are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit}. \\
\indent From the unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the five mass spectra the $Z(3930)$ values $m_{0} = (3925.8 \pm 2.7)\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and $\Gamma_{r} = (21.3 \pm 6.8)\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ are obtained for the mass and total width, respectively (all errors in this section are statistical only). The mass is corrected by $+0.9\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ as described above, resulting in a final mass value of $(3926.7 \pm 2.7)\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. The efficiency-corrected yield amounts to $N = (76 \pm 17)$ signal events. This value is based on weights around $1$ as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec_effi}; taking the constant used to scale the efficiency into account (see Eq.~\ref{eq:effscale}), this corresponds to a total $Z(3930)$ signal of $N_{\epsilon^{B}} = (285 \pm 64)\times 10^{3}$ events. \\
\indent The statistical significance of the peak is $5.8\sigma$ and is derived from the difference $\Delta\ln{\cal L}$ between the negative logarithmic likelihood of the nominal fit and that of a fit where the parameter for the signal yield is fixed to zero. This is then used to evaluate a $p$-value:
\begin{equation}
p = \int_{2\Delta\ln{\cal L}}^{\infty}f(z;n_d) \,dz
\end{equation}
where $f(z;n_d)$ is the \ensuremath{\chi^2}\xspace\ PDF and $n_d$ is the number of degrees of freedom, three in this case. We then determine the equivalent one-dimensional significance from this $p$-value.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig10.eps}
\caption{Efficiency-corrected mean $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass distribution with standard fit. The dashed curve shows the background lineshape (see Sec.~\ref{sec_fit}).}
\label{fig:fit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig11.eps}
\caption{Signal yield as a function of $\left|\cos\theta\right|$ derived from fits to the efficiency-corrected $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ spectrum. The solid curve is the expected distribution for spin 2 with dominating helicity-2 contribution, the dotted straight line is for spin 0.}
\label{fig:ang}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig12.eps}
\caption{Angular dependence of the weighted reconstruction efficiency $\epsilon^{B}(\cos\theta)$ based on Eq.~\ref{eq:meaneff}, described by a second order polynomial.}
\label{fig:angeff}
\end{figure}
\section{Angular distribution and spin of the {\boldmath $Z(3930)$} state}
\label{sec_ang}
General conservation laws limit the possibilities for the $J^{PC}$ values of the $Z(3930)$ state. For two-photon production the initial state has positive $C$-parity and hence the final state must have positive $C$-parity also. For the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ final state, $C = (-1)^{L+S} = (-1)^{L}$ since the total spin $S$ is zero. Positive $C$-parity then implies that the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ system must have orbital angular momentum $L$ which is even, and hence have even parity. It follows that for the $Z(3930)$ state $J^{PC} = J^{++}$ with $J = 0, 2, 4 \ldots$~In order to investigate the possible values of $J$, we have compared the decay angular distribution measured in the $Z(3930)$ signal region to the distributions expected for $J = 0$ and $J = 2$; higher spin values are very unlikely for a state only $200\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ above threshold. \\
\indent The decay angle $\theta$ is defined as the angle of the $D$ meson in the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ system relative to the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ lab momentum vector. Figure~\ref{fig:ang} shows the $Z(3930)$ signal yield obtained from fits to the $D\bar{D}$ mass spectrum for ten regions of $\left|\cos\theta\right|$. The data have been weighted by a $\cos\theta$-dependent efficiency, which was determined in a similar manner as described in Sec.~\ref{sec_effi} for the mass-dependent efficiency (Fig.~\ref{fig:angeff}). In these fits, the mass and width of the resonance have been fixed to the values found in Sec.~\ref{sec_fit}, and Eq.~(\ref{eq_bibg}) has been used to describe the background. Other background models have been tried, obtaining distributions fully consistent with Fig.~\ref{fig:ang}. \\
\indent The function describing the decay angular distribution for spin 2 has been calculated using the helicity formalism and has the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN}{d\cos\theta} \propto \sin^{4}\theta.
\label{eq_ggang2}
\end{equation}
It has been assumed that the dominating amplitude has helicity 2. This is in agreement with previous measurements~\cite{Ue08b} and theoretical predictions~\cite{Po86,Sc98}. The distribution of Eq.~(\ref{eq_ggang2}) was fitted to the experimental angular distribution, and a $\chi^{2}/{\rm NDF}$ value of 5.63/9 was obtained, with ${\rm NDF}$ indicating the number of degrees of freedom. For a flat distribution, which is expected for spin 0, a $\chi^{2}/{\rm NDF} = 15.55/9$ was obtained. It follows that the preferred $J^{PC}$ assignment is $2^{++}$.
\section{Two-photon width of the {\boldmath $Z(3930)$} state}
\label{sec_rawi}
From the efficiency-corrected number of observed signal events, $N_{\epsilon^{B}}$, we determine the total experimental cross-section
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_expcs}
\sigma_{\rm exp}(\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace \to \ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\gamma\gamma, \gamma\gamma & \to & Z(3930), Z(3930) \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace) \nonumber \\ = N_{\epsilon^{B}}/\int \mathcal{L}dt & = & 741 \pm 166\ensuremath{\mbox{\,fb}}\xspace
\end{eqnarray}
where the integrated luminosity for the data sample analyzed is $\int\mathcal{L}dt = (384 \pm 4)\ensuremath{\mbox{\,fb}^{-1}}\xspace$ and the error is only statistical.\\
\indent On the other hand, the cross-section for $Z(3930)$ production is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\!\to\gamma\gamma, \gamma\gamma\!\to Z(3930)) = L\times F\times \sigma(\gamma\gamma\!\to Z(3930))
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(\gamma\gamma\to Z(3930)) = \int 4\pi(2J+1)(\hbar c)^{2}10^{-6}m_{Z}^{3}\times \nonumber \\ \frac{\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}}{\sqrt{K}m}\frac{\Gamma_{\rm tot}}{(m_{Z}^{2}-m^{2})^{2}+m_{Z}^{2}\Gamma_{\rm tot}^{2}}dm^{2}
\end{eqnarray}
and can be calculated using {\tt GamGam}. Here $L$ is the two-photon flux, $F$ is the form factor (see Sec.~\ref{sec_mcstud}), $m_{Z}$ ($\Gamma_{\rm tot}$) is the resonance mass (width), and $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$ is the two-photon width of the resonance. The kinematical factor $K$ is given by $K = (q_{1}q_{2})^{2} - q_{1}^{2}q_{2}^{2}$ ($q_{i}$ represent four vectors of photons). Further information can be found in Refs.~\cite{Bo73}, \cite{Bu75} and \cite{Po86}. The cross-section depends on the spin of the resonance and on $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$. It is plotted for $J = 2$ and $J = 0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_gg_wqgg} as a function of $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}$. From a comparison to the experimental cross-section (Eq.~(\ref{eq_expcs})), the partial width $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(Z(3930)\to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ is found to have the value $(0.24 \pm 0.05)\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ when $J=2$ is chosen as the most probable spin value (see Sec.~\ref{sec_ang}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Fig13.eps}
\caption[]{Dependence of the cross-section $\sigma(\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to\gamma\gamma\to Z(3930) \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ on the two-photon width $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(Z(3930)\to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$, calculated with the two-photon generator {\tt GamGam}. The upper solid line is for spin 2, while the lower solid line is for spin 0. The measured value (horizontal dashed line) and its uncertainty range (horizontal dot-dashed lines) are indicated.}
\label{fig_gg_wqgg}
\end{figure}
\section{Systematic error estimation}
\label{sec_syst}
Several sources of systematic uncertainty have been considered for the mass, decay width, and signal yield of the $Z(3930)$ state. The yield determines the value of $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(Z(3930)\to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$. The standard fit to the efficiency-corrected mass spectrum is repeated with appropriate modifications. The differences $\Delta$ between the results obtained and the standard results are used as estimates of systematic uncertainty. No correlations have been taken into account. The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_syst}. Deviations for the mass ($|\Delta m|$), total width ($|\Delta\Gamma|$) and two-photon width ($|\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B})|$) are considered negligible if they are less than $0.05\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace, 0.05\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ and $0.0005\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, respectively.
\subsection{Fit parameterization}
\label{ssec_systsignal}
\subparagraph{Signal Lineshape:}
The standard fit has assumed spin $J = 2$ for the resonance (Sec.~\ref{sec_fit}). Using different spin values and $R$ values has no significant impact on the results (Table~\ref{tab_syst}; $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B})$ numbers are given for spin $J = 2$ only).
\subparagraph{Background Description:}
Different parameterizations of the background in the $m(D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ distribution have been used. Besides the nominal background (Eq.~(\ref{eq_bibg})), the following background shape was tried
\begin{equation}
D^{\prime}(m) \propto \left(1 - \exp\left[\frac{-\left(m-\alpha\right)}{\beta}\right]\right)\left(\frac{m}{\alpha}\right)^{\beta}+\gamma\left(\frac{m}{\alpha}-1\right);
\label{eq_bdst}
\end{equation}
the fit had a slightly worse, but still acceptable, likelihood value. The mass value changes by $\Delta m = +0.4\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, the width by $\Delta\Gamma = +3.0\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, the signal yield by $+9$ events with respect to the standard fit, and $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$ changes accordingly by $+0.029\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ (Table~\ref{tab_syst}). Other background models yield consistent estimates for this source of systematic uncertainty.
\subsection{Detector resolution}
\subparagraph{Fit Precision and Mass Scale:}
A fit of the convolution of signal lineshape and resolution model to the MC sample has been performed. The mass offset observed in MC has been included by correcting the mass value by $+0.9\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. As a conservative estimate, this number is also used as the systematic uncertainty for the mass scale. The deviation between the generated width and the value obtained from the fit is $0.14\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, and again this is used as a conservative estimate of systematic uncertainty. Based on the uncertainty of the width, a value of $\Delta\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B} = 0.001\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ is derived.
\subparagraph{Resolution Model:}
The parameters of the multi-Gaussian resolution model were modified. The number of steps was enlarged from 25 to 35, the total convolution range for each data point enlarged by $+0.02\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, and the parameter $r$ of the multi-Gaussian was varied within its fit uncertainty $\delta r$. The corresponding shifts in the mass are $\Delta m = +0.2$, $<0.05$ and $<0.05\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. For $\Delta\Gamma$, shifts of $-0.2$, $-0.9$ and $-0.1\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ are obtained; from the modified signal yield, shifts of $-0.003$, $-0.003$ and $<0.0005\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ were obtained for $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$ (Table~\ref{tab_syst}).
\subsection{Combined reconstruction efficiency}
\subparagraph{Parameterization:}
The average mass-dependent reconstruction efficiency has been parameterized by a straight line in the standard fit (Fig.~\ref{fig:effi}). Using a fit with a second order polynomial, the width changes by $-0.4\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$; no mass shift was observed with respect to the standard fit result. For the signal yield, $+1$ entry is obtained; this yields no significant shift for $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$ (Table~\ref{tab_syst}).
\subparagraph{Tracking and Neutrals Correction:}
For the tracking efficiency a correction by $-0.8\%$ is applied per charged-particle track. This gives a correction factor of $0.968$ for modes N4, N5, and $0.953$ for N6, N7 and C6. The systematic uncertainty assigned to the tracking efficiency is $1.4\%$ per track for decays with more than 5 charged particle tracks and $1.3\%$ otherwise. The resulting uncertainty for $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$ is $0.022\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. Concerning efficiency corrections for neutral particles, a correction factor of $0.984$ with an uncertainty of $3 \%$ per $\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ is used for modes N5 and N7. The resulting uncertainty for $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$ is $0.003\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ (Table~\ref{tab_syst}).
\subparagraph{Uncertainty on the {\boldmath $D$} Branching Fractions:}
The errors on the $D$ branching fractions have been taken into accout by varying the values of ${\cal B}_{i}$ used in Eq.~(\ref{eq:meaneff}) within their standard deviations. No significant change is observed in mass and decay width. For the two-photon width $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}) = \pm0.010\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ is obtained (Table~\ref{tab_syst}).
\subparagraph{Effect of Angular Distribution on Efficiency:}
The MC data sample used to obtain the efficiency and resolution was generated with a flat distribution in $\cos\theta$. To estimate the effect of the angular distribution on the reconstruction efficiency, a MC sample described by a $\sin^{4}\theta$ distribution has been generated and reconstructed. Comparing these reconstructed data with the nominal MC sample, the mean efficiencies differ by $8\%$, relatively, resulting in $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}) = \pm0.018\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Results of the systematic uncertainty studies for the mass, decay width and efficiency-corrected signal yield of the $Z(3930)$ state. Listed are the differences with respect to the standard values. $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B})$ numbers are given for spin $J = 2$ only. For the combined error, the values are added in quadrature.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
Source of Systematic Uncertainty & $\Delta m(Z(3930))$ & $\Delta\Gamma(Z(3930)) $ & $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B})$ \\
& [$\!\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$] & [$\!\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$] & [$\!\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$] \\ \hline
Choice of Spin $J=1, J=0$ & $<0.05$ & $<0.05$ & $-$ \\
Value of $R$ (Breit-Wigner) & $<0.05$ & $<0.05$ & $<0.0005$ \\
Background $D^{\prime}(m)$ & $0.4$ & $3.0$ & $0.029$ \\
Fit precision and mass scale & $0.9$ & $0.1$ & $0.001$ \\
Convolution steps = 35 & $0.2$ & $0.2$ & $0.003$ \\
Convolution range $+0.02\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ & $<0.05$ & $0.9$ & $0.003$ \\
Resolution multi-Gauss $r \pm \delta r$ & $<0.05$ & $0.1$ & $<0.0005$ \\
Combined reconstr. efficiency: polynomial & $<0.05$ & $0.4$ & $<0.0005$ \\
Tracking efficiency correction & $<0.05$ & $<0.05$ & $0.022$ \\
$\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ efficiency correction & $<0.05$ & $<0.05$ & $0.003$ \\
Error in $D$ branching fractions & $<0.05$ & $<0.05$ & $0.010$ \\
Efficiency: angular distribution & $-$ & $-$ & $0.018$ \\
Generator precision & $-$ & $-$ & $0.007$ \\
Choice of Form Factor & $-$ & $-$ & $0.002$ \\
PID & $0.4$ & $1.8$ & $0.004$ \\
Uncertainty in $D$ mass & $0.3$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
Luminosity & $-$ & $-$ & $0.002$ \\ \hline
Combined error & $\pm 1.1$ & $\pm 3.6$ & $\pm 0.04$ \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab_syst}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Cross-section calculation from GamGam}
\subparagraph{Precision:}
In Sec.~\ref{sec_mcstud} a relative uncertainty of $\pm3~\%$ was obtained for the calculated cross-section. Propagating this error into the calculation of $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$, an uncertainty $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}) = \pm 0.007\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ results.
\subparagraph{Form Factor:}
In the standard analysis the form factor of Eq.~(\ref{eq_ff}) has been used with $m_{v} = m(\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace)$. In order to estimate potential systematic effects, the cross-section was evaluated using a model predicted by perturbative QCD~\cite{Fe97}
\begin{equation}
F = \frac{1}{\left(1-q_{1}^{2}/m_{v}^{2}-q_{2}^{2}/m_{v}^{2}\right)^{2}}.
\label{eq_ffalt}
\end{equation}
The cross-section calculated with {\tt GamGam} does not increase significantly ($\approx 0.1\%$) compared to that obtained using Eq.~(\ref{eq_ff}). Simultaneously the experimental efficiency decreases by $1\%$, so that the net effect on $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}$ is small. Similar effects have been observed when data and calculations with and without $q^{2}$ selection criteria are compared~\cite{Ue96,Ue08,Ue09}, and also in a previous CLEO analysis~\cite{Do94}. As a result a systematic uncertainty of $\pm 1\%$ is attributed to form factor uncertainty and this yields a deviation $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}) = \pm 0.002\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$.
\subsection{Other uncertainties}
\label{ssec_systother}
\subparagraph{Particle Identification (PID):}
For PID studies, the pion selection criteria have been tightened significantly, and the efficiency has been recalculated accordingly. The fit to the mass spectrum yields a change of $-0.4\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ for the mass and $-1.8\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ for the width. For $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B})$ a change of $-0.004\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ results.
\subparagraph{{\boldmath $D$} Mass Uncertainty:}
The uncertainty of the $D$ meson mass is taken into account. Both for $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace$ and $D^{\pm}$, the uncertainty is $0.17\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$~\cite{Pd08}, which results in an uncertainty of $\pm 0.34\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ in the mass of the $Z(3930)$ state.
\subparagraph{Integrated Luminosity Uncertainty:}
For the integrated luminosity, an uncertainty of $\pm 1\%$ is assigned. From this an uncertainty $\Delta(\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}) = \pm 0.002\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ is obtained.
\subsection{Total systematic uncertainty}
The systematic uncertainty estimates discussed in Secs.~\ref{ssec_systsignal} -~\ref{ssec_systother} are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_syst}. The individual estimates are combined in quadrature to yield net systematic uncertainty estimates on the Z(3930) mass, total width and value of $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(Z(3930)\to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace)$ of $1.1\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$, $3.6\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ and $0.04\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, respectively, as reported on the last line of Table~\ref{tab_syst}.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec_summ}
In the $\gamma\gamma \to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ reaction a signal in the $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ mass spectrum has been observed near $3.93\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ with a significance of $5.8\sigma$ which agrees with the observation of the $Z(3930)$ resonance by the Belle Collaboration~\cite{Ue06}. The mass and total width of the $Z(3930)$ state are measured to be \mbox{$(3926.7 \pm 2.7 ({\rm stat}) \pm 1.1 ({\rm syst}))\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$} and \mbox{$(21.3 \pm 6.8 ({\rm stat}) \pm 3.6 ({\rm syst}))\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$}, respectively. \\
\indent The production and decay mechanisms allow only positive parity and $C$-parity, and an analysis of the $Z(3930)$ decay angular distribution favors a tensor over a scalar interpretation. The preferred assignment for spin and parity of the $Z(3930)$ state is therefore $J^{PC} = 2^{++}$. The product of the branching fraction to $D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace$ times the two-photon width of the $Z(3930)$ state is measured to be $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\times {\cal B}(Z(3930)\to D\ensuremath{\Dbar}\xspace) = (0.24 \pm 0.05 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.04({\rm syst}))\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,ke\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$, assuming spin $J = 2$. The parameters obtained are consisten\t with the Belle results, and with the expectations for the $\ensuremath{\chi_{c2}}\xspace(2P)$ state.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are grateful for the
extraordinary contributions of our PEP-II\ colleagues in
achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions
that have made this work possible.
The success of this project also relies critically on the
expertise and dedication of the computing organizations that
support \babar.
The collaborating institutions wish to thank
SLAC for its support and the kind hospitality extended to them.
This work is supported by the
US Department of Energy
and National Science Foundation, the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada),
the Commissariat \`a l'Energie Atomique and
Institut National de Physique Nucl\'eaire et de Physique des Particules
(France), the
Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung and
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(Germany), the
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy),
the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands),
the Research Council of Norway, the
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation,
Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (Spain), and the
Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom).
Individuals have received support from
the Marie-Curie IEF program (European Union) and
the A. P. Sloan Foundation.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section*{Abstract (Not appropriate in this style!)}%
\else \small
\begin{center}{\bf Abstract\vspace{-.5em}\vspace{\z@}}\end{center}%
\quotation
\fi
}%
}{%
}%
\@ifundefined{endabstract}{\def\endabstract
{\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi}}{}%
\@ifundefined{maketitle}{\def\maketitle#1{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{affiliation}{\def\affiliation#1{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{proof}{\def\proof{\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }}}{}%
\@ifundefined{endproof}{\def\endproof{\mbox{\ \rule{.1in}{.1in}}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{newfield}{\def\newfield#1#2{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{chapter}{\def\chapter#1{\par(Chapter head:)#1\par }%
\newcount\c@chapter}{}%
\@ifundefined{part}{\def\part#1{\par(Part head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{section}{\def\section#1{\par(Section head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{subsection}{\def\subsection#1%
{\par(Subsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{subsubsection}{\def\subsubsection#1%
{\par(Subsubsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{paragraph}{\def\paragraph#1%
{\par(Subsubsubsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{subparagraph}{\def\subparagraph#1%
{\par(Subsubsubsubsection head:)#1\par }}{}%
\@ifundefined{therefore}{\def\therefore{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{backepsilon}{\def\backepsilon{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{yen}{\def\yen{\hbox{\rm\rlap=Y}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{registered}{%
\def\registered{\relax\ifmmode{}\r@gistered
\else$\m@th\r@gistered$\fi}%
\def\r@gistered{^{\ooalign
{\hfil\raise.07ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{R}$}\hfil\crcr
\mathhexbox20D}}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{Eth}{\def\Eth{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{eth}{\def\eth{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{Thorn}{\def\Thorn{}}{}%
\@ifundefined{thorn}{\def\thorn{}}{}%
\def\TEXTsymbol#1{\mbox{$#1$}}%
\@ifundefined{degree}{\def\degree{{}^{\circ}}}{}%
\newdimen\theight
\def\Column{%
\vadjust{\setbox\z@=\hbox{\scriptsize\quad\quad tcol}%
\theight=\ht\z@\advance\theight by \dp\z@\advance\theight by \lineskip
\kern -\theight \vbox to \theight{%
\rightline{\rlap{\box\z@}}%
\vss
}%
}%
}%
\def\qed{%
\ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\ifmmode\ifinner\else\hskip5\p@\fi\fi
\hbox{\hskip5\p@\vrule width4\p@ height6\p@ depth1.5\p@\hskip\p@}%
}%
\def\cents{\hbox{\rm\rlap/c}}%
\def\miss{\hbox{\vrule height2\p@ width 2\p@ depth\z@}}%
\def\vvert{\Vert
\def\tcol#1{{\baselineskip=6\p@ \vcenter{#1}} \Column} %
\def\dB{\hbox{{}}
\def\mB#1{\hbox{$#1$}
\def\nB#1{\hbox{#1}
\@ifundefined{note}{\def\note{$^{\dag}}}{}%
\defLaTeX2e{LaTeX2e}
\ifx\fmtnameLaTeX2e
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\rm}{\normalfont\rmfamily}{\mathrm}
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\sf}{\normalfont\sffamily}{\mathsf}
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\tt}{\normalfont\ttfamily}{\mathtt}
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\bf}{\normalfont\bfseries}{\mathbf}
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\it}{\normalfont\itshape}{\mathit}
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\sl}{\normalfont\slshape}{\@nomath\sl}
\DeclareOldFontCommand{\sc}{\normalfont\scshape}{\@nomath\sc}
\fi
\def\alpha{{\Greekmath 010B}}%
\def\beta{{\Greekmath 010C}}%
\def\gamma{{\Greekmath 010D}}%
\def\delta{{\Greekmath 010E}}%
\def\epsilon{{\Greekmath 010F}}%
\def\zeta{{\Greekmath 0110}}%
\def\eta{{\Greekmath 0111}}%
\def\theta{{\Greekmath 0112}}%
\def\iota{{\Greekmath 0113}}%
\def\kappa{{\Greekmath 0114}}%
\def\lambda{{\Greekmath 0115}}%
\def\mu{{\Greekmath 0116}}%
\def\nu{{\Greekmath 0117}}%
\def\xi{{\Greekmath 0118}}%
\def\pi{{\Greekmath 0119}}%
\def\rho{{\Greekmath 011A}}%
\def\sigma{{\Greekmath 011B}}%
\def\tau{{\Greekmath 011C}}%
\def\upsilon{{\Greekmath 011D}}%
\def\phi{{\Greekmath 011E}}%
\def\chi{{\Greekmath 011F}}%
\def\psi{{\Greekmath 0120}}%
\def\omega{{\Greekmath 0121}}%
\def\varepsilon{{\Greekmath 0122}}%
\def\vartheta{{\Greekmath 0123}}%
\def\varpi{{\Greekmath 0124}}%
\def\varrho{{\Greekmath 0125}}%
\def\varsigma{{\Greekmath 0126}}%
\def\varphi{{\Greekmath 0127}}%
\def{\Greekmath 0272}{{\Greekmath 0272}}
\def\FindBoldGroup{%
{\setbox0=\hbox{$\mathbf{x\global\edef\theboldgroup{\the\mathgroup}}$}}%
}
\def\Greekmath#1#2#3#4{%
\if@compatibility
\ifnum\mathgroup=\symbold
\mathchoice{\mbox{\boldmath$\displaystyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
{\mbox{\boldmath$\textstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
{\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
{\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
\else
\mathchar"#1#2#3#
\fi
\else
\FindBoldGroup
\ifnum\mathgroup=\theboldgroup
\mathchoice{\mbox{\boldmath$\displaystyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
{\mbox{\boldmath$\textstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
{\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
{\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}}%
\else
\mathchar"#1#2#3#
\fi
\fi}
\newif\ifGreekBold \GreekBoldfalse
\let\SAVEPBF=\pbf
\def\pbf{\GreekBoldtrue\SAVEPBF}%
\@ifundefined{theorem}{\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}}{}
\@ifundefined{lemma}{\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}}{}
\@ifundefined{corollary}{\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}}{}
\@ifundefined{conjecture}{\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}}{}
\@ifundefined{proposition}{\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}}{}
\@ifundefined{axiom}{\newtheorem{axiom}{Axiom}}{}
\@ifundefined{remark}{\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}}{}
\@ifundefined{example}{\newtheorem{example}{Example}}{}
\@ifundefined{exercise}{\newtheorem{exercise}{Exercise}}{}
\@ifundefined{definition}{\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}}{}
\@ifundefined{mathletters}{%
\newcounter{equationnumber}
\def\mathletters{%
\addtocounter{equation}{1}
\edef\@currentlabel{\arabic{equation}}%
\setcounter{equationnumber}{\c@equation}
\setcounter{equation}{0}%
\edef\arabic{equation}{\@currentlabel\noexpand\alph{equation}}%
}
\def\endmathletters{%
\setcounter{equation}{\value{equationnumber}}%
}
}{}
\@ifundefined{BibTeX}{%
\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{AmS}%
{\def\AmS{{\protect\usefont{OMS}{cmsy}{m}{n}%
A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}}{}%
\@ifundefined{AmSTeX}{\def\AmSTeX{\protect\AmS-\protect\TeX\@}}{}%
\def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax
\ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &}\or \def\@tempa{& &}%
\else \def\@tempa{&}\fi
\@tempa
\if@eqnsw
\iftag@
\@taggnum
\else
\@eqnnum\stepcounter{equation}%
\fi
\fi
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
\global\@eqnswtrue
\global\@eqcnt\z@\cr}
\def\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}{\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}}
\def\@TCItag#1{%
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
\global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}}
\def\@TCItagstar*#1{%
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
\global\def\@taggnum{#1}}
\def\tfrac#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \over #2}}}%
\def\dfrac#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \over #2}}}%
\def\binom#1#2{{#1 \choose #2}}%
\def\tbinom#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \choose #2}}}%
\def\dbinom#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \choose #2}}}%
\def\QATOP#1#2{{#1 \atop #2}}%
\def\QTATOP#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \atop #2}}}%
\def\QDATOP#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \atop #2}}}%
\def\QABOVE#1#2#3{{#2 \above#1 #3}}%
\def\QTABOVE#1#2#3{{\textstyle {#2 \above#1 #3}}}%
\def\QDABOVE#1#2#3{{\displaystyle {#2 \above#1 #3}}}%
\def\QOVERD#1#2#3#4{{#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}%
\def\QTOVERD#1#2#3#4{{\textstyle {#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QDOVERD#1#2#3#4{{\displaystyle {#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QATOPD#1#2#3#4{{#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}%
\def\QTATOPD#1#2#3#4{{\textstyle {#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QDATOPD#1#2#3#4{{\displaystyle {#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}}%
\def\QABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}%
\def\QTABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{\textstyle
{#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}}%
\def\QDABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{\displaystyle
{#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}}%
\def\tint{\mathop{\textstyle \int}}%
\def\tiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iint }}%
\def\tiiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iiint }}%
\def\tiiiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iiiint }}%
\def\tidotsint{\mathop{\textstyle \idotsint }}%
\def\toint{\mathop{\textstyle \oint}}%
\def\tsum{\mathop{\textstyle \sum }}%
\def\tprod{\mathop{\textstyle \prod }}%
\def\tbigcap{\mathop{\textstyle \bigcap }}%
\def\tbigwedge{\mathop{\textstyle \bigwedge }}%
\def\tbigoplus{\mathop{\textstyle \bigoplus }}%
\def\tbigodot{\mathop{\textstyle \bigodot }}%
\def\tbigsqcup{\mathop{\textstyle \bigsqcup }}%
\def\tcoprod{\mathop{\textstyle \coprod }}%
\def\tbigcup{\mathop{\textstyle \bigcup }}%
\def\tbigvee{\mathop{\textstyle \bigvee }}%
\def\tbigotimes{\mathop{\textstyle \bigotimes }}%
\def\tbiguplus{\mathop{\textstyle \biguplus }}%
\def\dint{\mathop{\displaystyle \int}}%
\def\diint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iint }}%
\def\diiint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iiint }}%
\def\diiiint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iiiint }}%
\def\didotsint{\mathop{\displaystyle \idotsint }}%
\def\doint{\mathop{\displaystyle \oint}}%
\def\dsum{\mathop{\displaystyle \sum }}%
\def\dprod{\mathop{\displaystyle \prod }}%
\def\dbigcap{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigcap }}%
\def\dbigwedge{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigwedge }}%
\def\dbigoplus{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigoplus }}%
\def\dbigodot{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigodot }}%
\def\dbigsqcup{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigsqcup }}%
\def\dcoprod{\mathop{\displaystyle \coprod }}%
\def\dbigcup{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigcup }}%
\def\dbigvee{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigvee }}%
\def\dbigotimes{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigotimes }}%
\def\dbiguplus{\mathop{\displaystyle \biguplus }}%
\ifx\ds@amstex\relax
\message{amstex already loaded}\makeatother\endinpu
\else
\@ifpackageloaded{amsmath}%
{\message{amsmath already loaded}\makeatother\endinput}
{}
\@ifpackageloaded{amstex}%
{\message{amstex already loaded}\makeatother\endinput}
{}
\@ifpackageloaded{amsgen}%
{\message{amsgen already loaded}\makeatother\endinput}
{}
\fi
\let\DOTSI\relax
\def\RIfM@{\relax\ifmmode}%
\def\FN@{\futurelet\next}%
\newcount\intno@
\def\iint{\DOTSI\intno@\tw@\FN@\ints@}%
\def\iiint{\DOTSI\intno@\thr@@\FN@\ints@}%
\def\iiiint{\DOTSI\intno@4 \FN@\ints@}%
\def\idotsint{\DOTSI\intno@\z@\FN@\ints@}%
\def\ints@{\findlimits@\ints@@}%
\newif\iflimtoken@
\newif\iflimits@
\def\findlimits@{\limtoken@true\ifx\next\limits\limits@true
\else\ifx\next\nolimits\limits@false\else
\limtoken@false\ifx\ilimits@\nolimits\limits@false\else
\ifinner\limits@false\else\limits@true\fi\fi\fi\fi}%
\def\multint@{\int\ifnum\intno@=\z@\intdots@
\else\intkern@\fi
\ifnum\intno@>\tw@\int\intkern@\fi
\ifnum\intno@>\thr@@\int\intkern@\fi
\int
\def\multintlimits@{\intop\ifnum\intno@=\z@\intdots@\else\intkern@\fi
\ifnum\intno@>\tw@\intop\intkern@\fi
\ifnum\intno@>\thr@@\intop\intkern@\fi\intop}%
\def\intic@{%
\mathchoice{\hskip.5em}{\hskip.4em}{\hskip.4em}{\hskip.4em}}%
\def\negintic@{\mathchoice
{\hskip-.5em}{\hskip-.4em}{\hskip-.4em}{\hskip-.4em}}%
\def\ints@@{\iflimtoken@
\def\ints@@@{\iflimits@\negintic@
\mathop{\intic@\multintlimits@}\limits
\else\multint@\nolimits\fi
\eat@
\else
\def\ints@@@{\iflimits@\negintic@
\mathop{\intic@\multintlimits@}\limits\else
\multint@\nolimits\fi}\fi\ints@@@}%
\def\intkern@{\mathchoice{\!\!\!}{\!\!}{\!\!}{\!\!}}%
\def\plaincdots@{\mathinner{\cdotp\cdotp\cdotp}}%
\def\intdots@{\mathchoice{\plaincdots@}%
{{\cdotp}\mkern1.5mu{\cdotp}\mkern1.5mu{\cdotp}}%
{{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}}%
{{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}}}%
\def\RIfM@{\relax\protect\ifmmode}
\def\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{\RIfM@\expandafter\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi}
\let\nfss@text\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi
\def\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi@#1{\mathchoice
{\textdef@\displaystyle\f@size{#1}}%
{\textdef@\textstyle\tf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}}%
{\textdef@\textstyle\sf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}}%
{\textdef@\textstyle \ssf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}}%
\glb@settings}
\def\textdef@#1#2#3{\hbox{{%
\everymath{#1}%
\let\f@size#2\selectfont
#3}}}
\newif\iffirstchoice@
\firstchoice@true
\def\Let@{\relax\iffalse{\fi\let\\=\cr\iffalse}\fi}%
\def\vspace@{\def\vspace##1{\crcr\noalign{\vskip##1\relax}}}%
\def\multilimits@{\bgroup\vspace@\Let@
\baselineskip\fontdimen10 \scriptfont\tw@
\advance\baselineskip\fontdimen12 \scriptfont\tw@
\lineskip\thr@@\fontdimen8 \scriptfont\thr@@
\lineskiplimit\lineskip
\vbox\bgroup\ialign\bgroup\hfil$\m@th\scriptstyle{##}$\hfil\crcr}%
\def\Sb{_\multilimits@}%
\def\endSb{\crcr\egroup\egroup\egroup}%
\def\Sp{^\multilimits@}%
\let\endSp\endSb
\newdimen\ex@
\[email protected]
\def\rightarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord-\mkern-6mu\cleaders
\hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
\mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$}%
\def\leftarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord\leftarrow\mkern-6mu\cleaders
\hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill\mkern-6mu\mathord-$}%
\def\leftrightarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord\leftarrow
\mkern-6mu\cleaders
\hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
\mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$}%
\def\overrightarrow{\mathpalette\overrightarrow@}%
\def\overrightarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr\rightarrowfill@#1\crcr
\noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}}%
\let\overarrow\overrightarrow
\def\overleftarrow{\mathpalette\overleftarrow@}%
\def\overleftarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr\leftarrowfill@#1\crcr
\noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}}%
\def\overleftrightarrow{\mathpalette\overleftrightarrow@}%
\def\overleftrightarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr
\leftrightarrowfill@#1\crcr
\noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}}%
\def\underrightarrow{\mathpalette\underrightarrow@}%
\def\underrightarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil
$\crcr\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\rightarrowfill@#1\crcr}}}%
\let\underarrow\underrightarrow
\def\underleftarrow{\mathpalette\underleftarrow@}%
\def\underleftarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil
$\crcr\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\leftarrowfill@#1\crcr}}}%
\def\underleftrightarrow{\mathpalette\underleftrightarrow@}%
\def\underleftrightarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th
\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr
\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\leftrightarrowfill@#1\crcr}}}%
\def\qopnamewl@#1{\mathop{\operator@font#1}\nlimits@}
\let\nlimits@\displaylimits
\def\setboxz@h{\setbox\z@\hbox}
\def\varlim@#1#2{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr
\hfil$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$\hfil\crcr
\noalign{\nointerlineskip}#2#1\crcr
\noalign{\nointerlineskip\kern-\ex@}\crcr}}}}
\def\rightarrowfill@#1{\m@th\setboxz@h{$#1-$}\ht\z@\z@
$#1\copy\z@\mkern-6mu\cleaders
\hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\box\z@\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
\mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$}
\def\leftarrowfill@#1{\m@th\setboxz@h{$#1-$}\ht\z@\z@
$#1\mathord\leftarrow\mkern-6mu\cleaders
\hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\copy\z@\mkern-2mu$}\hfill
\mkern-6mu\box\z@$}
\def\qopnamewl@{proj\,lim}{\qopnamewl@{proj\,lim}}
\def\qopnamewl@{inj\,lim}{\qopnamewl@{inj\,lim}}
\def\mathpalette\varlim@\rightarrowfill@{\mathpalette\varlim@\rightarrowfill@}
\def\mathpalette\varlim@\leftarrowfill@{\mathpalette\varlim@\leftarrowfill@}
\def\mathpalette\varliminf@{}{\mathpalette\mathpalette\varliminf@{}@{}}
\def\mathpalette\varliminf@{}@#1{\mathop{\underline{\vrule\@depth.2\ex@\@width\z@
\hbox{$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$}}}}
\def\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}{\mathpalette\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}@{}}
\def\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}@#1{\mathop{\overline
{\hbox{$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$}}}}
\def\stackunder#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits_{#1}}}%
\begingroup \catcode `|=0 \catcode `[= 1
\catcode`]=2 \catcode `\{=12 \catcode `\}=12
\catcode`\\=12
|gdef|@alignverbatim#1\end{align}[#1|end[align]]
|gdef|@salignverbatim#1\end{align*}[#1|end[align*]]
|gdef|@alignatverbatim#1\end{alignat}[#1|end[alignat]]
|gdef|@salignatverbatim#1\end{alignat*}[#1|end[alignat*]]
|gdef|@xalignatverbatim#1\end{xalignat}[#1|end[xalignat]]
|gdef|@sxalignatverbatim#1\end{xalignat*}[#1|end[xalignat*]]
|gdef|@gatherverbatim#1\end{gather}[#1|end[gather]]
|gdef|@sgatherverbatim#1\end{gather*}[#1|end[gather*]]
|gdef|@gatherverbatim#1\end{gather}[#1|end[gather]]
|gdef|@sgatherverbatim#1\end{gather*}[#1|end[gather*]]
|gdef|@multilineverbatim#1\end{multiline}[#1|end[multiline]]
|gdef|@smultilineverbatim#1\end{multiline*}[#1|end[multiline*]]
|gdef|@arraxverbatim#1\end{arrax}[#1|end[arrax]]
|gdef|@sarraxverbatim#1\end{arrax*}[#1|end[arrax*]]
|gdef|@tabulaxverbatim#1\end{tabulax}[#1|end[tabulax]]
|gdef|@stabulaxverbatim#1\end{tabulax*}[#1|end[tabulax*]]
|endgroup
\def\align{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@alignverbatim
You are using the "align" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endalign=\endtrivlist
\@namedef{align*}{\@verbatim\@salignverbatim
You are using the "align*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endalign*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\def\alignat{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@alignatverbatim
You are using the "alignat" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endalignat=\endtrivlist
\@namedef{alignat*}{\@verbatim\@salignatverbatim
You are using the "alignat*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endalignat*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\def\xalignat{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@xalignatverbatim
You are using the "xalignat" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endxalignat=\endtrivlist
\@namedef{xalignat*}{\@verbatim\@sxalignatverbatim
You are using the "xalignat*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endxalignat*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\def\gather{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@gatherverbatim
You are using the "gather" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endgather=\endtrivlist
\@namedef{gather*}{\@verbatim\@sgatherverbatim
You are using the "gather*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endgather*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\def\multiline{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@multilineverbatim
You are using the "multiline" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\let\endmultiline=\endtrivlist
\@namedef{multiline*}{\@verbatim\@smultilineverbatim
You are using the "multiline*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.}
\expandafter\let\csname endmultiline*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\def\arrax{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@arraxverbatim
You are using a type of "array" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\let\endarrax=\endtrivlist
\def\tabulax{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@tabulaxverbatim
You are using a type of "tabular" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\let\endtabulax=\endtrivlist
\@namedef{arrax*}{\@verbatim\@sarraxverbatim
You are using a type of "array*" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\expandafter\let\csname endarrax*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\@namedef{tabulax*}{\@verbatim\@stabulaxverbatim
You are using a type of "tabular*" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.}
\expandafter\let\csname endtabulax*\endcsname =\endtrivlist
\def\endequation{%
\ifmmode\ifinner
\iftag@
\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
$\hfil
\displaywidth\linewidth\@taggnum\egroup \endtrivlist
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
\global\@ignoretrue
\else
$\hfil
\displaywidth\linewidth\@eqnnum\egroup \endtrivlist
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
\global\@ignoretrue
\fi
\else
\iftag@
\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
\eqno \hbox{\@taggnum}
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false%
$$\global\@ignoretrue
\else
\eqno \hbox{\@eqnnum
$$\global\@ignoretrue
\fi
\fi\fi
}
\newif\iftag@ \@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@false
\def\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}{\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}}
\def\@TCItag#1{%
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
\global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}}
\def\@TCItagstar*#1{%
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
\global\def\@taggnum{#1}}
\@ifundefined{tag}{
\def\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}{\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}}
\def\@tag#1{%
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
\global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}}
\def\@tagstar*#1{%
\global\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}@true
\global\def\@taggnum{#1}}
}{}
\makeatother
\endinput
\section{Introduction}
The most spectacular room temperature organometallic magnet of composition
V(TCNE)$_{x}\cdot y{\rm solvent}$ (where TCNE -- {\bf 1} -- stands for
tetracyanoethylene -- a well known organic electron acceptor; $x\approx 2$
and $y$ depends on the type of the solvent)
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
\upethene{NC}{NC}{CN}{CN}
}
\parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
\hetiisix{D}{CN}{CN}{Q}{NC}{NC}{D}{D}{N}
}
\parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
\sixringb{Q}{Q}{Q}{Q}{Q}{Q}{}{}{9}
\put (-289,405) {\chemup{NC}{S}{C}{}{}{S}{CN}}
\put (-289,-275) {\cdown{}{}{C}{S}{NC}{S}{CN}}
}
\parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
\sixring{CN}{CN}{Q}{NC}{NC}{Q}{S}{S}{C}
} \parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
{\bf 1}
} \parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
{\bf 2}
} \parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
{\bf 3}
} \parbox{.24\textwidth}
{\centering
{\bf 4}
}
\end{figure*}
attracts a lot of attention since the time it had been synthesized yet in
the beginning of the 1990's \cite{Manriquez}. It is an amorphous moisture
sensitive precipitate with the outstanding critical temperature of the
transition to the magnetically ordered state
estimated to be of {\it ca. }400 K.\footnote{The magnetic momenta are
spontanelusly predominantly aligned in one direction below the critical temperature.
} It is higher than the
decomposition temperature ({\it ca. } 350 K ) which singles it out among its
numerous analogs with a variety of involved organic acceptors
(Ref. \cite{Vickers1} -- tetracyanopyrazine -- {\bf 2}; Ref. \cite{Vickers2}
-- 7,7,8,8-tetracyano-p-quinodimethane -- {\bf 3}; Ref. \cite{Taliaferro} --
tetracyanobenzene -- {\bf 4}) and of the metals (Ref. \cite{Pokhodnya} --
iron), synthesized in the following years, since none of them manifested as
fascinating magnetic properties as the very first V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound (see
Table 1
\cite{MillerEpstein}).
Generally one has to say that not only the critical temperature, but also
other properties of the compounds of the considered class are sensitive to
the details of the preparation procedure and/or the solvent employed.
For example, the V-TCNE compound
is known in two forms. The original of Ref. \cite{Manriquez} coming from
the reaction of V(C$_{6}$H$_{6}$)$_{2}$ with TCNE in the CH$_{2}$Cl$_{2}$
solution or obtained from V(CO)$_{6}$ with use of the CVD technique
exhibits the saturation magnetization at the zero temperature
which corresponds to approximately one unpaired electron per formula unit
and in fact is somewhat lower than this value. However in Ref. \cite{ZhouLongMillerEpstein}
(see also a review
\cite{MillerEpstein}) a V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound was reported containing tetrahydrofurane
as a solvent with the saturation magnetization
almost twice as strong compared to that of the original compound.
For that reason hereinafter we shall refer to these two forms of the V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound
as the highly magnetic (HM) and the low magnetic(LM) ones.
For more than one decade the amorphousity of the compound of interest did
not allow anyone to make whatever definitive conclusion concerning its
structure. The critical breakthrough became possible with the recent
work \cite{Her} where the authors were able to establish the structure of
the Fe$^{2+}$ analog (presented in Fig.
)
of the V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound
using Rietveld refinement of the synchrotron powder
diffraction data
and to reveal its most remarkable features:
the presence of the dimer form of the TCNE$^{\dot{-}}$ radical-anion: $\left[
\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi{TCNE}\right] _{2}^{2-}\ $= C$_{4}$(CN)$_{8}^{2-}$ playing an important
role in shaping the loose three-dimensional structure and assuring as well
the three-dimensional character of magnetic interactions in the system.
In our previous paper Ref. \cite{Tch082} we were able to demonstrate that the
experimental structure represented in Fig. 1
can be easily
related with one represented in Fig. 2a
proposed yet in Ref. \cite%
{Tchougreeff-Hoffmann}
in order to conform with the magnetic data on the V-TCNE\ compound
available that time. That latter represented a simple cubic lattice with the vertices
occupied by the vanadium ions. Two $ab$-faces of each cube
remain empty whereas four others are filled
by the TCNE units forming channels extended in the $c$-direction. In the
structure presented in Fig. 2a
the C=C bonds of the TCNE units are located in the same
plane (as well perpendicular to the $c$-axis of the lattice) so that they
are orthogonal to each other. It is not the unique possibility.
An alternative structure differing from that of
Fig. 2a
by rotating the TCNE units placed in the $bc$-faces
by 90$^{\circ }$ in their respective planes is also possible.
The result of such a rotation is presented in Fig. 2
.
In this
structure the central C=C bonds of the TCNE units are as previously
orthogonal, but now they lay in orthogonal planes so that the axes
of these bonds do not intersect rather cross each other. This structure has
been called the "principal" structure in Ref. \cite{Tch082}. The principal
structure Fig. 2b
can be easily put in the relation
with the experimental one. If in the quadrupled unit cell $2a,2b,c$ of the
principal structure four TCNE units extended in the $b$-direction are
allowed to pairwisely rotate towards each other so that single C--C bonds can form
between respective ethylenic carbon atoms thus yielding the [TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$%
=C$_{4}$(CN)$_{8}^{2-}$ dimers and the V-TCNE sheets originally laying in the $ac$-planes
are accordingly ruffled one finally arrives to the experimental
structure of Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ (Fig.
). Intermediate structures
along this hypothetical reaction path are presented in Fig.
.
For this sequence of structures we performed in Ref. \cite{Tch082} the LSDA +
$U$ calculations with use of the VASP program suite Ref. \cite{VASP}
of the respective electronic structures and energies. Specifically,
the PAW potential has been used and the values of the $U$ parameter for the V, N, and C
atoms were respectively taken as
5.344, 4.840, and 4.428 eV.
The
calculations have been performed as follows: first the principal structure
with the equalized lattice parameters have been quadrupled. This structure has been
connected with the experimental structure by a straight line in the
configuration space. Further details of the numerical treatment can be found
in Ref. \cite{Tch082}. Its results are reproduced in Fig.
.
The overall densities of states in two spin channels as given in Fig. 4
are obviously difficult to understand. One can only see some
spin polarization of the upper filled bands as well as an evolution of a
noticeable density of states near the Fermi level present in both spin
channels in the initial state to the final state where the expected
spin-polarized structure can be recognized which does not show any DoS in
either of the spin channels at the Fermi level.
In this paper we present a detailed analysis of the results of our
numerical studies Ref. \cite{Tch082}\ of the models of V-TCNE room
temperature organometallic ferrimagnet and expressed them in terms of
the effective spin-Hamiltonian for a selection of interacting
atomic/molecular states. The proposed model is then applied to analysis of a
wider collection of experimental data available for this fascinating object
and its Fe analog.
\section{Detailed analysis of DoS}
In order to analyse the details of the evolution of the DoS features along
the path going from quadrupled principal structure to the
experimental one we performed a detailed study of projections of the DoS.
In the initial structure the three bands in the
$- 9 \div - 11 $ eV range are predominantly C-bands. Other
bands are the well hybridized C-N-bands except the "spin-left" band right below the
Fermi level, which is predominantly contributed by the vanadium states. As one can see
from Fig. 6
these are the $d$-states of vanadium atoms. Some vanadium stemming DoS
in the range $- 8 \div - 10 $ eV are the $s$- and $p$-states of vanadium involved in the bonding with the
nitrogen atoms. This can be seen on the corresponding N-projection of DoS
in Fig. 7
from which one can deduce that the $s$- and $p$-states of vanadium hybridize
predominantly with the N-states coming from the V-TCNE layers (see below).
In order to deepen our understanding of the DoS presented in Fig. 5
we notice that even in that complex system the atoms
involved are relatively easily classified into types. One can distinguish
transition metal ions whose $d$-density is expected to contribute
significantly to the spin polarized bands, the nitrogen atoms where one can
expect significant DoS changes due to expected break of the pairs of excessive V-N
bonds while going from the quadrupled principal structure to the
experimental one. Analogously along the same route one can expect
remarkable variations in the projection of the DoS to the carbon atoms forming the
C-C bonds in the [TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$ units and to the carbon and nitrogen
atoms in the ruffled V-TCNE layers. Other features of the DoS, however, are not
expected to significantly vary along the path. Considering the evolution of
the above-mentioned projections of the DoS along the path Fig. 3
as represented in Figs. 4
- 6
one can see the expected
reconstruction of the projected DoS's. For example, almost
nothing happens to the $d$-bands along this path. They remain rigid
triply degenerate ones and do not change
their position relative to the Fermi level despite the fact that the
coordination number of vanadium ions changes from eight in the
quadrupled principal structure to six in the experimental one. This agrees
with the numerical result concerning the distribution of spin polarization
in the direct space: for all structures depicted in Fig. 3
the magnetic moments residing in the $d$%
-shells of vanadium ions range from 2.615 for the first (quadrupled
principal)\ structure to 2.582 for the last (experimental) one {\it i.e.}
are almost constant. The significant variation of the total magnetic moment along the
"reaction path" observed in our numerical experiment is to be almost
completely attributed to that of the magnetic moments residing in the
"organic" part of the organometallic magnet. This is precisely what one
should expect within the general picture including the formation of the [TCNE]$%
_{2}^{2-}$ dimers. On the other hand the stability of the $d$-bands along
the path can be only understood if one assumes that the break of two V-N bonds at
each atom is at least partially compensated by shortening (strengthening) of
other two bonds extended in the $b$-direction.
By contrast the projections of DoS to the characteristic organogenic atoms
significantly modify along the \ "reaction path".
For example, the
dominant part of the N-DoS is
concentrated in two broad bands at {\it ca.} $-5$ and {\it ca.} $-6 \div -6.5$ eV. The
lower of the two is almost equally contributed by the nitrogen atoms
of all three types and its position is stable throughout the path.
The same applies to somewhat smaller contribution from the bonding N-atoms
extended in the $b$-direction to this band. Their contribution to the upper
of the two mentioned bands is noticeably spin-polarized. The density
from the N atoms bearing the dangling lone pairs fairly manifests itself
in the same band. Weak features in the N-DoS can be
observed in the 4 eV wide range right below the Fermi level. The peak
right below the Fermi level
in the
"right-spin" channel in the initial structure is equally contributed by the
"bonding", "to be dangling", and "magnetic" nitrogens. (In general
the DoS projections for the "bonding" and "to be dangling" nitrogens
coincide in the initial structure). In the final structure this peak
splits so that its upper part ("right-spin" channel right below the Fermi level)
is contributed by the "magnetic" nitrogens, whereas two peaks next to it in the bottom
direction is contributed by the "bonding" nitrogens. The contribution from
the "dangling" nitrogens contributes to the upper part of the wide band at {\it ca.} $-3.5 \div -5.5$ eV.
Of particular interest is the evolution of the C-projection of the DoS.
That on the ethylenic carbon atoms is most interesting. The ethylenic carbons can
be further subdivided in two categories: those in the planes extended in the
$a$ and $c$ horizontal directions and those extended in the vertical ($b$)
direction and further involved in the rotation yielding the
[TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$ units. At the initial stage both projected DoS are
significantly polarized and both noticeably contribute to the "right-spin" density right below the
Fermi level (the DoS projection to the to be bonding atoms
is not seen in the leftmost graph of Fig. 6 since at this point they are
degenerate with the "magnetic" projection and are masked by these latter).
From further graphs of the DoS projected to the atoms forming
the emerging C-C bonds one can conclude that such bonds represented in our study by
two spin sub-bands for the left and right spin channels completely develop at a pretty late stage of
the hypothetical transition: in the middle of the path the corresponding peaks in the
density projections can be yet clearly seen in both spin channels near to the
spin-polarized DoS of the "magnetic" atoms, although the peaks corresponding to
the emerging bonds are not polarized.
By contrast the projection of DoS on the magnetic
C-atoms in the horizontal planes develop two sub bands right above and below
the Fermi level of which the lower one (right-spin) is completely occupied by electrons
with the spin projection opposite to that of the electrons occupying the $d$%
-subband. This is in the fair agreement with the assumption concerning the
nature of the subbands located in the vicinity of the Fermi level made in
our previous paper Ref. \cite{Tch082}.
\section{Model Hamiltonians for V-TCNE system }
\subsection{Model Orbital Hamiltonian}
Fascinating properties of the V(TCNE)$_{2}$ magnet call not only for
numerical modelling, but also for some qualitative picture. However, for the final
("experimental") structure all the DoS projections manifest themselves as
very narrow bands. This indirectly indicates that the band picture used throughout the
calculations is
not completely adequate and that an adequate model must be given in terms
of an effective Hamiltonian representing the electronic structure of the HM
V(TCNE)$_{2}$ magnet (in its "experimental" structure) in terms of some objects
local in the direct space {\it e.g.} local spins similar to that proposed
yet in Ref. \cite{Tchougreeff-Hoffmann}. As in the case of band models the
most important one-electron states to be included are these contributing to
the energy bands in the vicinity of the Fermi level. Based on our analysis
of projected DoS performed in the previous Section we can conclude that the
states of the [TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$ units contribute to the bands far away from
the Fermi level. The DoS related to this unit goes away from the
Fermi level along the "reaction path". Thus the observed electronic
structure is primary one of the individual (ruffled) V-TCNE layer extended
in the $ac$-plane. For constructing the Hamiltonian for this layer one can
employ the unit cell of the principal model dropping from it the TCNE unit
extended in the $b$-direction (and finally engaged in formation of the [TCNE]%
$_{2}^{2-}$= C$_{4}$(CN)$_{8}^{2-}$ dimers).
According to Ref. \cite{Tchougreeff-Hoffmann} on the vanadium sites it
suffice to consider only the $d$-shells of the metal ions which is also confirmed
by our current analysis. The overlap of
the $d$-shell of the metal ions with the $\sigma $-orbitals of the TCNE's
(including those implied in the model) ensures the standard two-over-three
splitting of the $d$-shell characteristic for the octahedral environment. In
the case of vanadium three unpaired electrons in the $d$-shell occupy
respectively three orbitals in the $t_{2g}$-manifold.\ The basis orbitals $%
d_{xy}$, $d_{xz}$, and $d_{yz}$ can be characterized by the normal to the
plane in which each of the orbitals lays -- $\zeta $, $\eta $, and $\xi $ --
are subsequently used in the notation. For the donor sites in the
ruffled planes the $b_{3g}\left( \pi ^{\ast }\right) $ LUMOs of
the TCNE (singly occupied in the radical anion) are included. In each such a
layer each metal ion is surrounded (coordinated) by four TCNE units which
are in their turn coordinated to (surrounded by) four metal atoms. In this
case the layer unit cell composition V:TCNE is 1:1.
The model Hamiltonian for the V(TCNE)$_{2}$ magnet, formulating the above
ideas, has the general form:
\begin{equation}
H=\sum_{{\bf r}}\left( H_{d}({\bf r})+H_{a}({\bf r})+H_{da}({\bf r})+H_{dd}(%
{\bf r})\right) \label{Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}%
The contributions to it are the following. Operator $H_{a}({\bf r})$
describes electrons in the acceptor orbital of the TCNE$^{\dot{-}}$
radical-anion in the ${\bf r}$-th unit cell:
\begin{equation}
\label{a-Hamiltonian}
\begin{array}{rcl}
H_{a}({\bf r}) &=&-\alpha _{a}\hat{n}_{a{\bf r}}+U_{aa}\hat{n}_{a{\bf r}\downarrow }
\hat{n}_{a{\bf r}\uparrow } \\
\hat{n}_{a{\bf r}\sigma } &=&a_{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}a_{{\bf r}\sigma };
\hat{n}_{a{\bf r}}=\sum_{\sigma }\hat{n}_{a{\bf r}\sigma }
\end{array}
\end{equation}%
Symbol $a_{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}(a_{{\bf r}\sigma })$ is the operator
creating (annihilating) an electron with the spin projection $\sigma $ on the
acceptor orbital of the TCNE molecules in the ${\bf r}$-th unit cell. In
eq. (\ref{a-Hamiltonian}) the first term is the energy of attraction of an
electron to the core of TCNE -- the orbital energy of the $b_{3g}\left( \pi
^{\ast }\right) $ LUMO shifted by the electrostatic field induced by the
entire crystal environment. The second term in eq. (\ref%
{a-Hamiltonian}) is the Hubbard one, effectively describing the Coulomb
repulsion of electrons with opposite spin projections eventually occupying
the same acceptor orbital.
The operator $H_{d}({\bf r})$ describes electrons in the $t_{2g}$-subshell
of the $d$-shell of the vanadium ion in the ${\bf r}$-th unit cell:
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{d}({\bf r}) &=&\left[ -\alpha _{d}(\hat{n}_{\zeta {\bf r}}+\hat{n}_{\eta
{\bf r}}+\hat{n}_{\xi {\bf r}})\right. + \nonumber \\
&&+\left. (U_{dd}+2J_{dd})(\hat{n}_{\zeta {\bf r}\downarrow }\hat{n}_{\zeta
{\bf r}\uparrow }+\hat{n}_{\eta {\bf r}\downarrow }\hat{n}_{\eta {\bf r}%
\uparrow }+\hat{n}_{\xi {\bf r}\downarrow }\hat{n}_{\xi {\bf r}\uparrow })%
\right] + \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{(U_{dd}+J_{dd}/2)}{2}\sum_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{\prime }}(\hat{n}%
_{\zeta {\bf r}\sigma }\hat{n}_{\xi {\bf r}\sigma {\bf ^{\prime }}}+\hat{n}%
_{\zeta {\bf r}\sigma }\hat{n}_{\eta {\bf r}\sigma {\bf ^{\prime }}}+\hat{n}%
_{\xi {\bf r}\sigma }\hat{n}_{\eta {\bf r}\sigma {\bf ^{\prime }}})+
\label{d-Hamiltonian} \\
&&-4J_{dd}(\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r%
}}\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}})
\nonumber \\
\hat{n}_{\gamma {\bf r}\sigma } &=&\gamma _{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}\gamma _{{\bf %
r}\sigma },\ \hat{n}_{\gamma {\bf r}}=\sum_{\sigma }\hat{n}_{\gamma {\bf r}%
\sigma };\gamma =\xi ,\ \eta ,\zeta . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}%
In eq. (\ref{d-Hamiltonian}) $ \hat{n}_{\gamma {\bf r}%
\sigma }$ are the operators of the number
of electrons with the spin projection $\sigma $ on the $d_{xy},d_{yz},$ and $%
d_{xz}$ orbitals of the vanadium ion in the ${\bf r}$-th unit cell. The spin operators and spin-operator
product terms are defined by the well-known relations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{S}_{\gamma {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\gamma ^{\prime }{\bf r}} &=&1/2(\hat{S}_{\gamma {\bf r}}^{+}%
\hat{S}_{\gamma ^{\prime } {\bf r}}^{-}+\hat{S}_{\gamma ^{\prime }{\bf r}}^{+}\hat{S}_{\gamma {\bf r}}^{-})+%
\hat{S}_{\gamma {\bf r}}^{z}\hat{S}_{\gamma ^{\prime } {\bf r}}^{z} \\
\hat{S}_{\gamma {\bf r}}^{+} &=&\gamma _{{\bf r}\uparrow }^{+}\gamma _{{\bf r}\downarrow },\hat{S}%
_{\gamma {\bf r}}^{-}=\gamma _{{\bf r}\downarrow }^{+}\gamma _{{\bf r}\uparrow },\hat{S}_{\gamma
{\bf r}}^{z}=1/2(\hat{n}_{\gamma {\bf r} \uparrow }-\hat{n}_{\gamma {\bf r} \downarrow }).
\end{eqnarray*}
where the symbols $\gamma _{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}\
(\gamma _{{\bf r}\sigma })$ represent
the operators creating (annihilating)
an electron with the spin projection $\sigma $ on the $d_{xy},d_{yz},$ and $%
d_{xz}$ orbitals of the vanadium ion in the ${\bf r}$-th unit cell.
The
first row in the above operator describes the attraction of electrons in the
$d$-orbitals to the cores of vanadium ions (shifted by the electrostatic
field of the rest of the crystal). Two further rows describe the
spin-symmetric part of the Coulomb interaction of electrons in the $d$%
-shell. The last row describes the spin dependent part of the Coulomb
interaction of electrons in the $d$-shell (exchange). It is ultimately
responsible for the Hund's rule in atoms and for the high spin of the ground
state of electrons in the $d$-shell.
The contributions to the Hamiltonian eq. (\ref{Hamiltonian}) described so
far model isolated local states important for the crystal description. The
magnetic order can only be possible due to various interaction terms.
Operator $H_{da}({\bf r})$ describes the electron hopping between the $d$%
-states of vanadium ions and the acceptor states. The $d_{xy}$-state
represented by the $\zeta _{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}\ (\zeta _{{\bf r}\sigma })$
operators being of the (approximate) $\sigma $-symmetry with respect to the $%
ac$ plane (the ruffling of the V-TCNE plane is neglected) has no overlap
with the LUMO's of TCNE's which are (again approximately) of the $\pi $%
-symmetry with respect to the same plane. Two others ($d_{xz}$- and $d_{yz}$%
-states represented respectively by the $\eta _{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}\ (\eta _{%
{\bf r}\sigma })$ and $\xi _{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}\ (\xi _{{\bf r}\sigma })$
operators) overlap with the LUMOs of two (different) neighbor TCNE units
each. The phase relations between the orbitals involved in the model lead to
such a distribution of signs at the one-electron hopping parameters that the
hopping operator acquires the form:
\begin{equation}
H_{da}({\bf r})=-t_{da}\sum_{\sigma }{}\left[ \xi _{{\bf r}\sigma
}^{+}\left( a_{{\bf r}\sigma }+a_{{\bf r}+{\bf a}+{\bf c}\sigma }\right)
-\eta _{{\bf r}\sigma }^{+}\left( a_{{\bf r}+{\bf a}\sigma }+a_{{\bf r}+{\bf %
c}\sigma }\right) \right] +h.c. \label{da-interaction}
\end{equation}%
where the parameter $t_{da}>0$ describes the magnitude of the hopping
between the acceptor state and the neighbor $d$-state.
The sum of the above contributions to the effective Hamiltonian in fact form
that for an isolated V-TCNE layer. In the "experimental" structure the
diamagnetic C$_{4}$(CN)$_{8}^{2-}$ units seem to effectively isolate the
V(TCNE) sheets from each other. Nevertheless, one should assume that certain
indirect interaction between the $d$-states in the $b$-direction is possible
through the mediation of the [TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$ units. It was proposed in
Ref. \cite{Tch082} to use an effective hopping similar to eq. (\ref%
{da-interaction}). Since it is any way an effective interaction it can be
chosen in a way which fits better to the method the system is treated. For
this reason we postpone the discussion of this term.
In our previous paper Ref. \cite{Tch082} we considered the band
model of the V-TCNE organometallic magnet as derived from the orbital
Hamiltonian eqs. (\ref{Hamiltonian}) - (\ref{da-interaction}) and employed
them for analysis of results of our numerical experiments performed with use
of the VASP package. These latter are, however, in a kind of fundamental
contradiction with the physics of the system at hand. This manifests itself
in the very narrow bands coming out of calculation, as we already mentioned.
The reason is that the hopping parameter $t_{da}$ entering eq. (\ref{da-interaction}) which are generally responsible
for extension of one-electron states over the crystal (band formation) and
which are proportional to the overlap between the orbitals represent the smallest
energy scale in the system. Generally it leads to a break of the delocalized
(band) picture and makes a local description to be more adequate. The
latter can be sequentially derived by treating perturbatively
the hopping operator eq. (\ref{da-interaction}). It
yields the effective Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg form in terms of the
spins of electrons occupying the local states (orbitals) involved. Its parameters
are estimated in Appendix \ref{SpinHamiltonian}.
The overall result comes out as
a spin Hamiltonian of the form:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
H_{{\rm spin}}^{{\rm layer}} & = & -4J_{dd}\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}(\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r}}%
\hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}}+\hat{S}%
_{\xi {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}})+ \\
& & +2K_{da}\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}\left[ \hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}\left( \hat{S}%
_{a{\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf a}+{\bf c}}\right) +\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}%
}\left( \hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf a}}+\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf c}}\right) \right]
\end{array}
\label{spin-Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}%
which describes effective magnetic interactions in an isolated layer. It
must be complemented by interlayer interactions. If the vanadium ions in
adjacent layers\ are coupled by an an effective hopping an analogous
perturbative procedure results in the antiferromagnetic sign of the
effective magnetic interaction. This contradicts to the existence of the
nonzero overall magnetization in the V-TCNE\ magnets below the critical
temperature (with the antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling the
magnetization of one layer would be cancelled by that of another). For that
reason we have to supplement the Hamiltonian eq. (\ref{spin-Hamiltonian}) by
an effective interlayer interaction with the ferromagnetic sign of the
corresponding exchange parameter. It cannot directly come from any
perturbative treatment of the hopping. By contrast some mechanism of
ferromagnetic coupling described {\it e.g.} in Refs. \cite{Goodenough} or
\cite{Kahn} and implemented in papers \cite{Tch018,Tch019}
devoted to the exchange in metallocene based organometallic magnets
(Miller-Epstein magnets) acting through the [TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$ units might be
expected. Indeed as one can see from the Fig. 7
despite the
fact the the states located in the [TCNE]$_{2}^{2-}$ units are pulled up and
down from the vicinity of the Fermi level, some spin
polarization of these bands particularly of those which are contributed by
the "bonding" nitrogens indicates the involvement of the [TCNE]%
$_{2}^{2-}$ units in transfer of magnetic interactions between the $d$%
-shells in the $b$-direction (between the layers).
With this {\it caveat} the spin Hamiltonian written in terms of "true"
electronic spins is the following:%
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
H_{{\rm spin}} & = & -4J_{dd}\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}(\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r}}%
\hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}}+\hat{S}%
_{\xi {\bf r}}\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}})+ \\
& + & 2K_{da}\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}\left[ \hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}\left( \hat{S}%
_{a{\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf a}+{\bf c}}\right) +\hat{S}_{\eta {\bf r}%
}\left( \hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf a}}+\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf c}}\right) \right]
\\
& + & 2K_{dd}\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}\left( \hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{\eta
{\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r}}\right) \left( \hat{S}_{\xi {\bf r+b}}+\hat{S%
}_{\eta {\bf r+b}}+\hat{S}_{\zeta {\bf r+b}}\right)%
\end{array}
\label{true-spin-Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian eq. (\ref{true-spin-Hamiltonian}) is not a standard
Heisenberg Hamiltonian usually used to describe magnetic properties
of insulators. This latter is written in terms of the effective local
spins residing at each atomic magnetic center. In our case the vanadium ions
represetn such nontrivial magnetic centers bearing
effective spins in the $d$-shells:
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}_{d{\bf r}}=\sum_{\gamma }\hat{S}_{\gamma {\bf r}}.
\label{effective-spins}
\end{equation}%
According to Ref. \cite{Vonsovsky} using the effective spins is, however, an
approximation since the transition from the representation of the effective
Hamiltonian in terms of the of individual electronic spins-$\frac{1}{2}$ eq. (%
\ref{true-spin-Hamiltonian}) which can be sequentially derived from the
model orbital Hamiltonian eqs. (\ref{Hamiltonian}) - (\ref{da-interaction})
by perturbative treatment of the hopping term eq. (\ref{da-interaction}) to
the phenomenological Hamiltonian eq. (\ref{phen-Hamiltonian}) operating with
the effective spins eq. (\ref{effective-spins}) is only possible if the
exchange interactions of all individual spins in one magnetic center (in our
case -- the V ion) with those in the other magnetic center (in our case the
effective spin in TCNE$^{\dot{-}}$ coincides with the individual one) are
equal. This is obviously not the case since the electronic spin $\hat{S}%
_{\zeta {\bf r}}$ in the $d$-shell to the first approximation does not
interact with the spin residing in any of acceptor orbitals.
This generally poses the problem since in the Hamiltonian eq. (\ref%
{true-spin-Hamiltonian}) at least the exchange parameters $J_{dd}$ and $K_{da}
$ can be independently determined respectively by eq. (\ref{Heisenberg-exchange-parameter}%
) and atomic spectra, whereas the parameter $J_{\bot }$ in eq. (\ref{phen-Hamiltonian}) remains
completely empirical quantity. The fact that $J_{dd}\gg K_{da}$ in eq. (\ref%
{true-spin-Hamiltonian}) allows to approximately replace the spins of
separate electrons in the ${\bf r}$-th $d$-shell by the operator of the
total spin of the respective $d$-shell. Further details of this transition
are given in Appendix \ref{SpinToPhen}.
The phenomenological Hamiltonian written in terms of the effective spins eq.
(\ref{effective-spins}) to be used for modeling the entire crystal is:%
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
H_{{\rm phen}} & = & J_{\Vert }\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}\hat{S}_{d{\bf r}}\left[
\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}}+\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf a}}+\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf c}}+%
\hat{S}_{a{\bf r}+{\bf a}+{\bf c}}\right] + \\
& & +J_{\bot }\sum\limits_{{\bf r}}\hat{S}_{d{\bf r}}\hat{S}_{d{\bf r}+%
{\bf b}}%
\end{array}
\label{phen-Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}%
In the next Section we apply it to analysis of magnetic properties of the
HM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ material.
\section{Magnetic properties of V(TCNE)$_{2}$ as interpreted with use of
phenomenological Hamiltonian}
The magnetic and thermodynamic properties of the HM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ material must be
derived from the phenomenological Hamiltonian eq. (\ref{phen-Hamiltonian}).
Two types of data will be of interest for us: the critical temperature
of transition into magnetically ordered state and the temperature dependence
of spontaneous magnetization. The mean field estimates of the critical temperature
used so far in the literature
lack the account of structural information. It is important to realize that the quantities
of interest are sensitive to these details as represented in the respective Hamiltonians.
The commonly used (see \emph{e.g.} Ref. \cite{MillerEpstein})
symmetric mean field formula:
\[
\theta_{N}^{MF}=\frac{zJ_{eff}}{3}S_{d}\left(S_{d}+1\right)
\]
(where $T=\theta/k_{B}$) ignores the acceptor spins and sets $z$ to be the number of indirectly neighboring magnetic
metal ions. It yields
the quadratic dependence of the critical temperature on the spin
of the metal ion.
On the other hand according to Ref. \cite{Her} the
critical temperature for the magnetically ordered state of a material with
two types of spins ($S_{d}$ and $S_{a}(=1/2)$) is described by
the mean field formula:
\[
\theta^{\rm MF}_{N}=\frac{\left\vert J^{\rm MF}_{{\rm eff}}\right\vert}{3} \sqrt{Z_{ad}Z_{da}%
}\sqrt{S_{d}(S_{d}+1)S_{a}(S_{a}+1)}
\]%
(The factor of two is dropped here to get the formula to conform with the
Hamiltonian definition accepted in the present paper). This formula appears as a
zero interlayer coupling limit of the mean field expression for the N\'{e}el
temperature in a {\em ferrimagnet} eq. (\ref{MeanFieldTheta}) derived in Appendix \ref{MeanFieldSection}.
In Ref. \cite{Her} it had been applied to the Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound for which the
structure measurements have been performed there. It, however, brings up two
complications -- one theoretical and another experimental. From the experimental point of view we notice
that the above formula as well as formula eq. (\ref{MeanFieldTheta}) is effectively linear in $S_{d}$
rather than quadratic (in the high anisotropy limit). For that reason even the mean field estimates of the
exchange parameters as given in Table 1 must be reconsidered since the latter
had been obtained with use of the quadratic dependence. As one can see
from the structure the choice of $Z_{ad}=Z_{da}=4$ yields the
estimate of the mean field exchange parameter for the Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound
of $J^{\rm MF}_{{\rm eff}}({\rm Fe})= $
43 K and for the V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound -- $J^{\rm MF}_{{\rm eff}}({\rm V})= 183$ K. Both values are significantly
larger than those given in Table 1, but it is remarkable that the difference
between them (to be explained) reduces from the factor of larger than five to that of 4.25.
We notice that following the assumption of Ref. \cite{MillerPreprint} and using
$Z_{dd}=6$ for the V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound further reduces the difference and the value
of the exchange parameter for the latter, but from our point of view it cannot be
substantiated within the scope of the model considered in the present paper.
From the theoretical point of view, even the improved molecular field expression eq. (\ref{MeanFieldTheta}) has that disadvantage that
it predicts a nonvanishing ordering temperature for $ J_{\perp } = 0$.
It is obviously wrong and such an estimate is not acceptable in the context where a strong anisotropy might be expected
on the structure basis.
As it has been mentioned the model must be complemented
by the interlayer interactions between the effective spins $3/2$
on the vanadium sites mediated by the
diamagnetic (closed shell) [TCNE]$^{2-}$ units. Remarkably enough
the sign of this interaction must be {\em ferromagnetic} (the magnetic
moments residing in the layers must be pointing in the same direction) to
ensure the existence of the net spontaneous magnetization in the
three-dimensional sample, although in general one has to expect {\em %
antiferromagnetic} sign of such an interaction \cite{Goodenough} (see below).
In a presumably rather
anisotropic situation brought by tentative difference in mechanisms of the
intralayer and interlayer interactions (respectively "antiferromagnetic
kinetic exchange" for the
intralayer interaction and the "ferromagnetic superexchange" for the interlayer
one) the critical temperature has to be estimated from the spin-wave treatment
taking an adequate care about the anisotropy of the effective
spin-spin interaction and at least providing
a correct asymptotic value of the critical temperature for the vanishing interlayer coupling $%
J_{\perp }$.
This is done by the formula
\begin{equation}
M_{s}=M_{0}\left[1-\left(\frac{\theta}{\theta_{\mathrm{N}}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right]\label{BlochMagnetization}\end{equation}
expressing the Bloch $T^{\frac{3}{2}}$ law for the
temperature dependence of the spontaneous magnetization as derived in Appendix \ref{SpinWave} with
the critical (N{\'e}el) temperature given by:
\begin{equation}
\theta_{\mathrm{N}}=\frac{4\pi}{\zeta^{\frac{2}{3}}(\frac{3}{2})}\frac{1}{S_{d}-S_{a}}\sqrt[3]{\left(S_{d}+S_{a}\right)^{2}S_{d}^{4}S_{a}^{2}}\left[J_{\parallel}^{2}\left\vert J_{\perp}\right\vert \right]^{\frac{1}{3}} \label{Neel3D}
\end{equation}
-- the 3D structure-specific relation of the effective exchange interaction to the
N{\'e}el temperature.
The assumptions used in Appendix \ref{SpinWave} for deriving the formula eq. (\ref{Neel3D})
are not satisfied in strongly anisotropic systems where $\left\vert J_{\perp}\right\vert \ll J_{\parallel}$.
In this limit the N{\'e}el temperature is to be determind from the transcendental
equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{Neel2D}
\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{S_{d}-S_{a}}{S_{d}S_{a}}\frac{\theta_{\mathrm{N}}}{J_{\Vert}}\frac{1}{S_{d}+S_{a}}\log\left(\frac{S_{d}-S_{a}}{S_{d}^{2}}\frac{\theta_{\mathrm{N}}}{\left\vert J_{\bot}\right\vert }\right)=1,
\end{equation}
and the magnetization is given by:
\begin{equation}
M_{s}=M_{0}\left[1-\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{S_{d}-S_{a}}{S_{d}S_{a}}\frac{1}{S_{d}+S_{a}}\frac{\theta}{J_{\Vert}}\log\left(\frac{S_{d}-S_{a}}{S_{d}^{2}}\frac{\theta}{\left\vert J_{\bot}\right\vert }\right)\right]
\end{equation}
provided $\theta$ is close enough to $\theta_{\mathrm{N}}$.
Neither three-dimensional (3D) or two-dimensional (2D) estimates of
the N\'{e}el temperature eqs. (\ref{Neel3D}) and (\ref{Neel2D}), respectively,
permits to determine the longitudinal and transversal interactions independently and to establish by this the
amount of anisotropy.
The effective exchange interaction $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff} = \sqrt[3]{J_{\parallel }^2J_{\perp}}$
as derived from eq. (\ref{Neel3D}) and the experimental N\'{e}el temperature
for the HM V(TCNE)$_2$ compound
amounts $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}({\rm V}) = $ 36 K. This is due rather large numerical value of the
transition coefficient
in eq. (\ref{Neel3D})
coupling the
effective exchange interaction with the N\'{e}el temperature (11.376 for the
structure depicted in Fig. 1 and $S_d = \frac32; S_a = \frac12 $). This result is in a general agreement
with the result of Ref. \cite{WeiQiuDu} which yields the corresponding coefficient
to be 9.937 for a simple cubic ferrimagnet with the same values of the effective spins.
(It is not clear how the estimate of {\it ca.} 100 K for $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}({\rm V})$
is obtained in Ref. \cite{PPEM2001} since is also based on assumption
of a simple cubic lattice magnetic structure,
but apparently uses some different coefficient).
It also stresses the different character of averaging of intralayer and interlayer
exchange parameters in the mean field (arithmetic mean) and in the spin-wave (geometric mean)
approximations. At the high anisotropies the geometric mean provides much stronger dependence of the
effective exchange on the interlayer exchange than the arithmetic mean.
Whatever value of $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}$ leaves a wide range of
possibilities since each pair of
values of $J_{\perp} $ and $J_{\parallel } $ yielding the above value of $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}({\rm V})$
conforms with the experimental data on magnetization.
It has to be realized, however, that using the Bloch $T^{\frac{3}{2}}$ law
for the magnetization
in the entire temperature range below $T_{N}$ is an extrapolation of the data
obtained at low temperatures.
In order to check its validity in a wider temperature range we notice that
according to it the
magnetization depletion at the an intermediate temperature (225 K) amounts
the factor of 0.592 which looks out to be in an acceptable agreement with experiment
which shows the magnetization depletion
by a factor of {\it ca.} 0.6
at this temperature as compared to that at $T=0$.
In the HM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ case the measured magnetization values
are available up to 300 K. The Bloch $T^{\frac{3}{2}}$-law for the
temperature dependence of spontaneous magnetization results in a simple formula
for the slope of the magnetization {\it vs.} temperature in the N\'{e}el point:
\begin{equation}
-\frac32 \frac {M_0}{T_{\rm N}}
\end{equation}%
As one can derive from the magnetization data on the HM compound given in Ref.
\cite{MillerEpstein} the slope of the magnetization of the HM material in the N\'{e}el point
amounts $\displaystyle -1.4 \frac {M_0}{T_{\rm N}}$ which is a fair extrapolation
of the last measured points. It suggests the 3D
regime for the HM material in the entire temperature interval up to the N\'{e}el point.
Nevertheless the possibility
of transition to the 2D regime at $T > 300$ K cannot be {\it a priori} excluded.
Then for the 2D regime the slope
of magnetization {\it vs.} temperature
in the N\'{e}el point
is:
\begin{equation}
-M_0\frac{ k_B}{4\pi J_{\parallel }}\frac{S_d - S_a}{S_d S_a} \frac{1}{S_d + S_a}
\left(1 + \log\left(\frac{S_d - S_a}{S _d ^2}\frac{k_B T_{\rm N}}{ \left\vert J_{\perp } \right\vert }\right)\right)
\end{equation}%
When combined with eq. (\ref{Neel2D}) it yields:
\begin{equation}
-M_0\left(\frac{k_B}{4\pi J_{\parallel }}\frac{S_d - S_a}{S_d S_a} \frac{1}{S_d + S_a} + \frac {1}{T_{\rm N}}\right)
\end{equation}%
Employing the value of the slope extracted from Fig. 1
of Ref. \cite{MillerEpstein} we derive $k_B T_{\rm N} = 2.4 \pi J_{\parallel}$, and inserting
experimental (extrapolated) value of $ T_{\rm N}$ yields immediately
$J_{\parallel} = 54 $ K and together with the value of $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}$ extracted from
low temperature data allows to estimate anisotropy to be
($J_{\parallel }/J_{\perp} \approx 3 $).
At the above
intermediate temperature (225 K) the 2D estimate with this anisotropy
shows the depletion of magnetization
to be 0.595 of the
maximal value at 0 K as well in a perfect agreement with experiment, which shows that
the available data on the temperature dependence of magnetization in HM V(TCNE)$_2$ do not allow
to distinguish between the 3D and 2D regimes.
It must be admitted that in general the above value of anisotropy is not large enough
($ \sim 3 $) for the 2D regime to install. This analysis, however, allows us to set bounds for the
value $J_{\parallel }$ in the V(TCNE)$_2$ compound as derived from the spin-wave treatment: it appears that
this compound resides in the 3D regime so that the above value of anisotropy must be considered as a maximal possible
in this materia
. Otherwise even higher N\'{e}el temperatures (although not accessible expreimentally due to material's
decomposition) still conforming to the applicability conditions ($2J_{\perp}S_d^2 \ll \theta \ll 4 J_{\parallel }S_d S_a $) Ref. \cite{Katanin-Irkhin} of the logarithmic formula eq. (\ref{Neel2D}) should have to be admitted.
Applying analogous treatment to the Fe(TCNE)$_2$ compound for which the structure presented
in Fig. 1 is {\em experimentally} established yields the following: $J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff} = 9.5$ K
(the coefficient of 12.914 coming from eq. (\ref{Neel3D}) with $S_d = 2$ is used). With the anisotropy
of $2.5^3 = 15.625$ the 2D estimate of the N\'{e}el temperature is 124 K again in a fair agreement with
the experiment. The value of $J_{\parallel }$ is then 24 K. This turns out to be
not that much different from the upper boundary for the same quantity for the
V(TCNE)$_2$ compound yielding the ratio of the intralayer exchange parameters for the
two materials of maximum only two, instead of 4 $\div $ 5 stipulated
by the mean field estimates, and only 1.5 if the isotropic regime is accepted for
the V(TCNE)$_2$ compound.
This latter value can be fairly explained by addressing the formulae
of Appendix \ref{SpinHamiltonian} and the spectroscopic data. From eq. (\ref{Heisenberg-exchange-parameter})
it follows that the ratio $J_{\parallel }({\rm V})/J_{\parallel }({\rm Fe})$
of the intralayer
parameters for the vanadium and iron compounds
is that of the squared hopping parameters $t_{da}$. (We assume here that due to similarity
of the environment in these two compounds the energy denominators in eq. (\ref{Heisenberg-exchange-parameter})
given by eq. (\ref{EnergyDenominators})
are the same for the both compounds since the values of
ionisation potentials
of the V$^{2+}$ and Fe$^{2+}$ ions which are respectively 29.55 and 30.90 eV
as coming from Ref. \cite{NIST} and similarly close estimates for the electron affinities for these ions).
According to suggestion by \cite{Anderson} thoroughly tested numerically in Refs. \cite{Tch017,Tch033,Tch037} the amounts of the crystal field splitting in the
coordination compounds are proportional to analogous expressions: squares of the hopping parameters
divided by some (other) energy denominators, which are, however, also approximately equal in
similar compounds. Thus the proportion holds:
\[
\frac{J_{\parallel}({\rm V})}{J_{\parallel}({\rm Fe})} = \frac{10Dq({\rm V})}{10Dq({\rm Fe})}
\]
for pairs of similar complexes in each side of the proportion. For the right side of the proportion we find with the
values of Refs.
\cite{Hitchcock,Lever} $10Dq({\rm V}) = 14700 $ cm$^{-1}$, $10Dq({\rm Fe}) = 10900 $ cm$^{-1}$
to be
1.35 for the hexacoordinate octahedral complexes with acetonitile, which
basically explains the above ratio 1.5 of the intralayer exchange parameters. Of course,
the significant difference of anisotropies in these two materials remains to be understood.
This can be
tentatively done with use of the Goodenough-Kanamori rules \cite{Goodenough}. Indeed, the difference in
the interlayer interactions requiring an explanation is too large, so that probably a qualitative
distinction between the two materials is responsible for it. As we mentioned above the simplistic
application of the Goodenough-Kanamori rules in the present situation yields an {\em antiferromagnetic}
sign of the interlayer interaction (the situation falls into the Goodenough-Kanamori cation-anion-cation category in the
180$^{\circ}$ geometry). Thus the observed {\em ferromagnetic} sign of the interlayer interaction appears as
a result of ferromagnetic contributions of the higher order. Such contributions depend qualitatively on the
possibility to take advantage of the intrashell ferromagnetic interactions which in their turn depend on
the occupancies of the atomic orbitals in the d-shells of the interacting transition metal cations.
(Importance of such terms in the context of organometallic magnets had been stressed in Refs.
\cite{Tch018,Tch019}). It can be easily understood that the conditions for appearance of the
compensating ferromagnetic terms are very much different for the V$^{2+}$ and Fe$^{2+}$ ions. Indeed, in the case
of the V$^{2+}$ ion
two $d$-orbitals remain empty and can participate in the one-electron transfer coupled with
the intrashell exchange eq.(\ref{dd-ferro}) compensating otherwise dominating antiferromagnetic
kinetic exchange. In the case of the Fe$^{2+}$ ion only one {\em doubly} occupied $d$-orbital can take part in a
similar process, so that one can expect that the compensating contribution will be significantly weaker
in the case of the Fe(TCNE)$_2$ compound eventually leading to much weaker overall {\em ferromagnetic}
interlayer interaction, than in the case of the V(TCNE)$_2$ compound.
\section{Discussion}
In the present Section we apply the models proposed above to analysis of
experimantal data available for the HM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ and Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ compounds.
First of all we notice that the spin polarization per unit cell (number of
electrons with spin up minus that with spin down) which can be related with
observed magnetization per formula unit. We see that the
calculation performed for V(TCNE)$_{2}$ at the experimental structure
of Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ depicted on
Fig. 1
shows the spin
polarization of {\it ca.} 8 spins-1/2 per unit cell corresponding to two netto
unpaired electrons per formula unit which is in a fair agreement with the magnetization
measured in the HM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ compound. On the other hand
the LM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ material manifests a weaker
saturation magnetization, namely corresponding to {\it ca. } one netto unpaired
electron per formula unit. This allows to think about certain differences in the
structures of two materials. Nevertheless, both experimentally observed values ({\it ca.} 10$%
\cdot $10$^{3}$ emu$\cdot $Oe$\cdot $mol$^{-1}$ and 6$\cdot $10$^{3}$ emu$%
\cdot $Oe$\cdot $mol$^{-1}$, respectively) both deviate from the theoretical
values of 11.2 and 5.6 giving the magnetization produced by the integer
number of netto spin-polarized electrons in an assumption of the Land\'{e} factor
being equal to 2.
When trying to extend the model Ref. \cite{Her} of the Fe(TCNE)$_2$ compound to
analysis of the V(TCNE)$_2$
compound the authors Ref. \cite{Her} argued that the vanadium compound must have some
structure different from the iron one since the saturation magnetization in it is lower and
approximately corresponds to two spins $1/2$ compensating (interacting
antiferromagnetically with) one spin $3/2$ per formula unit. From this
observation the authors of Ref. \cite{Her} conclude that the interlayer
interactions must be mediated by $\mu _{4}$-TCNE radical-anions, as it has
been suggested yet in \cite{Tchougreeff-Hoffmann}, rather by the
[TCNE]$_2^{2-}$ dimers.
This argument applies of course only to the LM form of the V(TCNE)$_2$ material
since for its HM form our numerical experiment shows that for the
experimental structure of the Fe(TCNE)$_2$ compound the calculated magnetization fairly
corresponds to the experimental value obtained on the HM V(TCNE)$_2$ material.
Incidentally, the magnetization values obtained numerically at
intermediate structures on the \ "reaction path" depicted on Fig. 3
allows us to assume that some similar structures obtained from
structures of Fig. 2
by rotations of some TCNE units may present in
the LM V-TCNE material. This view had found a
recent support from the computational side in Ref. \cite{DeFusco} where a structure
for the LM form of V(TCNE)$_2$ has been proposed. It would be fair to say (although
it is not said in Ref. \cite{DeFusco}) that this structure as well descends from the
structures of Refs. \cite{Tchougreeff-Hoffmann, Tch082}. Specifically,
in order to obtain the structure of Ref. \cite{DeFusco} one has to rotate
the TCNE molecule laying in the $bc$-face
of either of these structures depicted in Fig. 2
in each of the unit cells
around the diagonal of the face (or around
an axis going through the pair of {\it trans}-nitrogen atoms of that TCNE unit)
by {\it ca. } 90$^\circ$ so that two other N-atoms of each rotating TCNE unit go out of
coordination with the V ions. Such a structure corresponds as that of Ref. \cite{Tchougreeff-Hoffmann}
and the principal one (see above) of Ref. \cite{Tch082} to two TCNE$^{\dot{-}}$ units per
unit cell each bearing one unpaired electron and thus expectedly yield the overall
magnetization corresponding to one unpaired electron per formula unit. For such a structure
the magnetic interaction parameters obtained in Ref. \cite{DeFusco} are almost isotropic
($J_{\perp} = 720 $ K and $J_{\parallel } = 690 $ K) which is also not surprising
since the character of interactions between the V $d$-shells and LUMO's of the TCNE$^{\dot{-}}$
units are fairly the same in either direction. The numerical values of the exchange
parameters obtained in Ref. \cite{DeFusco} are for sure
considerable overestimates of the true ones since the N{\'e}el temperature derived from them either
by the mean field or spin-wave methods exceeds the experimental value by orders of magnitude.
Nevertheless, applying the spin-wave theory similar to that described in Section \ref{SpinWave}
results in the estimate for $k_B T_{\rm N} = 9.14 J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}$ which yields the numerical value of
$J^{\rm SW}_{\rm eff}$ for the LM form of V(TCNE)$_2$ material of 45 K in fair agreement with the similar above estimates for the
intralayer effective exchange parameters.
It must also
be admitted that the spin-wave treatment of the model of Ref. \cite{DeFusco} leaves the question of the
reason of complete disagreement of the temperature dependence of the magnetization in the
LM compound as given in Ref. \cite{MillerEpstein} with the Bloch law which should be expected for almost isotropic
ferrimagnet unanswered.
\section{Conclusion}
In the present paper we performed detailed analysis of our numerical results
concerning thinkable structure of room-temperature organometallic magnet
V(TCNE)$_{2}$ as manifested in the corresponding projections of DoS. Similar
analysis of projected DoS for a sequence of structures leading to the
tentative experimental structure of V(TCNE)$_{2}$ is performed as well.
Model spin Hamiltonian is developed for analysis and
interpretation of numerical results and experimental data. Analysis of
magnetic data in terms of the approximate models derived from the
phenomenological Hamiltonian is performed. A remarkable
correspondence between experimental (structural and magnetic) data on V(TCNE)%
$_{x}\cdot y\ {\rm solvent}$ and numerical model has been observed previously:
magnetization corresponding to two unpaired electrons per formula unit in fair
agreement with experiment on HM V-TCNE material derived from V(CO)$_{6}$ by CVD
technique is obtained numerically for V(TCNE)$_{2}$ taken in the relaxed
experimental Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ geometry Ref. \cite{Tch082}. Now it is complemented by
the detailed analysis of the magnon spectrum of this model. The possible transition
between the low-temperature 3D and the high-temperature 2D regimes is discussed.
Estimates
of parameters of the proposed spin-Hamiltonian as treated in the spin-wave
approximation are derived from the experimental data on
the N\'{e}el temperature and the temperature dependence of magnetization. The differences in
magnetic behavior of probably isostructural HM V(TCNE)$_{2}$ and Fe(TCNE)$_{2}$ are
tentatively explained.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is performed with the partial support of the RFBR grant No
07-03-01128 extended to ALT. The generous support of the visit and stay of \
ALT at RWTH -- Aachen University by DFG through the grant No DR 342/20-1 is
gratefully acknowledged. ALT is thankful to Dr B. Eck for his help in
mastering the solid state electronic structure analysis software at the IAC
of the RWTH and to Drs. A.M. Tokmachev, I.V. Pletnev, and
J. von Appen for valuable discussions. Prof. Joel S.
Miller is acknowledged for kindly drawing the authors' attention to Ref. \cite{DeFusco} and for
sending a preprint of his work \cite{MillerPreprint} prior to publication.
|
\section{Introduction}
The CO observations of ultra-luminous infra-red galaxies (ULIGals) find
the gas mass in the inner regions of the galaxy to be about
5$\times10^9$M$_\odot$, and the average particle density to be of order
10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$ and the kinetic temperature of molecular gas
$\sim 50-100$ K (e.g. Downes
\& Solomon, 1998; see Sanders \& Mirabel, 1996, for a review). The gas
in the central $\sim$kpc region of the galaxy is likely to have come
from distances of the order of 10 kpc when it lost some of its angular momentum
due to gravitational tidal torques (Barnes \& Hernquist, 1992, and
references therein; see Barnes, 2002, for a more recent numerical simulation).
The inner kiloparsec region of most young massive galaxies is likely composed
of a gaseous disk with a mass of several hundred million solar masses,
ULIGal being at the extreme end of the mass distribution. This gaseous disk is
expected to host star formation at a large rate.
Some of these stars will explode and give rise to shock waves in the gaseous
disk which will spawn both more star formation and accretion of gas toward the center of the galaxy.
We consider these processes analytically in some detail in this paper, paying special attention to
the effect they might have on the evolution of the central parts of the galaxy and on the growth of a
central black hole.
There exists a large body of work on the subject of galaxy
mergers, star formation and black hole growth e.g. Sanders et al. (1988),
Kauffmann \& Haehnelt (2000), Kawakatu \& Umemura (2002), Granato et al. (2004), Croton et al. (2006),
Kauffmann \& Heckman (2009), Chen et al. (2009), (pl. see Kormendy \&
Kennicutt, 2004, for a review), and sophisticated numerical simulations
e.g. Barnes \& Hernquist (1991, 1996),
Mihos \& Hernquist (1996), Di Matteo et al. (2005), Springel et al. (2005),
Hopkins et al. (2005), Hopkins \& Hernquist (2008). What is different in
the present work is that we try to capture some of the basic
properties of this complex system using analytic results for supernova (SNa)
remnant evolution and other simple physical scalings which are hard to
capture in numerical simulations due to the large ratio of galaxy size
and SNa shell radius.
The physical system we consider is described in \S2 along with the
effect SNe have on accretion. Bulge formation as a product of
SN-induced star formation in the gaseous disk is
discussed in \S3. The main conclusions and uncertainties
of this study can be found in \S4.
\section{Supernovae-induced accretion in a gas disk}
Numerical simulations of gaseous disks (e.g. Wada \& Norman, 2001)
find the medium to be multi-phase and highly filamentary as a result of
star formation and stellar explosion. For the analytical calculations
in this work, where our primary interest is in average disk properties,
we consider a simplified disk structure that ignores its filamentary density
structure; accordingly, the gas distribution is taken to be a smooth function
of distance from the center. Many of the results reported in this work,
as we shall see, have a weak dependence of the interstellar medium (ISM)
density and therefore the error introduced by the assumption of smooth density
field in the disk should not be large.
We consider a disk, roughly 1 kpc in radius, consisting of
$\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle > 10^8$ M$_\odot$ in gas that came from larger radius ($\sim 10$s kpc)
due to e.g., tidal interaction with another galaxy. The mean gas density
in the disk at 1 kpc is $\sim 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$. Stars form and die in the
disk at a certain rate; we take the SNa rate in the disk to
be $d f_{sn}(r)/dA$ per unit area per year.
The interaction between the remnant of a supernova with
the gaseous disk carves out a cavity in the disk. The gas swept
up by a supernova is compressed into a thin shell during the snowplow phase,
which starts when the thermal cooling time scale of the shocked gas is
less than the age of the remnant. This means that a certain amount of gas
is pushed closer to the galactic center by the supernova shock wave and, of
course, a certain amount is pushed outward. However, unless gas pushed inwards
by the supernova shock loses angular momentum it will be pushed back
out to a larger radius when the shock weakens. We shall estimate later in
this section the loss of angular momentum for gas pushed closer to the
galactic center by the SNa, in order to determine if it is sufficient to
keep the swept up gas at a smaller radius.
But first, we estimate the amount of gas swept up and pushed to smaller
radius by a supernova.
Let us consider a supernova going off in the disk at radius $r$. The number
density of particles in the disk at this radius is $n(r)$,
the vertical scale height is $H(r)$, and the mean rotation
speed of gas on its circular orbit is $V_{orb}(r)$. During the adiabatic
expansion of the SNa shell -- the Sedov-Taylor phase -- the
radius, speed and temperature of the shock front are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R_s(t) &=& 3.1 t_4^{2/5} n_3^{-1/5} E_{51}^{1/5} \;{\rm pc}, \label{st1}
\\\nonumber\\[-.5cm]
V_s(t) &=& 123 t_4^{-3/5} n_3^{-1/5} E_{51}^{1/5} \;{\rm km}\,
{\rm s}^{-1}, \label{st2} \\\nonumber\\[-.5cm]
T(t) &=& 2.1\times10^{5} t_4^{-6/5} n_3^{-2/5} E_{51}^{2/5}\;{\rm K}^o,
\label{st3}
\label{st}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_4=t/10^4$yrs, $E_{51}=E/10^{51}$erg, and $n_3=n/10^3$cm$^{-3}$ is
the particle number density of gas in the disk at radius $r$. The Sedov-Taylor
phase ends when the radiative cooling time $t_{cool} = 0.67 k T/(n\Lambda)$ is
equal to the dynamical time; $\Lambda\approx10^{-16} T^{-1}$ergs cm$^3$
s$^{-1}$ (Blondin et al. 1998). The radiative phase begins at time
\begin{equation}
t_{snow} \approx 723 n_3^{-9/17} E_{51}^{4/17}\; {\rm yrs}.
\label{tsnow}
\end{equation}
Subsequently, during the snowplow phase ($t>t_{snow}$), the evolution is
described by (cf. Chevalier, 1974; eq. 26)
\begin{eqnarray}
R_s(t) & \approx & 0.8 (t/t_{snow})^{0.31} n_3^{-7/17} E_{51}^{5/17}\;{\rm pc},
\label{rsnow} \\\nonumber\\[-.5cm]
V_s(t) & \approx & 595 (t/t_{snow})^{-0.69} n_3^{2/17} E_{51}^{1/17}\;{\rm km}
\,{\rm s}^{-1}, \label{vsnow} \\\nonumber\\[-.5cm]
M_s(t) & \approx & 133 (t/t_{snow})^{0.93} n_3^{-4/17} E_{51}^{15/17}
\;{\rm M}_\odot, \label{msnow}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_s$ is the mass of gas swept up by the SNa remnant.
These equations are valid only as long as the shell radius is less than
the vertical scale-height $H$:
\begin{equation}
H = {2^{1/2} (C_s^2+V_t^2)^{1/2}\over \Omega} = {2^{1/2} r (C_s^2+V_t^2)^{1/2}
\over V_{orb}} \sim (500 {\rm pc})\, r_3^{3/2} \left( { V_t\over
10 {\rm km\,s}^{-1}} \right) \left( {M(r)\over 10^8 M_\odot}
\right)^{-1/2}\,
\label{scaleH}
\end{equation}
where $r_3$ = $r$/10$^3$ pc, $C_{\rm s}\sim 1$km s$^{-1}$ is the sound speed,
$V_t$ is the RMS turbulence velocity in the gaseous disk (produced by
SNa explosions and winds from early type stars), and $M(r)$ is the
total mass enclosed within radius $r$.
The Toomre $Q$ parameter for the gravitational instability of the gaseous disk
is:
\begin{equation}
Q = {2 (C_s^2+V_t^2)^{1/2} \Omega\over \pi G \Sigma} \sim 1 V_{t,6} M_8^{-1/2}
r_3^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma$ is the mass density per unit area, $V_{t,6}\equiv
V_t/10^6$cm s$^{-1}$, and $M_8\equiv M(r)/10^8 M_\odot$. We see from
the above equation that the disk is gravitationally unstable, and will
support an on-going star formation activity.
Ignoring density gradients in the disk ($R_s\ll r$ \& $R_s<H$), the
expansion of a SNa shell is
nearly spherically symmetric until the Coriolis or centrifugal
force per unit mass becomes of order the deceleration of
SNa remnant. This occurs when V$_s \Omega_{orb} \approx d$ V$_s/dt$,
or $t\approx 0.69/\Omega_{orb}$, and defines a characteristic time
when the shell is no longer spherical.
\begin{equation}
t_{shear} \approx 7\times10^6 r_3 V_{orb,2}^{-1} \; {\rm yrs} \,
\label{tshear}
\end{equation}
where $V_{\rm orb,2}$ = $V_{\rm orb}$ / 100 km~s$^{-1}$. In fact, at this time the
magnitude of the shear velocity across the shell --
$R_s\,d\Omega_{orb}/d\ln r$ -- is of order the speed of the SNa remnant. The
SNa shell is thus dispersed by the shear flow in the disk and mixed with
the ambient ISM on this time scale.
The radius, velocity and mass of the remnant at this time is
\begin{eqnarray}
R_s(t_{shear}) & \sim & 14\, n_3^{-0.25} E_{51}^{0.22} r_3^{0.31}
V_{orb,2}^{-0.31} \;
{\rm pc}, \label{rshear} \\\nonumber\\[-.5cm]
V_s(t_{shear}) & \sim & 1.1\, n_3^{-0.25}E_{51}^{0.22}V_{orb,2}^{0.69}
r_3^{-0.69}
\;{\rm km}\, {\rm s}^{-1}, \label{vshear} \\\nonumber\\[-.5cm]
M_s(t_{shear}) & \sim & 7\times10^5 \,r_3^{0.93} V_{orb,2}^{-0.93} n_3^{0.25}
E_{51}^{0.66} \;{\rm M}_\odot.
\label{mshear}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $R_s(t_{shear})\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle < H$, and therefore the SNa shell is confined
within the disk unless $r\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle < 10$pc. Since the shell velocity is small
compared with the orbital speed when $R_s\sim H$ pc, the swept
up gas in the disk cannot escape the galactic potential.
During the snowplow phase the swept-up gas is compressed into a thin shell,
forming a hollow sphere. Therefore, half of the swept up ISM gas, of mass
$M_s/2$, is pushed closer to the center of the galaxy
by a distance $\sim R_s/2$. For an ensemble of SNe going off in the disk
the net amount of gas that is accreted at $r$ depends on the SNe rate as
a function of distance from the galactic center ($r$) and is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{acc} \sim R_s {d\over dr} \left( {M_s(r)\over2} [2\pi r R_s]
{d f_{sn}\over dA} \right) \sim M_s (R_s/r)^2 f_{sn}(r)
\label{acc1}
\end{equation}
where $f_{sn}(r)$ is the cumulative SNa rate within the radius $r$. We assumed
that ($M_s R_s f_{sn}/r$) is an increasing function of $r$ in deriving the
second part of the above equation; otherwise, SNe would lead to a net outflow
of gas in the disk to larger distances. Since $M_s R_s\propto n^{0.01}$
during the snowplow phase (combine eqs. \ref{rsnow} \& \ref{msnow}, \&
substituting for $t_{snow}$ from eq. \ref{tsnow})
as long as $f_{sn}(r)$ increases with distance faster than $r^{1}$ there is a
net mass accretion even when SNa remnants are spherically symmetric.
For a Mestel disk the mass enclosed inside radius $r$ increases linearly
with $r$, and in that case there is no net accretion -- for spherical SNe --
if the rate of stellar explosions is linearly proportional to gas mass.
We shall see below that the condition on $f_{sn}(r)$ is relaxed when we
consider the distortion of SNe remnants by Coriolis and centrifugal forces.
Equation (\ref{acc1}) for accretion rate is also modified when SNe shells
undergo collision before $t_{shear}$; this is discussed below.
However, in any case we need to make sure that gas pushed inward
by a SNa loses specific angular momentum; otherwise, it would be
pushed back out when the shock becomes sufficiently weak.
It should be noted that half of a SNa shell has negative angular momentum
(as seen by an observer at the center of the explosion comoving with the
disk), and the other half, with prograde velocity field, has positive
angular momentum. The magnitude of the total positive/negative angular
momentum grows during the adiabatic expansion as $|L_\pm|\approx M_s V_s r/2
\propto 1/V_s$ (the second part of this relation follows from energy
conservation during the adiabatic expansion phase).
However, the angular momentum does not increase much during
the snowplow phase when $M_s V_s$ is approximately constant. The magnitude
of the negative angular momentum carried inward by the lower half of a
SNa shell ($|L_-|$) is quite large and that can lead -- as we shall see
shortly -- to an accretion rate in a gas rich disk (like ULIGal)
of order a few solar masses per year.
It can be shown that, for a freely expanding shell, particles on half of
the shell with negative angular momentum -- that have retrograde velocity
as seen by a comoving observer at the center of explosion --
will on average descend a distance
of $\Delta r = (8V_{orb}/\pi V_s - 1) R_s^2/4r$ in the radial direction
(as a result of Coriolis and centrifugal forces in the comoving frame), as
long as $V_s\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle > R_s |d \Omega_{orb}/d\ln r|$. Particles on the other half of
the shell with positive angular momentum, or prograde velocity, will move
outward the same distance. Thus, the shell is continuously distorted with
time as a result of tidal stretching and Coriolis force.
Part of the lower half of the shell (lying closer to the galactic center)
with transverse velocity component in the direction of the orbital
velocity has a positive angular momentum with respect to
the center of explosion, and the part with transverse velocity opposite to
the orbital motion has negative specific angular momentum.
The net amount of negative angular momentum carried by the distorted lower
half of the shell, during the snowplow phase, as seen by an observer
comoving with the center of explosion, is
\begin{equation}
\delta L \approx \Delta r (L_{-}/R_s) \approx M_s R_s V_{orb}/\pi.
\label{am1}
\end{equation}
When the lower half of the shell is mixed -- due to shear stretching or
collision with
other shells -- the net mean specific angular momentum of the mixed fluid
is smaller by $\sim 2 R_s V_{orb}/\pi$ than a particle at the center
of the explosion orbiting the galaxy. This is a sufficient amount of negative
angular momentum to keep the mixed lower half of shell moving on a circular
orbit at a smaller radius of $(r-R_s/2)$.
Thus, the constraint discussed earlier on $f_{sn}$ for inward mass accretion
is relaxed because there is a net outward transport of positive angular
momentum associated with each SNa shell.
The rate of angular momentum transported by an ensemble of SNe in the disk is
\begin{equation}
\dot L \sim \delta L (2\pi r R_s) {d f_{sn}\over dA} \sim {2M_s\over \pi}
R_s V_{orb} (R_s/r) f_{sn},
\label{am2}
\end{equation}
and the accretion rate resulting from this outward angular momentum transport
is
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{acc} \approx {\dot L \over r V_{orb} }\approx {2M_s f_{sn}\over
\pi} \left( {R_s\over r}\right)^2,
\label{acc2}
\end{equation}
which is similar in magnitude to that given by equation (\ref{acc1}), i.e.
SNe transport mass inward for a larger class of functions for $f_{sn}(r)$ than
suggested by the discussion following equation (\ref{acc1}).
The accretion rate depends on the shell radius ($R_s$) at the time when
SNe shells collide with each other or when the shell is dispersed and
mixed due to shear flow in the disk. We consider both of these cases below.
Given a supernova rate of $f_{sn}$ per year within radius $r$ of the disk,
the mean separation between SNe that occurred within time $t$ is
\begin{equation}
d_{sn} \approx 1.8\, \frac{r}{1 {\rm kpc}}\, \left(\frac{t}{1 {\rm yr}}\right)^{-1/2} f_{sn}^{-1/2}\;{\rm kpc}.
\end{equation}
SNe shells collide when their size is of order the mean separation i.e.
$R_s(t)\approx d_{sn}$. The mean collision time, $t_{coll}$, is estimated
using equation (\ref{rsnow}), and is given by
\begin{equation}
t_{coll} \approx 1.7\times 10^5\, n_3^{0.31} f_{sn}^{-0.62} E_{51}^{-0.27}
r_3^{1.23}\; {\rm yrs}.
\label{tcoll}
\end{equation}
The ratio of the collision time and the time it takes for a SNa shell
to be dispersed due to shear velocity in the disk is
\begin{equation}
{t_{shear}\over t_{coll} } \approx 40 n_3^{-0.31} f_{sn}^{0.62} r_3^{-0.23}
V_{orb,2}^{-1} E_{51}^{0.27}.
\end{equation}
The accretion rate when $t_{shear}/t_{coll}\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle < 1$ is given by (using
eqs. \ref{rshear}, \ref{mshear} \& \ref{acc2})
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{acc} \sim M_s(t_{shear}) f_{sn} \left[{R_s(t_{shear}) \over r}
\right]^2 \sim 80 \, f_{sn} n_3^{-0.25} r_3^{-0.45}
V_{orb,2}^{-1.55} E_{51}^{1.1}\; {\rm M}_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.
\label{acc3}
\end{equation}
The condition for a remnant not to collide with others before $t_{shear}$
places a limit on the supernova rate of
\begin{equation}
f_{sn} \lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle < 3\times10^{-3}\, n_3^{1/2} V_{orb,2}^{1.6} r_3^{0.37}
E_{51}^{-0.44}\; {\rm yr}^{-1} \equiv f_{sn}^{coll}.
\label{fsn}
\end{equation}
The second part of eq. (\ref{acc3}) is valid only when the SNa rate is
less than the rate given in eq. (\ref{fsn}); the accretion rate
corresponding to this limiting SNa rate is
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{acc} \sim 0.3 n_3^{0.25} E_{51}^{0.66} r_3^{-0.08}
V_{orb,2}^{0.05} \;{\rm M}_\odot \;{\rm yr}^{-1},
\label{acc3a}
\end{equation}
The accretion rate has a very weak dependence on $f_{sn}$ when the
SNa rate is larger than the rate given in equation (\ref{fsn}), i.e.
when SNe shells collide before $t_{shear}$.
The reason is that the SNa shell radius at the time of shell collision
($t_{coll}\propto f_{sn}^{-0.62}$) is $R_s\propto f_{sn}^{-0.19}$ and
the shell mass is $M_s\propto R_s^3\propto f_{sn}^{-0.57}$; therefore,
the accretion rate $\dot M_{acc} \sim M_s(R_s/r)^2 f_{sn} \propto
f_{sn}^{0.05}$. For the case of $t_{shear}/t_{coll}> 1$, the accretion
rate is given by:
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{acc} \approx 0.3 \, n_3^{0.25} f_{sn}^{0.05} E_{51}^{0.7}
r_3^{-0.14} \; M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.
\label{acc4}
\end{equation}
For $\dot M_{acc}$ to be independent of $r$ the density should scale
as $f_{sn}(r)^{-0.2}r^{0.5}$. However, for a non-equilibrium situation in
the early phases of galaxy formation and frequent mergers this equilibrium
density scaling is not applicable.
When a large quantity of gas is deposited within a few kpc following a merger
event or a tidal encounter, the high rate
of star formation and SNe at $r\sim 1$kpc would cause a rapid rate of
accretion of gas to smaller radii, $\dot M_{acc}\sim M_s(t_{shear})
f_{sn}\sim 10^7$M$_\odot$ $f_{sn}$ yr$^{-1}$ after a lag of $\sim 10^7$ yrs,
which will continue until star formation and SNa explosions at smaller radii
start to inhibit this large accretion rate; The subsequent accretion
rate would settle down to the value given by equation (\ref{acc4}).
Note that the cumulative effect of SNe is to create a random velocity field
in the disk, but that does not automatically ensure accretion. We must
have an outward angular momentum transport in order for accretion to proceed.
An interesting example is that of convective instability in a disk;
Ryu \& Goodman (1992) have shown that disk-convection transports
angular momentum inward, and therefore the turbulent velocity field
associated with it does not lead to any accretion.
Similarly, the random velocity field in a disk is large when the SNa rate
is high and yet because shells collide before they are significantly
deformed the outward transport of angular momentum increases very weakly
with $f_{sn}$ (eq. \ref{acc4}).
The accretion rate in terms of an effective $\alpha$-viscosity,
$\nu \equiv \alpha R_s(t_{coll}) V_s(t_{coll})$, in the limit that
$f_{sn} > f_{sn}^{coll}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot M_{acc} \sim 2\pi m_p n H \nu \sim 1.2 \alpha (H/0.1r) n_3^{0.39}
f_{sn}^{0.24} E_{51}^{0.54} r_3^{0.53}\; M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Comparing this with equation (\ref{acc4}) we see that $\alpha\sim1$
for $f_{sn}\sim f_{sn}^{coll}$ (given by eq. \ref{fsn}), and $\alpha$ is smaller for a larger SNa
rate, although the effective $\alpha$ is dependent on $r$.
If SNe remnants punch through the disk in the vertical direction, but are
still confined by the galactic potential, then some fraction of gas leaving
the disk will eventually fall back onto the disk at a smaller radius and
contribute to the net accretion rate. A SNa is confined to the galaxy provided that
\begin{equation}
R_s(\min\{t_{coll},t_{shear}\}) < H \quad {\rm or} \quad
V_s(R_s=H) < V_{orb}.
\end{equation}
If many SNe shells collide and coalesce before they are dispersed they would
form super-shells and if their velocity is sufficiently high they can escape
the galactic potential. Otherwise, these super-shells would also contribute
to transporting gas to smaller radius.
\section{Star and bulge formation and growth of a central black hole}
The possibility of SNa-induced star formation has been discussed in numerous contexts, from the early
universe to the present day Milky Way (e.g. Woodward 1976; Bedogni \&
Woodward 1990; Yamada \& Nishi 1998; Mackey et al. 2003; Bratsolis et al. 2004; Joung \& Mac Low 2006;
Johnson \& Bromm 2006; Sakuma \& Susa 2009; Le\~{a}o et al. 2009; Nagakura et al. 2009).
Here we consider how this process may compete with the fueling of black holes
and contribute to the formation of galactic bulges.
For a Miller-Scalo initial-mass function (IMF) for stars (Scalo, 1986):
\begin{equation}
{dN\over dM} = 4.5 N_*\times \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\hskip -5pt 1.9 (M/0.01M_\odot)^{-\alpha_1} & \quad 0.01M_\odot< & M \le
0.08M_\odot \\
\hskip -5pt (M/0.08M_\odot)^{-\alpha_2} & \quad 0.08M_\odot< & M \le 0.5M_\odot \\
\hskip -5pt 6.25^{-\alpha_2} (M/0.5M_\odot)^{-\alpha_3} & & M>0.5M_\odot,
\end{array} \right. \label{imf}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_1=0.3$, $\alpha_2=1.8\pm0.5$, $\alpha_3=2.3\pm0.7$ (the
parameters are taken from Kroupa, 2001), and $N_*=\int dM \, dN/dM$.
The mass fraction in high mass stars ($M_*\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle > 8 M_\odot$),
capable of SNa explosion, to the total star mass is about 0.3, and the
fraction by number is about $4\times10^{-3}$. Thus the expected SNa
rate is 0.3 yr$^{-1}$ for the Miller-Scalo IMF and a star formation rate (SFR) of
10 M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, which is of the order observed in ULIGals and
needed for forming galactic bulges in L$_*$ galaxies.
Indeed, this is consistent with the following simple estimate of
the star formation rate in the gaseous disk:
\begin{equation}
SFR \sim f_{*} M_{\rm disk} / t_{\rm ff},
\end{equation}
where $M_{\rm disk}$ is the disk gas mass, $t_{\rm ff}$ is the free-fall
time, and $f_{*}$ is the efficiency with which gas is turned into stars
on a free-fall time,
taken to be of the order of $f_{*}\sim$ 0.01 (e.g. Krumholz \& Tan 2007). Then,
for a disk of 10$^8$ - 10$^9$ $M_{\odot}$, the SFR is about 1-10 $M_{\odot}$ per
year, assuming a density of 10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$.
If a similar fraction ($\sim$ 1\%) of gas in SNe shells is turned into stars (before
shells collide) then the resulting star formation rate would be
$\sim 140 M_\odot n_3^{0.54} E_{51}^{0.4} r_3^{1.1} f_{sn}^{0.4}$ yr$^{-1}$,
and that would result in a SNa rate of $\sim 5 n_3^{0.54} E_{51}^{0.4}
r_3^{1.1} f_{sn}^{0.4}$ yr$^{-1}$ if the IMF for these ``daughter'' stars
were given by equation (\ref{imf}). However, we show below that formation
of massive stars -- those capable of SNa explosion -- is suppressed in SNe
remnants when $f_{sn}\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle > 0.5$.
Star formation in a SNa shell is suppressed on large length scales due to
the transverse relative velocity gradient in the remnant.
We calculate this length scale as well as the Jean's length, and estimate
the rate of star formation in SNe-remnants.
The velocity field in a SNa remnant seen by a comoving observer in her
neighborhood is: $\vec{\delta V_s} \sim (V_s/R_s) \vec{\delta r}$; where
$\vec{\delta r}$ is the position vector, tangential to the shock front,
pointing from the comoving observer
to a point in her neighborhood. For a gas clump to be able to
collapse, the differential velocity across the clump, $|\vec{\delta V_s}|$,
should be smaller than the gravitational escape speed, i.e.
for a clump of size $\ell$, $|\vec{\delta V_s}|\sim
V_s(\ell/R_s)< [G M_s(\ell/R_s)^2/4\ell]^{1/2}$ or
\begin{equation}
\ell \lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle < {G M_s\over 4 V_s^2}, \quad \quad \quad M_\ell \sim M_s
(\ell/2R_s)^2 \sim {G^2 M_s^3\over 64 V_s^4 R_s^2}
\end{equation}
Using equations (\ref{rsnow})--(\ref{msnow}) we find
\begin{equation}
M_\ell \sim 9\times10^{-12}\left[{t\over t_{snow}}\right]^{4.9}
n_3^{-{6\over17}} E_{51}^{{31\over17}}\;M_\odot,
\end{equation}
We see from equation (\ref{vsnow}) that at $t/t_{snow}\approx 137
n_3^{0.17} E_{51}^{0.09}$ the shell speed is $V_s=20$ km s$^{-1}$,
and at that time $M_\ell \sim 0.2 n_3^{0.48} E_{51}^{2.2}$ M$_\odot$;
the maximum star mass scales as $V_s^{-7.1}$.
Star formation is
disrupted when shells collide\footnote{Collision between SNe shells
disrupts star formation because of turbulence generated in these collisions.
Once turbulence dies out -- in about a shock crossing time -- star
formation can resume provided that the merged shell is not hit again by
a high speed shock.}.
The average speed of SNe shells when they collide, at time $t_{coll}$, is
$V_s\sim$ 14 km s$^{-1} f_{sn}^{0.4} r_3^{-0.8} n_3^{-0.5} E_{53}^{0.4}$
(obtained from equations 6 \& \ref{tcoll}).
For a small SNa rate, $f_{sn}< 0.5$ yr$^{-1}$, $V_s$ can drop
down to a value where massive stars capable of SNa explosion can form
before SNe shells collide and star formation is disrupted; however,
since lower mass stars form first in SNe remnants they can perhaps
significantly suppress the formation of more massive stars.
At a higher SNa rate, formation of stars more massive that a few
solar mass is suppressed; massive stars could still form in the disk
after the turbulence generated by shell collisions has subsided and gas
has cooled down.
This suggests that SNe explosions in a gaseous disk might occur in waves
of high and low activity, and during periods of high activity Miller-Scalo
IMF is truncated above a few solar mass, and even during periods of lower
SNa rate the IMF could be more bottom-heavy than the standard IMF.
\subsection{The thermal state of the pre-shock gas and the shock-induced stellar IMF}
A firm lower limit to the shock front speed, which in turn sets an upper
limit to the masses of the stars which may form behind the shock front, is
set by the sound speed of the medium upstream of the shock front when
SNa shock weakens and turns into a sound wave. In order to calculate
the sound speed of the upstream gas, we must determine the thermal state
of this gas, and we discuss two possible cases in this subsection.
\subsubsection{High supernova rate}
For the first case, we consider a galactic disk with a high star
formation rate (SFR), in which the dominant
process affecting the thermal state of the gas is photo-heating of
the gas by massive stars which eventually explode as SNe. Considering that
these stars will each live for roughly 10$^7$ yr,
the average distance between these massive stars within radius $r$ of the disk,
following equation (18), is
\begin{equation}
d_{sn} \approx 0.6\, \frac{r}{1 {\rm kpc}}\, f_{sn}(r)^{-1/2}\;{\rm pc}.
\end{equation}
The number of ionizing photons emitted per second by
such massive stars is $\ga$ 10$^{49}$ (e.g. Osterbrock \& Ferland 2006).
Taking the average gas density to be $\sim$ 10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$, we find
the radius of the Str\"{o}mgren spheres surrounding massive stars
(Str\"{o}mgren 1939) to be of order $\sim$ 1 pc. Thus, we expect that for an
average SNa rates of $f_{sn}\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >$ 0.4 yr$^{-1}$ the H~II regions surrounding
the massive stars in the disk will overlap, and therefore SNe shocks will
propagate into such photoionized regions. Largely
independent of the metallicity of the gas, the temperature in such
a photoionized region will be of the order of 10$^4$ K, and the sound
speed $\sim$ 10 km s$^{-1}$. Therefore, SNe shocks in this case will
generally dissipate and turn into pressure waves once they have slowed to
speeds of $\sim$ 10 km s$^{-1}$. This suggests, following equation (29),
that the IMF of stars formed in the material swept up in SNa shocks is
likely cut-off at a few solar masses.
\subsubsection{Low supernova rate}
We next consider the case of a lower SFR, corresponding to $f_{sn}\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle <$
0.4 yr$^{-1}$, for which the distance between massive stars is greater
than their average Str\"{o}mgren radii. In this case, SNa shocks will
generally propagate into so-called relic H~II regions in which gas
that was previously photoionized by the progenitor star is recombining
and cooling; equations (\ref{rsnow}) \& (\ref{vsnow}) show that, in general, $R_s\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle > 1$pc
(Str\"{o}mgren radius) when the SNa shell speed has dropped to $\sim10$km
s$^{-1}$. However, even for larger Str\"{o}mgren radii,
the upstream relic H~II region gas can in some cases
cool to temperatures well below 10$^4$K, which allows for the formation
of stars with masses greater than a few solar masses.
The results of a numerical calculation of relic H~II region gas temperature
ahead of the shock are shown in Fig. 1. This calculation assumes that the
density of the gas remains constant at the fiducial value of
n = 10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$, and that the gas cools only radiatively through
atomic transitions of metals, which is a reasonable assumption for the
case we consider here (but see Jappsen et al. 2009, for the case of star
formation in a more isolated environment). In principle, the radiation
emitted by the shocked gas can send a radiative precursor ahead of the
shock and heat the upstream gas, however, we neglect this effect as at
the shock velocities at which the shocks stall, i.e. $\la$ 20 km s$^{-1}$,
radiative precursors do little to ionize or heat the upstream gas
(Shull \& McKee, 1979).
Figure 1 shows results for four different metallicities: 10$^{-1}$,
10$^{-2}$, 10$^{-3}$, and 10$^{-4}$ $Z_{\odot}$. The metallicity-dependent
cooling rate of the gas is taken from Mashchenko et al. (2008), who
provide a fitting formula to the cooling function calculated by
Bromm et al. (2001). The left panel of Fig. 1 shows the temperature of
the upstream gas as a function of the time from the death of the
central star. The right panel shows the square of the Mach number for the
shock front. The SNa shock will stall once this ratio
approaches unity -- at this point the shock will turn into a pressure wave.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15.7cm,height=13.4cm]{KJ_fig1.ps}
\vspace*{-7cm}
\caption{The temperature of the medium upstream from the shock front (left
panel) and the ratio of the squares of the upstream sound speed and shock
front speed during the snowplow phase (right panel), in a cooling relic
H~II region with gas density of 10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$. The shock wave
turns into a compression wave when the ratio drops to $\sim 1$, which
occurs at $t$ $\ga$ 10$^5$ yr for each of the gas metallicities considered
here: the curves from left to right correspond to metallicities of
10$^{-1}$, 10$^{-2}$, 10$^{-3}$, and 10$^{-4}$ $Z_{\odot}$, respectively.
Note, however, that for lower upstream gas densities this occurs at earlier
times, due to the lower cooling rate of the relic H~II region gas. }
\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For metallicities $\lta10^{-2}$ Z$_{\odot}$ the SNa shock stalls at
a time $t_{stall}$ $\sim$ 10$^5$ yr, when the shock velocity is still
$\sim$ 10 km s$^{-1}$. However, for higher metallicities the shock
stalls at later times when $V_s$ has dropped to a smaller value and
thus the maximum mass of SNa-induced stars can become $M_l\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >$ 5
M$_{\odot}$ for shocks that last for $\ga$ 2 $\times$ 10$^5$ yr
(see eq. 30). We note also that for the case we consider here of
$f_{sn}$ $\la$ 0.4, $t_{coll}$ can easily exceed $t_{stall}$,
and therefore shell collisions will not interfere with SNa-induced
formation of these more massive stars at late times.
\subsection{Stars, bulge and black hole}
As shown in the last Section, for $f_{sn}\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >$ 0.4 yr$^{-1}$, stars forming
in SNe remnants
have peculiar velocities of order 10--20 km s$^{-1}$ in radial direction
with respect to the center of the explosion. When viewed from the
galactic center the velocities of these newly formed stars in
SNa remnants would have a random velocity dispersion of
$\sim10$--20 km s$^{-1}$, and therefore these stars would tend to
form a bulge at the center. The velocity dispersion of the newly formed
stars would increase with time as these stars are subjected to the
stochastic gravitational field of the SNa remnant network.
Moreover, these stars will suffer some hydrodynamical
drag on their way out of the gaseous disk, and also will be subject to
gravitational drag that will modify their velocity dispersion (eg.
Artymowicz, 1994; Nayakshin \& Cuadra, 2005); the former is likely a
small effect due to the small cross-section for star-gas interaction,
but the latter can be a significant effect and needs to be included
in the calculation to determine the true random velocity distribution of
stars formed out of SNe remnants.
The supernova led accretion would also deposit gas in the central parsec
region of the galaxy at the rate given by equation (\ref{acc4}); at distances
smaller than $\sim1$pc the magneto-rotational
viscosity (Balbus and Hawley, 1991) is expected to be effective in
transporting gas to the black hole at the center. We note that MRI might
also operate at larger radius due to heating and ionization produced by SNe.
Let us assume that a fraction $f_*$ of supernova remnant mass is converted
to stars before shells collide with another shell.
Using equations (\ref{msnow}) and (\ref{tcoll})
we estimate the star formation rate in SNa remnants to be
\begin{equation}
\dot{M_*} \approx (1.5\times10^4 M_\odot)\, f_*\, f_{sn}^{0.4} n_3^{0.54}
E_{51}^{0.4} r_3^{1.1} \; {\rm yr}^{-1}
\label{mdotstar}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the ratio of star formation \& accretion rates for $f_{sn}\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >
0.5$yr$^{-1}$ is $\sim$5x$10^4 f_* f_{sn}^{0.3} n_3^{0.3} E_{51}^{-0.3}
r_3^{1.2}$ (eqs. \ref{acc4} \& \ref{mdotstar}). For $f_*\sim 10^{-2}$
and $f_{sn}\sim 1$ yr$^{-1}$ this ratio is
of order a few hundred. In the case of low SNa rate (when the remnant
survives until its velocity drops to $\sim10$ km s$^{-1}$ and then
turns into a compression wave) the ratio is $3\times10^4 f_*
n_3^{0.7} E_{51}^{-0.7} r_3^{2}$, which is also of order a few hundred
for $f_*\sim10^{-2}$; this last expression was obtained by using eqs. \ref{rsnow}
\& \ref{msnow} for $R_s$ \& $M_s$ corresponding to shell velocity of 10 km s$^{-1}$
(eq. \ref{vsnow}) to calculate star formation and accretion rate (eq. \ref{acc2}).
This ratio of star formation rate to accretion rate is similar to
the reported ratio of bulge and BH mass in galaxies (Gebhardt et al. 2000;
Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000), and the scenario we have described offers a
plausible physical explanation for this correlation.
We note that a number of well known feed back processes have been
left out in the calculations presented in this paper (cf. Cattaneo et al.
2009), and these might significantly modify star formation and accretion rates.
\section{Summary}
We have analyzed the effect of supernovae occurring within the central kpc
region of a gaseous disk on the formation of stars and transport of gas
from $\sim 1$kpc to a few pc of the galactic center. The outward transport of
angular momentum facilitated by SNe explosions allows for the inward transport
of gas that feeds the central black hole. This is a process
which may take place quite generically in any galactic disk hosting star
formation, although it may not be the dominant process affecting
black hole accretion.
We have shown that associated with the inward transport of gas swept up by SNe
is the shock-induced formation of stars which are born with a random peculiar
velocity of $\sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$. This velocity dispersion increases
with time as a result of the stochastic gravitational field associated with
filamentary SNa remnants; The stars formed in SNa remnants contribute
to the stellar population of a central bulge.
Due to the divergent velocity field of an expanding SNa shell there is a
maximum length scale for fragmentation of shells or an upper limit to the
mass of stars formed in SNa remnants; the SNa-induced stellar IMF is cut-off
above a few solar masses and more massive stars can only form if and when a
SNa shell slows down to $\sim10$ km s$^{-1}$.
We note that numerous observations have suggested connections, such as
we have considered in the present work, between star formation, black hole
accretion, and the formation of a stellar bulge.
Heckman et al. (2004) suggest that star formation and black hole accretion rates
are correlated, and Chen et al. (2009) report an empirical relation between
supernova rate and gas accretion rate on the central black hole (see also
Xu \& Wu 2007). Furthermore, Page et al. (2001) report observations
suggesting that central black holes and stellar spheroids form
concurrently, and Genzel et al. (2006) describe observations of
a galaxy hosting both an accreting black hole and a central stellar
bulge, with no evidence of a major merger.
Hydrodynamic simulations have demonstrated that SNa feedback may produce
spherical distributions of stars in dwarf galaxies (Stinson et al. 2009)
and in the inner portions of the Galactic bulge (Nakasato \& Nomoto 2003).
We would like to point out the recent work of Wang et al. (2009) that models
SNe induced turbulence as an effective viscosity and describes the evolution
of a gaseous disk.
A limitation of this work is that we have ignored radiative feedback effects
which are known to control the steady state accretion
rate onto the black hole (e.g. Ostriker et al. 1976, Proga et al 2008,
Milosavljevic et al. 2008) and probably also affect the formation rate
of stars in the central kpc. Ultimately, large scale
simulations resolving the long term evolution of individual SNe remnants,
star formation, the multiphase ISM, and the feedback effects of accretion onto
a central black hole will be required to more fully elucidate what
role SNe-induced accretion and star formation play in galaxy formation.
\section{Acknowledgments}
JLJ gratefully acknowledges the support of a Wendell Gordon Fellowship from the University
of Texas at Austin.
We thank the referee for many constructive comments that helped improve
the presentation significantly.
|
\section{Introduction}
\citet{stromgren63} suggested to use the migration of young stars with known
ages and space velocities to estimate the pattern speed of a density
wave in our Galaxy \citep{lin64, yuan69}. In external galaxies where
individual stars cannot be observed, one may consider to use
integrated properties of blue, young objects (such as HII regions and
OB associations) which often are concentrated in the arms of
grand-design spiral galaxies. Strong and very varying attenuation by
dust in the arm regions make it difficult to determine reliable,
intrinsic colors of such very young objects in visual bands. In the
NIR, several spiral galaxies had bright knots along their spiral arms
\citep{gp98}. Such knots in NGC~2997 were identified as very young stellar
cluster (ages $<$10~Myr) using $K$-band spectra obtained with ISAAC/VLT
\citep{Grosbol06}.
It is possible to estimate accurate ages for clusters younger than
$<$8~Myr from their integrated NIR colors and/or {Br$\gamma$}\ emission due to
the rapid evolution of their high mass stars and the low attenuation
by dust. Although space velocities for the clusters cannot be
obtained, the general rotation curve of the host galaxy provide enough
information to make a crude estimate of their birthplaces assuming
that they follow roughly circular orbits.
A further advantage of using NIR observations is that phase and shape
of a density wave can be measured directly. This opens the way for
estimating its pattern speed by comparing ages of individual clusters
with their azimuthal offset relative to the spiral perturbation. In
addition, one may study star formation induced by such density
variations e.g., through large-scale shocks or compressions in the gas
\citep{roberts69}. In the current paper, we study the spatial and
color distributions of young stellar clusters in the southern arm of
NGC~2997 in order to test the feasibility of this scheme to estimate
the pattern speed in external galaxies.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{grosbol_f01.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
Direct $K$-band image of the field around the southern arm of
NGC~2997 used for the analysis. The scale is indicated by the bar in
the lower left corner. }
\label{n2997k}
\end{figure}
\section{Data and reductions}
Deep $JHK$-{Br$\gamma$}\ images of a field around the southern arm of NGC~2997
(see Fig.~\ref{n2997k}) were obtained with ISAAC/VLT in order to study
the properties of stellar clusters. The $K$-band map reached a
limiting magnitude of $K = 19$\,mag\ (with errors of $\pm$0.1\,mag)
corresponding to {M$_\mathrm{K}$}\ = --11.3\,mag\ (assuming a distance of
11.6~Mpc) while the linear resolution was 45~pc with a seeing of
0\farcs8 measured on the final stacked images. Besides the
broad-band colors, a {Br$\gamma$}\ index ({Br$\gamma$}--$K$) was estimated with a zero
point defined by the average value for foreground stars in the field.
Sources were identified on the $K$-band image using SExtractor
\citep{bertin96} after which aperture magnitudes (diameter of 2{$^{\prime\prime}$})
were measured at these source locations for all filters. The
SExtractor class\_star classifier (cs), which range from 0 for diffuse
sources to 1 for point-like targets, is shown in Fig.~\ref{n2997cs}.
Sources were divided into 3 groups: diffuse (cs$<$0.3), compact
(0.3$<$cs$<$0.8), and star-like (0.8$<$cs). The diffuse sources are
well separated from the compact ones and on average brighter.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{grosbol_f02.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
The class\_star classifier, cs, as a function of apparent $K$-band
magnitude for all sources detected by SExtractor in the NGC~2997
field. Different source groups are indicated by symbols: diffuse
(open circles), compact (crosses), and star-like (asterisks). }
\label{n2997cs}
\end{figure}
\section{Spatial and color distributions}
The spatial locations of the sources are shown in Fig.~\ref{n2997sex}
for the NGC~2997 field (see Fig.~\ref{n2997k}). The average position
of the southern spiral arm (with a pitch angle of --22\fdg6) is
indicated by a dashed line which outline the phase of the $m=2$ Fourier
component of the azimuthal $K$-band intensity variation as a function of
radius. It is clear that only the diffuse sources (open circles)
concentrate along the spiral on its inner side while the other types
of objects have a more uniform distribution.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{grosbol_f03.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
All objects detected on the $K$-band image of the NGC~2997 field. The
dashed line indicates the average location of the two-armed spiral
pattern. For symbols see Fig.~\ref{n2997cs}. }
\label{n2997sex}
\end{figure}
The $(H-K)-(J-H)$ diagram for the sources is given in Fig.~\ref{ccd}
where the arrow indicates the standard galactic reddening vector.
Galactic foreground stars are located along the stellar main sequence
as outlined by the full drawn line. An evolutionary track for stellar
clusters with continuous star formation was computed using Starburst99
\citep{leitherer99} and plotted with a dashed curve. The model had a
Salpeter IMF, an upper mass of 120~$M_\odot$, and solar metallicity.
The track starts around $(H-K) = 0.5$\,mag\ after which $(H-K)$
becomes bluer until around 7~Myr when $(J-H)$ gets redder. The colors
do not change much after 15-20~Myr when they approach those of
globular clusters at (0.2, 0.7). Models with instantaneous star
formation are somewhat bluer and reach slightly higher $(J-H)$ values.
The non-stellar sources are scattered above the track suggesting
typical absorptions by dust of the order of $A_V = 5$\,mag\ but with
a large spread. The complex geometry of stars and dust in these
regions make it possible that the inner parts of the clusters have
much higher attenuation than indicated by the average value. The red
diffuse sources have colors compatible with ages $<$10~Myr. The
compact sources are on average 2\,mag\ fainter and have larger errors
in their color indices.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{grosbol_f04.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
Color-color diagram for all sources with color errors $<$0.1\,mag\ in
the NGC~2997 field. The full drawn line indicates the stellar main
sequence while the dashed line shows a standard Starburst99
evolutionary track for stellar clusters with continuous star
formation for ages up to 50~Myr. The galactic reddening vector is
indicated for $A_V=5$\,mag. Symbols are the same as in
Fig.~\ref{n2997cs}. }
\label{ccd}
\end{figure}
A reddening {\sl free} color index $Q = (H-K) - 0.59 \times (J-H)$ may be
computed assuming a standard galactic reddening law and a screen
model. Starburst99 models suggest that zero-age clusters have $Q$
values around 0.4\,mag\ and then decreases to --0.1\,mag\ at 10~Myr
after which the index remains almost constant. A few sources have
lower $Q$ values which may suggest that either the reddening law
differs slightly or the screen model is inappropriate due to the
complex star-dust geometry \citep{witt92, pierini04}. There is an
anti-correlation between $Q$ and {Br$\gamma$}\ indices for diffuse sources as
expected from Starburst99 models. Due to the smaller $S/N$ ratio for
{Br$\gamma$}, the $Q$ index was preferred as an age indicator.
\section{Locations relative to spiral arms}
The distribution of diffuse and compact sources relative to the spiral
arms is displayed in Fig.~\ref{dfQ} using the azimuthal distance
$\Delta\theta$ from the mean two-armed spiral as derived from a
Fourier analysis of a $K$-band map \citep{Grosbol04}. The diffuse
sources are strongly concentrated in a region 0{$^\circ$}\--20{$^\circ$}\ inside
the intensity maximum of the spiral arm while the compact objects have
a more uniform distribution. The sharpness of the peak of young,
diffuse objects (open circles) and its offset with respect to the
spiral arm intensity maximum (i.e., {$\Delta\theta$}=0{$^\circ$}) indicate a strong star
formation activity just inside the spiral arms possibly associated to
non-linear compression of gas in a spiral potential \citep{roberts69,
gittins04}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{grosbol_f05.ps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
Distribution of non-stellar sources as a function of their azimuthal
distance {$\Delta\theta$}\ from the two-armed spiral intensity maximum. The top
panel shows $Q$ for sources with {M$_\mathrm{K}$}$<$--11\,mag, the middle panel
displays {M$_\mathrm{K}$}\ for young sources with $Q>0.1$\,mag, while the button
panel gives the histogram of young sources. The same symbols as in
Fig.~\ref{n2997cs} are used. }
\label{dfQ}
\end{figure}
The concentration in the arm region is also seen clearly in the plot
of absolute magnitudes {M$_\mathrm{K}$}\ for young clusters with 0.1\,mag\,$<Q$ as a
function of their azimuthal offset {$\Delta\theta$}\ where a sharp transition
occurs around {M$_\mathrm{K}$}\ = --12\,mag. The transition could be associated
to the expulsion of gas and dust from the clusters when the first
supernovae explode \citep{bastian06, goodwin06}. This would make the
clusters appear more compact, disrupt star formation and therefore
lead to a more rapid fainting of them. It is noted that only young
diffuse objects (i.e., 0.1\,mag\,$<Q$) are located in a narrow region
just inside the spiral arm whereas the compact sources have a uniform
distribution. This suggests that formation of the most massive
clusters requires a triggering by a compression of gas associated to
the spiral arm while less massive clusters are formed more randomly
over the galactic disk.
The top diagram of Fig.~\ref{dfQ} displays the relation between
azimuthal offset and $Q$ index (age for 0.1\,mag\,$<Q$) for the
non-stellar sources. Compact sources (crosses) and those with
$Q<0.1$\,mag, for which $Q$ cannot be used as an age indicator, are
distributed uniformly. On the other hand, the distribution of very
young diffuse sources (open circles) suggests a correlation where the
youngest objects are further away (inside) from the spiral arm defined
by the $K$-band intensity variation. A rough estimate of the gradient
indicates that a 10{$^\circ$}\ change in {$\Delta\theta$}\ corresponds to a variation in
Q of 0.2--0.3\,mag\ with a visual best fit of 0.22\,mag/10{$^\circ$}. The
scatter may be caused by several factors such as photometric errors,
and formation of clusters in a region with finite azimuthal width.
Further, clusters over a significant radial range have been used (to
improve statistics) which smears out the relation due to the slightly
different pitch angles of the spiral potential and the associated star
forming front as outlined by the dust lanes \citep{grosbol99}.
\section{Birthplaces and pattern speed}
Birthplaces of the youngest clusters can be estimated using the
rotation curve which is almost flat at 185 km\,s$^{-1}$ at the radii
of the clusters \citep{peterson78}. This corresponds to a motion of
190~pc or 3\farcs9 per Myr. Assuming that all clusters are formed in
a star forming front with the same shape as the density wave (just
offset from it), a first order estimate of the pattern speed can be
given as: $$\Omega_{\rm p} = (V_c - V_r/\tan(i))/r -
\delta\theta/\delta a $$ where $V_c$ is the circular velocity, $V_r$
the radial velocity, $r$ the average radius of the clusters, $i$ the
pitch angle of the spiral (negative for trailing patterns), and
$\delta\theta$ the change in azimuthal offset
{$\Delta\theta$}\ for clusters with an age difference of $\delta a$. This
approximation is valid only for $\delta a \ll \pi/2\kappa \approx
50$~Myr for NGC~2997 where $\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency.
The estimate of $\delta\theta/\delta a$ can be derived from the top
diagram in Fig.~\ref{dfQ} which suggests $\delta\theta/\delta Q =
0.22$\,mag/10{$^\circ$}. The Starburst99 model indicates a $\delta
a/\delta Q$ of --22~Myr per mag for the range of $Q$ around
0.2\,mag\ with a slightly more shallow slope for models with upper
mass limits below 30~M$_\odot$. This yields $\delta\theta/\delta a
\approx 36$ km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{\rm p} = (54 - 36)$
km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$ = 18 km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$ for pure
circular velocities while $V_r = -10$ km\,s$^{-1}$ would lower the
estimate to around 12 km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$. Both estimates of the
pattern speed place the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR) close to the
inner radius of the main spiral pattern and co-rotation significantly
outside the symmetric pattern in good agreement with other
determinations.
\section{Conclusions}
The analysis of sources in a field centered on the southern arm of
NGC~2997 observed in NIR bands with ISAAC/VLT offers the following
tentative conclusions:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep=0pt
\item the youngest stellar clusters with magnitudes {M$_\mathrm{K}$}\ $<-12$\,mag\ are
concentrated in the arm regions,
\item the bright, young clusters (0.1\,mag\,$<Q$) show an age gradient where the
youngest are further away (in front of) the spiral arm,
\item the pattern speed of the density wave can be estimated to $\approx$18
km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$ using this gradient and assuming circular
motions and formation along a front with the same shape as the
spiral arms, and
\item fainter young clusters have a more uniform distribution.
\end{itemize}
This is consistent with the standard density wave picture where the
main spiral pattern starts just outside the ILR. The most massive
clusters seem to be triggered by a front associated to the density
wave while smaller clusters are more uniform distributed. The use of
broad band NIR photometry to estimate ages of very young stellar
clusters in spiral galaxies and from those calculate birthplaces
provides a new independent method to estimate the pattern speed of
density waves in nearby, grand-design spirals.
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The epoch of reionization marks the second major change in the ionization state of the Universe. Reionization begins when the first sources of neutral hydrogen (\HI) ionizing photons form within dark matter potential wells and start building an ionization region around themselves, the so-called Str\"omgren sphere. However, the reionization history and the redshift at which it ends still remain the subject of much discussion. This is because the reionization process depends on a number of parameters including the initial mass function (IMF) of the first sources, their star formation rates (SFR), their stellar metallicity and age, the escape fraction of \HI ionizing photons produced by each source and the clumping of the intergalactic medium (IGM), to name a few.
Given the large number of free parameters that inevitably enter into the construction of theoretical reionization models, it is imperative to compare and update the models as fresh data sets are acquired. In this sense, it has been suggested (Malhotra \& Rhoads 2004, 2005; Santos 2004; Mesinger, Haiman \& Cen 2004; Haiman \& Cen 2005; Dijkstra, Lidz \& Wyithe 2007;
Mesinger \& Furlanetto 2008; Dayal, Ferrara \& Gallerani 2008; Dayal et al. 2009a, 2009b) that a class of high redshift galaxies called Lyman Alpha Emitters (LAEs) could be an important addition to complementary data sets to constrain the reionization history.
LAEs, galaxies identified by means of their very strong Ly$\alpha$ line (1216 \AA) emission, have been becoming increasingly popular as probes of reionization for three primary reasons. Firstly, specific signatures like the strength, width and the continuum break bluewards of the Ly$\alpha$ line make the detection of LAEs unambiguous to a large degree. Secondly, since Ly$\alpha$ photons have a large absorption cross-section against \HI, their attenuation can be used to put constraints on the ionization state of the IGM. Thirdly, there are hundreds of confirmed LAEs at $z \sim 4.5$ (Finkelstein et al. 2007), $z \sim 5.7$ (Malhotra et al. 2005; Shimasaku et al. 2006) and $z \sim 6.6$ (Taniguchi et al. 2005; Kashikawa et al. 2006), which exactly probe the redshift range around which reionization is supposed to have ended.
The data accumulated on LAEs shows some very surprising features;
while the apparent Ly$\alpha$ luminosity function (LF) does not show
any evolution between $z=3.1$ - $5.7$ (Ouchi et al. 2008), it changes
appreciably between $z=5.7$ and $6.6$, with $L_*$ (the luminosity of the break, after which the number density decreases rapidly) at $z=6.6$ (Kashikawa et al. 2006) being about 50\% of the value at $z=5.7$ (Shimasaku et al. 2006). Unexpectedly, however, the ultraviolet (UV) LF does not show any evolution between these same redshifts. Although Kashikawa et al. (2006) have proposed this evolution in the Ly$\alpha$ LF to be indicative of a sudden change in the ionization state of the IGM, the problem of why reionization would affect the high luminosity tail of the Ly$\alpha$ LF rather than the faint end, as expected, remains.
In spite of a number of diverse approaches, the effects of the ionization state of the the IGM on the visibility of LAEs still remain poorly understood. This is primarily because understanding/ constraining the ionization state of the IGM using LAEs requires: (a) a detailed knowledge of the physical properties of each galaxy, including the SFR, stellar age and stellar metallicity, needed to calculate the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ and continuum luminosity produced by stellar sources, (b) the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ and continuum luminosity produced by the cooling of collisionally excited \HI in the interstellar medium (ISM), (c) an understanding of the dust formation, enrichment and distribution in each galaxy, necessary to calculate the fractions of escaping Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, and (d) a full radiative transfer (RT) calculation to obtain the fraction of Ly$\alpha$ luminosity transmitted through the IGM for each galaxy.
Although a number of simulations have been used in the past to study LAEs, they lack one or more of the aforementioned ingredients. Since they used an N-body simulation, McQuinn et al. (2007) were forced to neglect the intrinsic properties of the galaxies and their dust enrichment, although they carried out analytic RT. Iliev et al. (2008) used a simulation that only followed dark matter; they also could not use the intrinsic galaxy properties or calculate the dust enrichment, although they carried out a complete RT calculation. Nagamine et al. (2008) used an SPH (smoothed particle hydrodynamics) simulation to obtain the intrinsic SFR for each galaxy; however, they did not calculate the dust enrichment and assumed a fixed value of the IGM transmission, ignoring RT. Dayal et al. (2009a, 2009b) used an SPH simulation and the intrinsic galaxy properties to calculate the luminosity from both stellar sources and cooling of \HI, calculated the dust enrichment and the IGM transmission; the only missing ingredient in their work was the RT calculation. Most recently, Zheng et al. (2009) have carried out a RT calculation on an SPH simulation; however, they have not included any dust calculation or the luminosity contribution from the cooling of \HI.
Our aim in this work is to build a LAE model containing all these ingredients, so as to determine the relative importance of dust, peculiar velocity fields and patchy reionization, in shaping the observed Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs. We start with an introduction to the SPH and RT simulations used in Sec.~\ref{simulations}. We then present the main ingredients of our LAE model, including the calculation of the intrinsic luminosity from stellar sources/cooling of \HI, the dust enrichment and the IGM transmission, in Sec.~\ref{model}. Once the model is laid down, we present the results obtained with it and quantify the relative importance of dust, peculiar velocities and reionization on the Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs in Sec.~\ref{reio effects}. The physical properties of the galaxies identified as LAEs are shown in Sec.~\ref{phy prop}. We conclude by mentioning the caveats and shortcomings of our model in Sec.~\ref{conc}. The simulations used in this work are based on a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, $\Omega_b = 0.3$, $\Omega_m = 0.04$, $H = 100 h~ {\rm km \, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$, where $h =0.7$ and a scale invariant power spectrum of the initial density perturbations is normalized to $\sigma_8 =0.9$.
\section{Hydro and radiative transfer}
\label{simulations}
\begin{figure*}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{mapsEvol6.ps}}
\caption{Maps (100$h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side) of the spatial distribution of \HI in a 2D cut through the RT simulation box showing the time evolution of the reionization process, with the colorbar showing the values (in log scale) of the \HI plotted. The average decreasing neutral hydrogen fractions marked above each panel, $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle = 0.295, 0.24, 0.157,4.45\times 10^{-2},1.13 \times 10^{-2} ,3.43 \times 10^{-3}$, correspond to increasing RT simulation timescales of $10, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500$ Myr, respectively. Details in text of Sec.~\ref{simulations}.}
\label{rt_maps}
\end{figure*}
The Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs presented in this work are based on the
results from combined runs of SPH and RT simulations, carried out
using {\tt GADGET-2} (Springel 2005)\footnote{http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/gadget/}
and {\tt CRASH} (Maselli, Ferrara \& Ciardi 2003; Maselli, Ciardi \&
Kanekar 2009) respectively, which are coupled to a previously developed LAE model (Dayal et al. 2008; Dayal et al. 2009a, 2009b). {\tt GADGET-2} generates the redshift
evolution of the density field, the baryonic density
distribution and the velocity fields in a 100$h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving volume; we obtain a snapshot of the simulation
at $z \sim 6.1$. The specific simulation used in this work is the G5 run described in
Springel and Hernquist (2003), which is part of an accurate study
focused on modelling the star formation history of the universe. We
have chosen the G5 run since it contains several physical ingredients necessary for our investigation. Firstly, the volume is large enough so that cosmic variance is minimized
in the determination of the LFs. Secondly, the SFR ($\dot M_*$) is
self-consistently inferred from physically motivated prescriptions
that convert gas particles into stellar particles and that properly take account of the mechanical/chemical feedback associated to supernovae and galactic
winds. This point is
particularly relevant since the intrinsic luminosity of the galaxies, both in the Ly$\alpha$ and UV, depends sensitively on $\dot M_*$. Also, since the physics governing star formation and galaxy evolution is modelled accurately, the simulation gives us a reliable representation of the galaxy population.
As expected, the large simulation volume naturally leads to a relatively coarse mass resolution with the resolution mass being
$2.12 \times 10^{10}$ $M_\odot$ ($3.26\times 10^8$ $M_\odot$) for dark
matter (gas particles). Running a friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm
on the SPH particle distribution, we identify galaxies and obtain
their intrinsic properties, including $\dot M_*$, the mass weighted
stellar metallicity ($Z_*$), the total gas and stellar masses. These
are then used to calculate the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$/continuum
luminosity, the dust enrichment and the escape fraction of
continuum/Ly$\alpha$ photons from the galaxy. All these are presented and discussed in greater detail in Sec.~\ref{model} and \ref{reio effects}.
The RT calculations have been carried out in post-processing mode using the 3D {\tt CRASH} code. The main assumptions made for running {\tt CRASH} are the following: (a) we initially assume, at $z\sim 6.1$, the gas to be in photoionization equilibrium with a uniform ultraviolet
background (UVB) produced by sources below the simulation resolution scale, corresponding to an average neutral hydrogen fraction, $\langle \chi_{\rm HI} \rangle= 0.3$, (b) we assume that
galaxies have formed stars in the past at an average rate $\dot M_*$, equal to the one derived at $z\sim 6.1$ and (c) since the RT simulation
is carried out on a SPH snapshot which contains about 2500 galaxies,
to reduce the computational running time, we run the RT calculation in
the monochromatic mode, with $h\nu=13.665$ eV. This is a reasonable
assumption since the Ly$\alpha$ LFs depend mostly on the average
ionization fraction and on the 3D topology of the fully ionized
regions; we are therefore not interested in the detailed profiles of the ionization front or a highly accurate estimate of the IGM temperature, to probe which the ionizing radiation of each galaxy would have to be computed from its spectrum.
The specific photoionization rate is calculated using the expression given in Eq.~12 of Dayal, Ferrara \& Gallerani (2008) and then averaging this value over $Z_*$ and stellar
ages ($t_*$) of the galaxies in the the SPH simulation. The
contribution from all the galaxies determined under the above-mentioned assumptions is then super-imposed on the average UVB value. Finally, we use $f_{esc}=0.02$ (Gnedin et al. 2008), as a characteristic value
of the escape fraction of \HI ionizing photons from each galaxy. The total ionizing radiation field, which is the sum of that produced by all galaxies identified in the simulation and the UVB, is then evolved with {\tt CRASH} up to the Hubble time corresponding to $z \sim 6.1$. However, as we are interested in assessing the visibility of LAE as a function of the mean ionization fraction which could correspond to different epochs along any assigned reionization history, no particular meaning should be attached to the redshift parameter.
In Fig.~\ref{rt_maps} we show maps of the \HI fraction across a 2D cut through the RT simulation box, at different simulation times.
This time sequence then represents a time-line of the reionization process, due to the galaxy population present within the box. Though an approximation, this description catches many of the important features of the reionization process, including the complex topology produced
by the inhomogeneities in the density field, by the galaxy properties and by their spatial distribution.
Fig.~\ref{rt_maps} clearly shows the reionization process in its main three phases. First, isolated ionized hydrogen (\HII) regions start growing around point sources which are preferentially located along the over-dense filaments of matter. In this stage the size of the isolated \HII regions grows differentially according to the production rate of \HI ionizing
photons from the specific source; the few galaxies with large $\dot M_*$ (e.g. the
largest galaxy located at the center having $\dot M_* \sim 726 \, {\rm M_\odot yr^{-1}}$)
can build an ionized region of about 20 Mpc, in a time as short as 10 Myr (see upper-left panel), which
grows at a very fast rate due to the vigorous \HI ionizing photon output. If observed at the same evolutionary timescale, due to the smaller \HI ionizing photon budget, the \HII regions of smaller galaxies are confined to sizes of the order of few Mpc ($<4 \, {\rm Mpc}$), which grow slowly. After 10 Myr of continuous star formation activity, the average neutral hydrogen
fraction decreases only to $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.295$. At this early stage, galaxies with $\dot M_* \leq 25 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$, transmit only about 20\% of their Ly$\alpha$ luminosity through the IGM. Consequently the low luminosity end of the LF is depressed with respect to the intrinsic emissivity of these sources. On the other hand, galaxies with larger $\dot M_*$ are able to transmit a larger amount ($\sim 30$\%) of their luminosity through the IGM.
As the \HI ionizing photon production from galaxies continues, the sizes of the \HII regions increase with time. At about $100$ Myr (upper right panel), the isolated \HII regions start overlapping, resulting in an enhancement of the local photo-ionization
rate close to the smaller sources. This allows the ionized regions
associated to the latter to grow faster, and results in the
build-up of large \HII regions also around smaller galaxies. This results in an enhancement in the transmission of the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity for these sources, such that this value increases to $\sim 40$\%, consequently leading to a boost of the low-luminosity end of the Ly$\alpha$ LF. As expected, the overlap phase speeds-up the reionization process; for a star formation time $50,100,200, 300$ Myr, $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle $ decreases to $\sim 0.24,0.16,4.5\times 10^{-2}, 1.1\times 10^{-2}$, respectively.
Finally at about 300 Myr (lower center panel), the simulation volume
is almost completely ionized. This configuration corresponds to the
post-overlap phase which leads to a further acceleration of the
reionization process. For about 400 Myr of star formation activity, $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ drops to a value of about $4.3 \times 10^{-3}$. This is a consequence of the fact
that, as the IGM becomes more ionized, even the ionizing radiation from the numerous smaller galaxies contributes to the overall radiation field.
It is very important to point out that, even in this final stage, the
ionization field is highly inhomogeneous, with regions of
higher ionization fraction corresponding to the environment of
point ionizing sources (green regions in the maps).
This topology is of fundamental importance in the estimation of the
Ly$\alpha$ LFs, as the Ly$\alpha$ transmissivity associated to each
source depends on the extent of the highly ionized regions as well as on the residual neutral hydrogen within them; a very
tiny fraction of residual neutral hydrogen is sufficient to suppress
the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ luminosity significantly. Even for an
ionization fraction, $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times
10^{-3}$, which results after 500 Myr of star formation, the
transmission value ranges between $42-48$\% for galaxies with
increasing $\dot M_*$; the blue part of the line can be significantly attenuated even by the tiny residual fraction of about $10^{-6}$, close to the source.
\section{The LAE Model}
\label{model}
As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{simulations}, for each galaxy in the SPH
simulation snapshot, we obtain the SFR, $\dot M_*$, the mass weighted
stellar metallicity, $Z_*$, the total gas mass, $M_g$, and the stellar
mass, $M_*$; the stellar age is then calculated as $t_* = M_*/\dot
M_*$, i.e. assuming a constant SFR. This assumption has been made for
consistency with the RT calculation (see
Sec.~\ref{simulations}). These properties are then used to calculate
the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ ($L_\alpha^{int}$) and continuum luminosity
($L_c^{int}$), considering the contribution from both stellar sources
and from the cooling of collisionally excited \HI in the ISM of the
galaxy. The intrinsic values of the Ly$\alpha$ and continuum
luminosities so obtained can then be used to calculate the observed
luminosity values. It is comparatively easy to calculate the observed
continuum luminosity, $L_c$, since the wavelength range (1250-1500
\AA) of the continuum luminosity band is chosen so as to be unaffected
by \HI; $L_c$ in fact only depends on the fraction of the continuum photons, $f_c$, that escape the galactic environment undamped by dust, i.e.
\begin{equation}
L_c = L_c^{int} f_c.
\label{lc_int}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, since Ly$\alpha$ photons have a large absorption
cross-section against \HI, the observed Ly$\alpha$ luminosity,
$L_\alpha$, depends both on: (a) the fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons,
$f_\alpha$, that escape out of the galaxy into the IGM, undamped by dust and (b) the fraction, $T_\alpha$, of these ``escaped" photons that are transmitted through the IGM, undamped by \HI. The observed Ly$\alpha$ luminosity can therefore be expressed as
\begin{equation}
L_\alpha = L_\alpha^{int} f_\alpha T_\alpha.
\label{la_int}
\end{equation}
All galaxies with $L_\alpha \geq 10^{42.2} {\rm erg \, s^{-1}}$ and an observed equivalent width, $EW = (L_\alpha / L_c) \geq 20$ \AA \,are identified as LAEs and used to construct the cumulative Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs which can then be compared to the observations. In principle, our results can be compared to both the observed LFs at $z \sim 5.7$ and $6.6$. However, there exists a huge uncertainty between the complete photometric and confirmed spectroscopic sample at $z \sim 6.6$; we limit the comparison between the theoretical model and observations to the data accumulated at $z \sim 5.7$ by Shimasaku et al. (2006), in this work. The calculations of $L_\alpha^{int}$, $L_c^{int}$, $f_\alpha$, $f_c$ and $T_\alpha$ are explained in more detail in what follows.
\subsection{The intrinsic luminosity model}
\label{intlum_model}
Star formation produces photons with energies $> 1$~Ryd, which ionize
the \HI in the ISM. Due to the high density of the ISM,
recombinations take place on a short time scale and this produces a
large number of Ly$\alpha$ photons. The stellar luminosity component is calculated by using {\rm STARBURST99} (Leitherer et al. 1999), a population synthesis code, to obtain the spectra and hence, the \HI ionizing photon rate ($Q$) of each galaxy, using a Salpeter IMF, $Z_*$, $t_*$ and $\dot M_*$ as input parameters. Then the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ luminosity produced by stellar sources $L_\alpha^*$, is calculated as
\begin{equation}
L_\alpha^* = \frac{2}{3} (1-f_{esc}) Q h \nu_\alpha,
\end{equation}
where $f_{esc} = 0.02$, for consistency with the RT calculation (see Sec. \ref{simulations}), $h$ is the Planck constant, $\nu_\alpha$ is the frequency of the Ly$\alpha$ photons and the factor of two-thirds enters assuming case B recombination (Osterbrock 1989). The intrinsic continuum luminosity produced by stellar sources, $L_c^*$, is calculated at 1375 \AA, at the middle of the continuum band between 1250-1500 \AA.
The Ly$\alpha$ and continuum luminosity from the cooling of
collisionally excited \HI in each galaxy ($L_\alpha^g, L_c^g$
respectively) is calculated using the number density of electrons and
\HI, which depend on the temperature distribution of the ISM gas mass
and the gas distribution scale of the galaxy. The temperature
dependence comes from the fact that the recombination coefficient,
which determines the neutral hydrogen fraction in the ISM, decreases sensitively with higher
temperatures.
The \HI number density is calculated by assuming a primordial ISM composition ($76\%$ hydrogen and $24\%$ helium) and calculating the gas distribution scale assuming the \HI to be concentrated in a radius, $r_g = 4.5\lambda r_{200}$. Here the spin parameter, $\lambda=0.05$ (Ferrara, Pettini \& Shchekinov 2000) and $r_{200}$ is the virial radius, assuming the collapsed region has an overdensity of 200 times the critical density at the redshift considered. The calculation of the electron number density requires a knowledge of the temperature distribution of the IGM gas. However, since we do not have this information from the SPH simulation used in this work, we use the temperature distribution averaged over distinct halo mass ranges shown in Tab. 1 of Dayal et al. (2009b) and again use the gas distribution scale to calculate the electron number density. Complete details of this calculation can be found in Sec.~3.2 of Dayal et al. (2009b).
\subsection{The dust model}
\label{dust_model}
It is important to model the dust in the ISM of galaxies since it absorbs both Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, thereby, strongly influencing the observed luminosity values. Dust is produced both by supernovae and evolved stars in a galaxy. However, several authors (Todini \& Ferrara 2001; Dwek et al. 2007) have shown that the contribution of AGB stars can be neglected for $z \gsim 5.7$, since the typical evolutionary time-scale of these stars ($\geq 1$ Gyr) becomes longer than the age of the Universe above that redshift. Hence, assuming SNII to be the primary dust factories at $z \sim 6.1$, we calculate the dust enrichment for each galaxy, taking into account three processes: (a) SNII produce dust in the expanding ejecta; the average dust mass produced per SNII is taken to be ${0.54\, \rm M_\odot}$ (Todini \& Ferrara 2001; Nozawa et al. 2003, 2007; Bianchi \& Schneider 2007), (b) SNII destroy dust in the ISM they shock to velocities $\geq 100 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$, for which we use a destruction efficiency value $\sim 0.12$ (McKee 1989), and (c) a homogeneous mixture of gas and dust is assimilated into star formation (astration). Once the final dust mass, $M_{dust}(t_*)$, is calculated for each galaxy in the simulation, we can translate this into an optical depth, $\tau_c$, for continuum photons as
\begin{equation}
\tau_c (r_d) = \frac{3\Sigma_{d}}{4 a s},
\label{tau_dust}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_d = M_{dust}(t_*) r_d^{-2}$ is the dust surface mass density, $r_d$ is the radius of dust distribution, $a$ and $s$ are the radius and material density of graphite/carbonaceous grains, respectively ($a=0.05 \mu m$, $s = 2.25\, {\rm g\, cm^{-3}}$; Todini \& Ferrara 2001; Nozawa et al. 2003). This can be used to obtain the escape fraction of continuum photons from the galaxy as $f_c = e^{-\tau_c}$. The determination of $r_d$ follows in Sec.~\ref{reio effects} and complete details of the calculations mentioned here can be found in Dayal et al. (2009b).
Different extinction curves, including that for the Milky Way, Small Magellanic Cloud and for supernovae give different relations between the extinction of the Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, for homogeneously distributed dust. In this spirit, and to get a hint of the dust inhomogeneity, we combine $f_\alpha$ and $f_c$, and use the escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons relative to the continuum ones, $f_\alpha/f_c$, to be the free parameter to calculate $L_\alpha$ in our model. A more detailed explanation of the determination of $f_c$ and $f_\alpha$, required to reproduce the observations, follows later in Sec.~\ref{reio effects}.
\subsection{The IGM transmission model}
\label{ta_model}
The calculation of $T_\alpha$ is now explained in better detail. If
$z_{em}$ and $z_{obs}$ are the redshifts of the emitter and the observer respectively, we calculate the total optical depth ($\tau_\alpha$) to the Ly$\alpha$ photons along a line of sight (LOS) as
\begin{equation}
\tau_\alpha({\rm v}) = \int_{z_{em}}^{z_{obs}} \sigma_0 \phi({\rm v}) n_{HI}(z) \frac{dl}{dz} dz ,
\end{equation}
where ${\rm v} = (\lambda - \lambda_\alpha)[\lambda_\alpha c]^{-1}$ is the rest-frame velocity of a photon with wavelength $\lambda$, relative to the line centre (rest-frame wavelength $\lambda_\alpha = 1216$ \AA, velocity ${\rm v}_\alpha =0$), $\phi$ is the Voigt profile, $n_{HI}$ is the number density of \HI along the LOS, $dl/dz = c[H(z) (1+z)]^{-1}$ and $c$ represents the light speed. We use $\sigma_0 = \pi e^2 f[m_e c]^{-1}$, where $e$, $m_e$ are the electron charge and mass respectively and $f$ is the oscillator strength (0.4162).
For regions of low \HI density, the natural line broadening is not very important and the Voigt profile can be approximated by the Gaussian core:
\begin{equation}
\phi({\rm v}_i) \equiv \phi_{gauss} = \frac{\lambda_\alpha}{\sqrt{\pi} b} e^{-(\frac{{\rm v}_i + {\rm v}_p-{\rm v}_\alpha}{b})^2},
\label{gauss}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm v}_i$ is the velocity of a photon of initial velocity ${\rm v}$ at a redshift $z_i$ along the LOS, ${\rm v}_p$ is the peculiar velocity at $z_i$ and ${\rm v}_\alpha$ is the velocity of the Ly$\alpha$ photons at $z_i$, which is 0 in this expression. The Doppler width parameter is expressed as $b=\sqrt {2kT/m_H}$, where $m_H$ is the hydrogen mass, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the IGM temperature. While we use a $T=10^4 K$ for each cell with an ionization fraction $(1-\chi_{HI})\geq 0.1$, we use $T=20$ K if the IGM is pristine, i.e. has an ionization fraction $(1-\chi_{HI})\leq 0.1$. \footnote{We find that even for an average neutral hydrogen fraction as high as, $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.295$, only 8 cells out of $256^3$ have $(1-\chi_{HI})\leq 0.1$, with the complete RT simulation as described in Sec.~\ref{simulations}. Hence, to simplify the calculations, we use $T =10^4$ K for all the cells for all the {\tt CRASH} outputs.}
In more dense regions the Lorentzian damping wing of the Voigt profile becomes important. According to Peebles (1993), this can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
\phi_{lorentz}({\rm v}_i) = \frac{R_\alpha \lambda_\alpha}{\pi[({\rm v}_i + {\rm v}_p-{\rm v}_\alpha)^2 + R_\alpha^2]}
\label{lorentz}
\end{equation}
where $R_\alpha = \Lambda \lambda_\alpha [4 \pi]^{-1}$ and $\Lambda= 6.25\times 10^8$~s$^{-1}$ is the decay constant for the Ly$\alpha$ resonance. Although computationally more expensive than the above approximations, using the Voigt profile to compute the absorption cross-section gives precise results, and therefore we have implemented it in our code to obtain all the results presented below.
The total Ly$\alpha$ optical depth is calculated for each galaxy identified in the {\tt CRASH}
outputs corresponding to $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29, 0.24,
0.16, 4.5\times 10^{-2}, 1.1 \times 10^{-2}, 4.3\times 10^{-3}, 3.4
\times 10^{-3}$ as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{simulations}. The
transmission along any LOS is calculated as $T_\alpha =
e^{-\tau_\alpha}$, integrating from the position of each galaxy to the edge of the box. To get a statistical estimate of the transmission, we
construct 6 LOS starting from the position of each galaxy, one along
each of the box axes, for each of the mentioned ionization states. The
average value of the transmission for each galaxy is then obtained by
averaging the transmission over the 6 LOS. This is done for all the
ionization state configurations resulting from the RT calculation.
Once the above model is in place, the only {\it two free parameters} of our model to match the theoretical Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs to the observed ones are: the dust distribution radius, $r_d$, and the relative escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons as compared to the continuum photons, $f_\alpha/f_c$. Both these parameters remain quite poorly understood due to a lack of observational data about the dust distribution/topology in high-redshift galaxies; they must therefore be inferred by comparing the theoretical LFs to the observed ones. Details on how these parameters are determined follow in Sec.~\ref{reio effects}.
\section{LAE visibility during reionization}
\label{reio effects}
Once the combined SPH+RT calculations are carried out and the LAE
model implemented, we are in a position to quantify the importance of
reionization, peculiar velocities and the dust enrichment on the
observed LFs. Physically, the reionization process leads to a decrease in $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$, thereby increasing $T_\alpha$; on the
other hand, peculiar velocities caused by galactic scale outflows (inflows), redshift (blueshift) the Ly$\alpha$ photons, thereby leading to a higher (lower) value of $T_\alpha$. A handle on the dust enrichment is necessary since dust grains absorb both Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, thereby affecting their escape fractions from the galaxy.
\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.45] {lya_novel_nodust.eps}}
\caption{Cumulative Ly$\alpha$ LF for galaxies identified as LAEs from the SPH simulation snapshot including the full RT calculation and density fields but ignoring velocity fields (${\rm v}_p=0$) and dust ($f_\alpha=f_c = 1$). The lines from bottom to top correspond to {\tt CRASH} outputs with decreasing values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ such that: $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim$ = 0.29 (solid), 0.24 (dotted), 0.16 (short dashed), $4.5 \times 10^{-2}$ (long dashed), $1.1 \times 10^{-2}$ (dot-short dashed), $4.3 \times 10^{-3}$ (dot-long dashed) and $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ (short-long dashed). Points show the observed LF at $z\sim 5.7$ (Shimasaku et al. 2006). }
\label{lya_novel_nodust}
\end{figure}
We begin our study by ignoring the effects of the peculiar velocities and assuming all the galaxies to be dust free, to quantify how each of these two parameters shapes the observed Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs. The former assumption means that ${\rm v}_p = 0$ in Eqs. \ref{gauss}, \ref{lorentz}; the latter implies that all photons produced inside the galaxy escape into the IGM, i.e. $f_c = f_\alpha = 1$ in Eqs. \ref{lc_int}, \ref{la_int}. We then use the prescriptions detailed in Sec.~\ref{model} to identify the galaxies that would be visible as LAEs in each {\tt CRASH} output and build their Ly$\alpha$ LF, as shown in Fig.~\ref{lya_novel_nodust}.
Since both peculiar velocities and dust are neglected, in this case,
while the UV LF is simply the intrinsic LF, the Ly$\alpha$ LF is
shaped solely by the transmission through the IGM. As mentioned in
Sec.~\ref{simulations}, after a star formation time scale as short as
10 Myr ($\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29$), the galaxies in the
simulation snapshot are able to form \HII regions, with the region
size and the ionization fraction inside it increasing with
$\dot M_*$; this results in a $T_\alpha$ which increases with $\dot
M_*$. As the galaxies continue to form stars, the sizes of the \HII
regions built by each source increase with time, leading $\langle
\chi_{HI} \rangle$ to decrease to $0.24,0.16$ at $t=50, 100$ Myr
respectively. This leads to an increase in the transmission of the red
part of the Ly$\alpha$ line for all the sources, in turn yielding a
corresponding increase of the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity of each source, as
depicted in Fig.~\ref{lya_novel_nodust}. However, after about 200 Myr,
$\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ reduces to $\sim 0.04$; the \HII regions
built by each source are large enough so that almost all of the red
part of the Ly$\alpha$ line is transmitted and the value of $T_\alpha$
saturates for all LAEs. This results in very similar LFs for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04 $, as seen from the same figure.
\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{lya_novel_incdust.eps}}
\caption{Cumulative Ly$\alpha$ LF for galaxies identified as LAEs from the SPH simulation snapshot including the full RT calculation, density fields and dust but ignoring velocity fields (${\rm v}_p=0$), corresponding to models ${\rm S1-S7}$ in Tab. \ref{tab1}. The lines from bottom to top correspond to {\tt CRASH} outputs with decreasing values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ such that: $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim$ 0.29 (solid), 0.24 (dotted), 0.16 (short dashed), $4.5 \times 10^{-2}$ (long dashed), $1.1 \times 10^{-2}$ (dot-short dashed), $4.3 \times 10^{-3}$ (dot-long dashed) and $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ (short-long dashed). The shaded region shows the poissonian error corresponding to $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, i.e., model ${\rm S7}$ (Tab. \ref{tab1}) and points show the observed LF at $z\sim 5.7$ (Shimasaku et al. 2006).}
\label{lya_novel_incdust}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{fractx_ms.eps}}
\caption{$T_\alpha$ as a function of $M_*$ for galaxies identified as LAEs from the simulation snapshot including the full RT calculation, density fields, dust and ignoring (including) velocity fields shown by dotted (solid) lines in each panel. The solid/dotted lines in each panel correspond to the following models given in Tab. \ref{tab1}: (a) ${\rm M1}/{\rm S1}$ ($\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29$), (b) ${\rm M2}/{\rm S2}$ (0.24), (c) ${\rm M3}/{\rm S3}$ (0.16), (d) ${\rm M4}/{\rm S4}$ ($4.5 \times 10^{-2}$), (e) ${\rm M5}/{\rm S5}$ ($1.1 \times 10^{-2}$) and (f) ${\rm M7}/{\rm S7}$ ($3.4 \times 10^{-3}$). In each panel, the stellar mass bins span 0.2 dex and the shaded regions represent the $1\sigma$ error bars in each mass bin. }
\label{fractx_ms}
\end{figure*}
The key point here is that, if peculiar velocities and dust effects are neglected, at no stage of the reionization history, either the slope or the amplitude of the observed Ly$\alpha$ LF can be reproduced; analogous problems arise also when the UV LFs are considered.
The above discussion implies the need of one or more physical effects attenuating the Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, the most obvious of which is the presence of dust in the ISM of these galaxies, which would absorb both Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, simultaneously reducing $f_\alpha$ and $f_c$. We then include the dust model described in Sec.~\ref{dust_model} into our calculations. Since the UV is unaffected by the \HI in the IGM as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{model}, the same value of $r_d = 0.48 r_g$ ($r_g$ is the ISM gas distribution scale, Sec.~\ref{dust_model}) reproduces the UV LF for all of the ionization states of the IGM, ranging from $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29$ to $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$. This assumption of the dust distribution scale leads to an average escape fraction of continuum photons, $f_c \sim 0.12$ (refer Sec.~\ref{dust_model} for details) for the galaxies we identify as LAEs.
We now momentarily digress to discuss the effect of reionization on $T_\alpha$ (defined by Eq. \ref{la_int}) for different stellar mass ranges. However, since $\dot M_* $ scales with $M_*$ (details in Sec. \ref{phy prop}), we discuss $T_\alpha$ in terms of $\dot M_*$. As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{simulations}, we initialize the {\tt CRASH} runs with $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.3$. In a star formation timescale of 10 Myr, by virtue of the \HII regions that already start growing, the total photoionization rate (sum of contributions from the UVB and all the galaxies in the simulation) has a value of $\Gamma_T$\footnote{ $\Gamma_T$, the total photoionization rate, is calculated assuming ionization-recombination equilibrium over average values of density and ionization fraction in the simulation volume, so that $$\Gamma_T = \frac{(1-\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle)^2 \langle n_H \rangle \alpha_B}{\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle}.$$ Here, $\langle n_H \rangle$ is the average hydrogen number density in the simulation volume and $\alpha_B$ is the case B recombination co-efficient. } $= 2.8 \times 10^{-17} {\rm s^{-1}}$ and $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ decreases slightly to 0.295. At this point, due to their smaller \HI ionizing photon output, galaxies with $\dot M_* \leq 25 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$, have $T_\alpha \sim 0.2$; galaxies with larger $\dot M_*$, have $T_\alpha \sim 0.3$, as shown in Panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fractx_ms}. As the star formation continues, for 50 (100) Myr of star formation, the \HII region sizes increase and $\Gamma_T$ increases slightly to $\sim 4.0 \times 10^{-17}$ $(7.7 \times 10^{-17}) \, {\rm s^{-1}}$; $T_\alpha$ increases and ranges between $0.28-0.4$ (0.34-0.44) for $\dot M_* \sim 8-200 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$, Panel b (c), Fig.~\ref{fractx_ms}. Finally for $\Gamma_T \sim 3.3 \times 10^{-16} \, {\rm s^{-1}}$, corresponding to $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.04$, the transmission settles to $T_\alpha \sim 0.4-0.48$ for $\dot M_* \sim 8-200 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$ (Panels d-f); in about 200 Myr from the ignition of star formation, the Str\"omgren spheres built by these LAEs are large enough so that the redshifted Ly$\alpha$ photons are no longer affected by the \HI outside this region. However, the residual \HI inside this ionized region leads to an absorption of the photons blueward of the Ly$\alpha$ line, and hence, about half of the line is transmitted. The values of $\Gamma_T$, $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ and the $T_\alpha$ values averaged for all LAEs in each {\tt CRASH} output are shown in Tab. \ref{tab1}.
\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{uv_incvel_incdust.eps}}
\caption{UV LF for galaxies identified as LAEs from the simulation snapshot including the full RT calculation, density fields, velocity fields and dust, corresponding to models ${\rm M1}$ to ${\rm M7}$ in Tab. \ref{tab1}. The lines from bottom to top correspond to decreasing values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ such that: $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim$ 0.29 (solid), 0.24 (dotted), 0.16 (short dashed), $4.5 \times 10^{-2}$ (long dashed), $1.1 \times 10^{-2}$ (dot-short dashed), $4.3 \times 10^{-3}$ (dot-long dashed) and $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ (short-long dashed). The shaded region shows the poissonian error corresponding to $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, i.e., model ${\rm M7}$ (Tab .\ref{tab1}) and points show the observed UV LF at $z\sim 5.7$ (Shimasaku et al. 2006).}
\label{uv_incvel_incdust}
\end{figure}
Using the above $T_\alpha$ values and dust model fixed by the UV LF, the only free parameter we are left with, to match the theoretical and observed Ly$\alpha$ LFs is $f_\alpha/f_c$; this only scales the Ly$\alpha$ LF without affecting its shape. As mentioned above, the $T_\alpha$ value for galaxies identified as LAEs settles for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04$, which leads to a corresponding saturation in the Ly$\alpha$ LF. We find that $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 1.3$ reproduces the slope and the magnitude of the observed Ly$\alpha$ LF quite well for all the {\tt CRASH} outputs where $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{lya_novel_incdust}. However, due to decreasing values of $T_\alpha$, the Ly$\alpha$ LF is progressively under-estimated for increasing values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$, as seen from the same figure.
\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{lya_incvel_incdust.eps}}
\caption{Cumulative Ly$\alpha$ LF for galaxies identified as LAEs from the simulation snapshot including the full RT calculation, density fields, velocity fields and dust, corresponding to models ${\rm M1}$ to ${\rm M7}$ in Tab. \ref{tab1}. The lines from bottom to top correspond to decreasing values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ such that: $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim$ 0.29 (solid), 0.24 (dotted), 0.16 (short dashed), $4.5 \times 10^{-2}$ (long dashed), $1.1 \times 10^{-2}$ (dot-short dashed), $4.3 \times 10^{-3}$ (dot-long dashed) and $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ (short-long dashed). The shaded region shows the poissonian error corresponding to $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, i.e. model ${\rm M7}$ (Tab. \ref{tab1}) and points show the observed LF at $z\sim 5.7$ (Shimasaku et al. 2006).}
\label{lya_incvel_incdust}
\end{figure}
Once the above framework is in place, we include and study the effect of the final component that can affect the observed luminosity, the presence of peculiar velocities. Once this is done by consistently deriving the peculiar velocity field from the simulations, we again reproduce both the magnitude and slope of the observed UV LF as shown in Fig.~\ref{uv_incvel_incdust}. Of course this does not come as a surprise since velocity fields do not affect UV photons.
However, galactic scale outflows (inflows) from a galaxy, redshift (blueshift) the Ly$\alpha$ photons, thereby leading to a higher (lower) $T_\alpha$ value. It is quite interesting to see that we can again match the theoretical Ly$\alpha$ LFs to the observed ones by a simple scaling between $f_\alpha$ and $f_c$ for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04$, as seen from Fig.~\ref{lya_incvel_incdust}. However, we require a much higher value of $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 3.7$ (models $M4-M7$, Tab. \ref{tab1}), compared to the value of $1.3$ excluding velocity fields (models $S4-S7$, Tab. \ref{tab1}). Again, $T_\alpha$, and hence the Ly$\alpha$ LF, get progressively more damped with an increase in $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$, as seen from Fig.~\ref{lya_incvel_incdust}, (models $M3-M1$, Tab. \ref{tab1}).
We now discuss the reason for the higher $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 3.7$ value required to reproduce the Ly$\alpha$ LF when velocity fields are considered, as compared to the ratio of $1.3$, when they are not, for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04$.
The galaxies we identify as LAEs have halo masses $M_h \sim
10^{10.4-12} \, M_\odot$, which correspond to $\geq 2\sigma$
fluctuations at $z \sim 6.1$. These LAEs are therefore subject to
strong inflows since they lie in dense regions. As these inflows
blue-shift the Ly$\alpha$ photons, even photons in the red part of the
line are attenuated, thereby reducing $T_\alpha$. This can be seen
clearly from Fig.~\ref{fractx_ms}, where the solid lines, which
represent the outcomes from the models including velocities, are
always significantly below the dotted ones, which represent the model
with no velocity field included. When velocity fields are included we find
$T_\alpha \sim 0.08-0.12$ ($0.16-0.18$) for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29$ ($3.4\times
10^{-3}$) for $\dot M_* \sim 8-200 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$. Averaging over all the LAEs for $\langle \chi_{HI}\rangle \sim 3.4\times 10^{-3}$, we find the value of $T_\alpha$ $\sim 0.17$ ($0.44$) including (excluding) the effects of peculiar velocity fields. This requires that when peculiar velocities are included, a correspondingly larger fraction ($0.44/0.17 = 2.6$) of Ly$\alpha$ photons must escape the galaxy, undamped by dust to bring the observed luminosity up to the levels it would reach in the absence of these inflows. Although many galaxies do show outflows, powered by supernova explosions, these dominate at very small scales ($\leq 170$ physical Mpc). However, the small redshift boost imparted by these is negligible compared to the blue-shifting of the Ly$\alpha$ line because of large scale inflows; eventually, it is these dominant inflows that determine the value of $T_\alpha$.
Further, including velocity fields changes the slope of the LF; when
velocity fields are not included, $T_\alpha$ basically scales with $\dot M_*$; when these are included, $T_\alpha$ is the most damped for the
largest masses, since these see the strongest inflow velocities by
virtue of their largest potential wells.
This can be seen clearly from Fig.~\ref{fractx_ms} where the slope of
$T_\alpha$ is visibly shallower for the solid curves (including
velocities) than for the dotted ones (neglecting velocities). This has
the effect of {\it flattening} the slope of the Ly$\alpha$ LF as
can be seen in Fig.~\ref{lya_incvel_incdust}).
\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{contour_levels2.eps}}
\caption{The $1-5\sigma$ probability contours (black to light gray respectively) for combinations of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ and $f_\alpha/f_c$ that fit the observed Ly$\alpha$ LF. Within a $1\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) error, we can not distinguish an IGM with $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ from one where $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.16$ (0.24) for $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 3.4-4.1$ ($3.0-5.7$). This implies a {\it degeneracy} between the ionization state of the IGM and dust clumping (or grain properties) inside high-redshift galaxies; the ionization state of the IGM cannot be tightly constrained unless the relative escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ compared to the continuum photons is reasonably well understood. Refer Sec.~\ref{reio effects} for details. }
\label{prob_contours}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption {The model designation (col 1), the star formation timescale to ionize the IGM (col 2), the features included in the model (VF stands for peculiar velocity fields) (col 3), the average neutral hydrogen fraction (col 4), the value of the total photoionization rate (sum of the contribution from the UVB and from all the galaxies in the snapshot) corresponding to this neutral hydrogen fraction (col 5), the average transmission for all the galaxies identified as LAEs (col 6), the average escape fraction of continuum photons for LAEs for the model presented in Sec.~\ref{dust_model} (col 7), the average color excess value corresponding to this continuum escape fraction using the supernova extinction curve (col 8) and the relative escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons to best fit the observations for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04$ (col 9).}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
${\rm Model}$ & $T$ & ${\rm Features}$ & $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ & $\Gamma_T$ & $\langle T_\alpha \rangle$ &
$\langle f_c \rangle $ & $\langle E(B-V) \rangle $ & $f_\alpha/f_c$ \\
$$ & $[{\rm Myr}]$ & $$ & $$ & $[10^{-14}\, {\rm s^{-1}}]$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ \\
\hline
${\rm S1}$ & $10$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $0.295$ & $2.8 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.21$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $1.3$\\
${\rm S2}$ & $50$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $0.240$ & $4.0 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.30$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $1.3$\\
${\rm S3}$ & $100$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $0.157$ & $7.6 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.37$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $1.3$\\
${\rm S4}$ & $200$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $4.55\times 10^{-2}$ & $3.3 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.42$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ &$1.3$\\
${\rm S5}$ & $300$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $1.13 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.14$ & $0.43$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ &$1.3$\\
${\rm S6}$ & $400$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $4.33 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.33$ & $0.44$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$& $1.3$\\
${\rm S7}$ & $500$ & ${\rm RT + dust}$ & $3.43 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.48$ & $0.44$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $1.3$\\
$$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ \\
${\rm M1}$ & $10$ & ${\rm RT + VF + dust}$ & $0.295$ & $2.8 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.10$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $3.7$\\
${\rm M2}$ & $50$ & ${\rm RT + VF +dust}$ & $0.240$ & $4.0 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.13$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $3.7$\\
${\rm M3}$ & $100$ & ${\rm RT + VF +dust}$ & $0.157$ & $7.6 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.15$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ &$3.7$\\
${\rm M4}$ & $200$ & ${\rm RT + VF +dust}$ & $4.55 \times 10^{-2}$ & $3.3 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.16$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ &$3.7$\\
${\rm M5}$ & $300$ & ${\rm RT + VF +dust}$ & $1.13 \times 10^{-2}$ & $0.14$ & $0.17$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $3.7$\\
${\rm M6}$ & $400$ & ${\rm RT + VF +dust}$ & $4.33 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.33$ & $0.17$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $3.7$\\
${\rm M7}$ & $500$ & ${\rm RT + VF +dust}$ & $3.43 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.48$ & $0.17$ & $0.12$ & $0.2$ & $3.7$\\
\hline
\label{tab1}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
As an important result, the above analysis shows that there exists a degeneracy between the ionization state of the IGM and dust clumping (or grain properties) inside high-redshift galaxies, i.e a high (low) $T_\alpha$ can be compensated by a low (high) $f_\alpha$. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{prob_contours}, where we find that within a $1\sigma$ error, for $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 3.4-4.1$, we can not distinguish an IGM with $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ from one where $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.16$. Within the area under the $5\sigma$ error, $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 4.1- 5.7$ can also fit the Ly$\alpha$ LF for $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.24$. This leads to the very interesting conclusion that the ionization state of the IGM cannot be tightly constrained unless the relative escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ compared to the continuum photons is reasonably well understood.
We now discuss the dusty nature of the LAEs we identify from the SPH simulation. We require that for the complete LAE model ($M1-M7$, Tab. \ref{tab1}), the value of $f_\alpha/f_c$ must range between $3.4-4.1$ ($3-5.7$) for an average neutral hydrogen fraction of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.16$ ($\leq 0.24$). However, no single extinction curve gives a value of $f_\alpha/f_c >1$. One of the simplest ways of explaining this large relative escape fraction is to invoke the multiphase ISM model as proposed by Neufeld (1991), wherein the ISM is multiphase and consists of a warm gas with cold dust clumps embedded in it. This inhomogeneity of the dust distribution can then lead to a larger attenuation of the continuum photons relative to the Ly$\alpha$.
\begin{figure*}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=1.05]{phy_prop6.eps}}
\caption{Physical properties of the galaxies identified as LAEs using model ${\rm M7}$ in Tab. \ref{tab1}. This model includes the full RT calculation, density, velocity fields, dust and has $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$. The panels show (a) the gas mass, $M_g$ (b) SFR, $\dot M_*$, (c) mass weighted stellar age, $t_*$ and (d) the mass weighted stellar metallicity, $Z_*$, (e) the total dust mass, $M_{dust}$ and, (f) the escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons, $f_\alpha$, plotted as a function of the stellar mass, $M_*$. The values of each quantity are shown averaged over $M_*$ bins spanning 0.2 dex, with the error bars representing the $1\sigma$ error in each bin. }
\label{phy_prop}
\end{figure*}
We also translate $f_c$ into the color excess, $E(B-V)$, for models $M1-M7$ (Tab. \ref{tab1}) and compare this value to other high redshift LAE observations. At high redshifts, the observed properties of the most distant quasars (Maiolino et al. 2006) and gamma-ray bursts (Stratta et al. 2007) can be successfully interpreted using a SN extinction curve (Todini \& Ferrara 2001; Bianchi \& Schneider 2007). Using the same curve, we find the average value of the color excess, $E(B-V)= 0.2$, corresponding to an average $f_c=0.12$. This inferred color excess value is in good agreement with recent experimental determinations: by fitting the SEDs of 3 LAEs at $z = 5.7$, Lai et al. (2007) have inferred $E(B-V) < 0.225-0.425$; in a sample of 12 LAEs at $z = 4.5$, Finkelstein et al. (2009) have found $E(B-V) = 0.035-0.316$; finally, Pirzkal et al. (2007) have found $E(B-V)=0.025-0.3$ for 3 galaxies at $z = 4-5.76$.
We now summarize our two main results: (a) we find that the Ly$\alpha$ LF can be well reproduced (to within a $5\sigma$ error) by an average neutral hydrogen fraction as high as 0.24 (an almost neutral IGM), to a value as low as $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, corresponding to an ionized IGM, provided that the increase in the transmission is compensated by a decrease in the Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction from the galaxy, (b) we find that to reproduce the Ly$\alpha$ LF, for any ionization state of the IGM, we require $f_\alpha/f_c>1$, a value that cannot be obtained using any existing extinction curve; this raises the need to invoke a multiphase ISM model, in which dust clumps are embedded in a highly ionized ISM, to facilitate the Ly$\alpha$ photon escape relative to that of continuum photons.
\section{Physical properties of LAEs}
\label{phy prop}
We are now in a position to discuss the physical properties of the galaxies we identify as LAEs, including the stellar and gas mass, metallicity, stellar ages, dust mass and escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons from the ISM. As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{reio effects}, while the UV LF is independent of the ionization state of the IGM, the Ly$\alpha$ LF can be well reproduced if a low (high) Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction from the galaxy is compensated by a high (low) transmission through the IGM. Hence, by scaling up $f_\alpha/f_c$ for increasing values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle > 0.04$ (models M1-M3, Tab. \ref{tab1}), we would broadly always identify the same galaxy population as LAEs. We now show the physical properties for the LAEs identified using model M7 (Tab. \ref{tab1}), which includes the full RT calculation, density/velocity fields and dust, with $f_\alpha/f_c = 3.7$.
We find that there is the direct correlation between $M_g$ and $M_*$;
LAEs with a larger $M_*$ are also more gas rich. However, the ratio
$M_g/M_*$ is the largest (smallest) for LAEs with the smallest
(largest) $M_*$, as one can deduce from panel (a) of
Fig.~\ref{phy_prop}. If we assume the halo mass to scale with the
total baryonic mass ($M_g+M_*$), according to the cosmological ratio,
this implies that more massive galaxies are more efficient in turning
their gas into stars. This trend is as expected, since even a small amount of star formation activity in low mass galaxies can lead to large outflows of gas, thereby suppressing further star formation. This situation however, does not occur in galaxies with larger masses, which do not witness large, galactic scale outflows, by virtue of their much larger potential wells (Mac Low \& Ferrara 1999).
LAEs with $M_* \leq 10^{9.7} M_\odot$ have $\dot M_* \sim 8-25 \, {\rm
M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$, i.e. most of the LAEs have a sustained but not
exceptionally large star formation activity. However, galaxies with
larger stellar masses are much more efficient in converting their gas
into stars, leading to SFR as large as $200 \, {\rm M_\odot\,
yr^{-1}}$, as seen from panel (b), Fig.~\ref{phy_prop}, which is
just a positive feedback of the $M_g-M_*$ relation mentioned above.
Although the average age of the galaxies are calculated as $t_* = M_* / \dot M_*$, it is interesting to see that all the galaxies we identify as LAEs have $t_*\geq 10$ Myr, as shown in panel (c) of Fig.~\ref{phy_prop}; further the standard deviation on the smallest ages are the smallest. Since we calculate the ages assuming $\dot M_*$ to have been constant over the entire star formation history, it is entirely possible that many of the LAEs are actually older (younger) if $\dot M_*$ in the past was smaller (larger) than the final value at $z \sim 6.1$. However, we are unable to comment on this further in absence of the complete star formation history for each galaxy. Using these average ages, we find that LAEs are intermediate age galaxies, instead of being extremely young ($<$ 10 Myr) or extremely old ($\sim 1$ Gyr) objects. This confirms an earlier result obtained in Dayal et al. (2009a), based on an accurate modelling of the star formation history, that it is unlikely that young ages could be responsible for the large equivalent widths ($EW \geq 200$ \AA) observed for a number of LAEs at $z \sim 4.5, 5.7$ by Dawson et al. (2007) and Shimasaku et al. (2006) respectively. A complete discussion on the EW distribution is deferred to Sec.~\ref{conc} of this paper.
The mass weighted stellar metallicity of LAEs scales with $M_*$ as shown in panel (d) of Fig.~\ref{phy_prop}; LAEs with a higher $\dot M_*$ are more dust enriched, which is only to be expected since the metals have a stellar origin. The metallicity values for the smallest halos show the largest dispersion, possibly arising due to the differing values of feedback in these low mass halos. Compared to the analogous mass-metallicity relation observed at lower redshifts (Tremonti et al. 2004; Panter et al. 2008; Maiolino et al. 2008), we do not see the sign of a flattening of metallicity towards larger masses which might imply that at high redshift galaxies are not massive enough to retain their metals and behave as close-boxes.
In our model, we have assumed SNII to be the primary dust factories,
with the SNII rate\footnote{The SNII rate is estimated to be $\gamma
\dot M_* $, where $\gamma \sim (54 \,{\rm M_\odot})^{-1}$ for a
Salpeter IMF between the lower and upper mass limits of $1$ and
${100\, \rm M_\odot}$ respectively (Ferrara, Pettini and Shchekinov
2000).} being proportional to $\dot M_*$. In our model, the dust
amount is regulated solely by stellar processes: dust is produced by
SNII, destroyed in the ISM shocked by SNII and astrated into stars, as
mentioned before in Sec.~\ref{dust_model}. The dust amount, therefore,
scales with $\dot M_*$, with the most star forming galaxies being
most dust enriched, as shown in panel (e) of Fig.~\ref{phy_prop}. A
caveat that must be mentioned here is that as outflows tend to occur
on smaller scales with respect to inflows, they are only marginally
resolved by our RT simulations. Lacking this information, we have not
included their destructive impact into the computation of the dust mass,
which could therefore be somewhat overestimated (refer Dayal et al. 2009b for details).
As expected, we find that $f_\alpha$ decreases with increasing dust enrichment of the galaxy; galaxies with larger $M_*$, and hence, $\dot M_*$, have a smaller Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction. The value of $f_\alpha$ decreases by a factor of about 3, going from 0.9 to 0.3 as $M_*$ runs from $10^{8.5-10.7} \, {\rm M_\odot}$, as shown in panel (f), Fig.~\ref{phy_prop}.
\section{Conclusions and Discussion }
\label{conc}
Although a number of simulations have been used in the past few years (Mc Quinn et al. 2007; Iliev et al. 2008, Nagamine et al. 2008; Dayal et al. 2009a, 2009b; Zheng et al. 2009), the relative importance of reionization, velocity fields and dust, on shaping the observed Ly$\alpha$ and UV LFs has remained rather obscure so far. To this end, we build a coherent model for LAEs, which includes: (a) cosmological SPH simulations run using {\tt GADGET-2}, to obtain the galaxy properties ($\dot M_*$, $Z_*$, $M_*$), (b) the Ly$\alpha$ and continuum luminosities produced, calculated using the intrinsic properties of each galaxy, accounting for both the contribution from stellar sources and cooling of collisionally excited \HI in their ISM, (c) a model for the dust enrichment, influencing the escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ and continuum photons, and (d) a complete RT calculation, carried out using {\tt CRASH}, including the effects of density and velocity fields, used to calculate the transmission of Ly$\alpha$ photons through the IGM.
In spite of this wealth of physical effects, we are still left with two free parameters: the radius of dust distribution, $r_d$, which determines the optical depth to continuum photons (see Eq. \ref{tau_dust}) and, the escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons relative to the continuum photons, $f_\alpha/f_c$. These then must be constrained by
comparing the theoretical model to the observations.
Starting our analysis by assuming all galaxies to be dust-free and ignoring gas peculiar velocities, we find that with such a scheme, none of the ionization states of the IGM with
$\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29 $ to $3.4\times 10^{-3}$, can reproduce either the slope or the galaxy number density of the observed UV or Ly$\alpha$ LF. We then include the dust model described in Sec.~\ref{dust_model} into our calculations, such that each SNII produces $0.54 \,{\rm M_\odot}$ of dust, SNII shocks destroy dust with an efficiency of about $12$\% and the dust distribution radius is about half of the gas distribution radius, $r_d =0.48 r_g$. Since the UV is unaffected by the \HI in the IGM as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{model}, the same dust model parameters reproduce the UV LF for all of the ionization states of the IGM, ranging from $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 0.29$ to $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$.
We find that we can reproduce the Ly$\alpha$ LF using $f_\alpha/f_c \sim 1.3$ (3.7) for all ionization states such that $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \leq 0.04$ excluding (including) peculiar velocity fields, since the Ly$\alpha$ LF settles to a constant value at this point due to a saturation in $T_\alpha$, as explained in Sec.~\ref{reio effects}. Higher values of $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle$ naturally lead to a lower transmission, thus leading to a progressive underestimation of the Ly$\alpha$ LF. The higher $f_\alpha/f_c$ value required to reproduce the observations when velocity fields are included, arise because LAEs reside in $\geq 2 \sigma$ fluctuations;
LAEs are therefore subject to strong inflows which blue-shift the Ly$\alpha$ photons, thereby reducing $T_\alpha$. This decrease in $T_\alpha$ must therefore be compensated by a larger escape fraction from the galaxy to fit the observations. Further, due to the larger masses, $T_\alpha$ is most damped for the largest galaxies, when velocity fields are included, which has the effect of {\it flattening} the slope of the Ly$\alpha$ LF.
The above {\it degeneracy} between the ionization state of the IGM and
the dust distribution/clumping inside high-redshift galaxies has been
quantified (see Fig.~\ref{prob_contours}); the Ly$\alpha$ LF can be
well reproduced (to within a $5\sigma$ error) by $\langle \chi_{HI}
\rangle \sim0.24$, corresponding to a highly neutral IGM, to a value
as low as $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, corresponding to an ionized IGM,
provided that the increase in $T_\alpha$ is compensated by a decrease
in the Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction from the galaxy. This leads to the
very interesting conclusion that the ionization state of the IGM can
not be constrained unless the escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ versus
continuum photons is reasonably well understood. This is possible only
through simulations that model the physics of the ISM, including the
clumping of dust, and include a RT calculation for both Ly$\alpha$ and
continuum photons on such ISM topologies. However, the clumping of dust depends on the turbulence in the ISM, which itself remains only poorly understood. Therefore, attempts to break the mentioned degeneracy must be deferred to future works.
As for the dusty nature of LAEs, we find that $\langle f_c \rangle \sim 0.12$, averaged over all the LAEs in any snapshot, which corresponds to a color excess, $E(B-V) \sim 0.2$, using a SN extinction curve. This value is in very good accordance with the observed values of $E(B-V) < 0.225-0.425$ (Lai et al. 2007), $E(B-V) = 0.035-0.316$ (Finkelstein et al. 2009) and $E(B-V)=0.025-0.3$ (Pirzkal et al. 2007). Secondly, since no single extinction curve (Milky Way, Small Magellanic Cloud, supernova) gives a value of $f_\alpha/f_c >1$; this larger escape fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons relative to the continuum can be understood as an indication of a multi-phase ISM model (Neufeld 1991) where dust clumps are embedded in a more diffuse ionized ISM component.
LAEs with a larger $M_*$ are also more gas rich. However, the ratio $M_g/M_*$ is the largest (smallest) for LAEs with the smallest (largest) stellar mass, which implies that more massive galaxies ($M_* \geq 10^{10} \, {\rm M_\odot}$) are more efficient in turning their gas into stars ($\dot M_* \geq 40 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$ ), i.e., star formation is suppressed ($\sim 8-25 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}} $) in low mass galaxies ($M_* < 10^{9.7} \, {\rm M_\odot}$) due to mechanical feedback. All the galaxies we identify as LAEs have $t_*\sim 10 - 300$ Myr; LAEs are intermediate age galaxies, instead of being extremely young ($<$ 10 Myr) or extremely old ($\sim 1$ Gyr) objects, as shown in Dayal et al. (2009a). The mass weighted stellar metallicity of LAEs scales with $M_*$ but the metallicity of the smallest halos has a large dispersion, possibly arising due to the increasing importance of feedback towards low mass halos. Since in our model, we have assumed SNII to be the primary dust factories, the dust amounts are regulated solely by stellar processes. The dust amounts, therefore, scale with $\dot M_*$, with the most star forming galaxies being most dust enriched. As expected, we find that $f_\alpha$ decreases with increasing dust enrichment of the galaxy; galaxies with larger $M_*$, and hence, $\dot M_*$, have a smaller Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction. The value of $f_\alpha$ decreases by a factor of about 3, going from 0.9 to 0.3 as $M_*$ increases from $10^{8.5-10.5} \, {\rm M_\odot}$.
\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{ew.eps}}
\caption{Observed EWs from Shimasaku et al. (2006) (circles) and model values of the observed EWs (astrexes) as a function of the observed Ly$\alpha$ luminosity. The theoretical model includes the full RT calculation, density, velocity fields, dust and has $\langle \chi_{HI} \rangle \sim 3.4 \times 10^{-3}$, corresponding to model ${\rm M7}$, Tab. \ref{tab1}.}
\label{ew}
\end{figure}
We finally comment on the EW distribution obtained from our model and compare it to the observations (Fig.~\ref{ew}). There is a trend of increasing EW in more luminous objects which cannot be yet solidly identified in the available (and uncertain) observational data. In addition, the observed EWs show a large dispersion, varying by as much as a factor of 3 for the same $L_\alpha$ value; this suggests that the observed EW depends on several structural parameters of LAEs, namely $\dot M_*$, peculiar velocities and dust clumping, to name a few. By virtue of using a LAE model which depends on the intrinsic galaxy properties, includes a dust calculation and takes peculiar velocities/ density inhomogeneities into account, we also obtain a large spread (20-222 \AA) in the observed EWs. This is a clear improvement on our own previous work (Dayal et al. 2009) in which some of these ingredients were not yet accounted for.
At the very last, we discuss a few caveats. First, we have used a constant value of the escape fraction of \HI ionizing photons, $f_{esc}=0.02$ in all our calculations. However, the value of $f_{esc}$ remains poorly constrained both observationally and theoretically. While $z \sim 3$ galaxies have been used to obtain values of $f_{esc} < 0.04$ (Fernandez-Soto et al. 2003) to $f_{esc} \sim 0.1$ (Steidel et al. 2001), observations in the local Universe range between $f_{esc} < 0.01$ (Deharveng et al. 1997) to $f_{esc} \sim 0.1-0.73$ (Catellanos et al. 2002). A larger (smaller) value of $f_{esc}$ would lead to larger (smaller) \HII regions, thereby affecting the progress of the reionization process and hence $T_\alpha$; a change in $f_{esc}$ would also affect $L_\alpha^{int}$, Sec.~\ref{intlum_model}.
Secondly, the average age of the galaxies are calculated as $t_* = M_* / \dot M_*$. Since we calculate the ages assuming constant $\dot M_*$, it is entirely possible that some of the LAEs could be slightly older (younger) if $\dot M_*$ in the past was smaller (larger) than the final value at $z \sim 6.1$. Galaxies younger than $10$ Myr would have higher EWs as compared to the values shown here; however, this could be possible only for the the smallest galaxies, which could assemble due to mergers and undergo star formation in a time as short as 10 Myr.
Third, in the dust model explained in Sec.~\ref{dust_model}, we have considered dust destruction by forward sweeping SNII shocks. However, Bianchi \& Schneider (2007) have shown that reverse shocks from the ISM can also lead to dust destruction, with only about 7\% of the dust mass surviving the reverse shock, for an ISM density of $10^{-25} {\rm gm \, cm^{-3}}$. Since we neglect this effect, we might be over-predicting the dust enrichment in LAEs. This, however, does not affect our results because the dust optical depth depends on the surface density of the dust distribution as shown in Eq. \ref{tau_dust}; a large (small) dust mass can be distributed in a large (small) volume to obtain identical values of the optical depth.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank C. Evoli, S. Gallerani, R. Schneider and R. Valiante for useful comments. Discussions and the stimulating environment at {\tt DAVID IV}, held at OAArcetri, Florence is kindly acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
The quantum nature of black holes represents a significant and valuable property as a tool in understanding quantum gravity.
This can be seen from the quantization of black hole horizon area which follows from the fact that there can be emission or absorption of quanta from a black hole.
It was first proposed that the black hole horizon area is an adiabatic invariant and should be quantized by Ehrenfest principle, which says that any classical adiabatic invariant corresponds to a quantum entity with discrete spectrum \cite{be}. By considering the minimum change of horizon area in the process of absorption of a test particle it was proposed that the horizon area is linearly quantized as follows \cite{be}:
\begin{equation}
A_n =\gamma n \hbar ~~,~~ n=0,1,2,.. ,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is an undetermined dimensionless constant.
Since this proposal, the horizon area spectra of black holes have been investigated in various ways.
Among them, it was realized that the quasinormal mode of a black hole which is the characteristic sound of the black hole would play a significant role in obtaining area spectrum of the black hole.
Based on Bohr's correspondence principle, by considering the real part of the asymptotic quasinormal mode of a black hole as a transition frequency in the semiclassical limit, the dimensionless constant $\gamma$ could be determined \cite{hod}.
For the example of the Schwarzschild black hole, the real part of the asymptotic quasinormal mode is given by $ \w_R = {{ { \rm ln 3} } \over {8 \pi M}} $ \cite{nol} and the dimensionless constant $\gamma$ was determined as
\begin{equation} \label{ho}
\gamma = 4 \, {\rm ln} 3 ~,
\end{equation}
where the relations $A=16 \pi M^2$ and $\triangle M=\hbar \w_R$ were used \cite{hod}.
Later, the area spectrum of the Schwarzschild black hole was reproduced in a different method, where an adiabatic invariant of the system was used \cite{kun}.
It was noticed that given a system with energy $E$ and vibrational frequency $\w(E)$, the quantity $I= \int {dE / {\w(E)} } $ is an adiabatic invariant \cite{kun}. The real part of the quasinormal frequency was considered as the vibrational frequency and Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization, $I=n \hbar$, was applied in the semiclassical limit. Since the change of the energy of a black hole is the change of the ADM mass $M$ of the black hole, the formula was obtained as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{kuf}
I = \int {dE \over {\w_R} } = \int {dM \over {\w_R} }
=n \hbar ~.
\end{equation}
From this formula, it was obtained that the area spectrum of the Schwarzschild black hole is the same as the previous result (\ref{ho}) and equally spaced.
Following the formula (\ref{kuf}), a modified adiabatic invariant $\II$ was considered for a rotating black hole.
The modified adiabatic invariant $\II$ was given by \cite{setvag}
\begin{equation} \label{mkuf}
\II= \int {{dM -\Omega dJ} \over {\w_R} } ~,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is the angular velocity at horizon. This adiabatic invariant $\II$ was quantized as $\II =n \hbar$ via Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization.
This was applied for the Kerr black hole and the area spectrum was not equally spaced \cite{setvag}.
Recently, it was proposed that since a perturbed black hole has to be described as a damped harmonic oscillator, the characteristic classical frequency $\w_c$ should be identified with the transition frequency between quantum levels $(\w_{0})_k$, which is defined as $(\w_0)_k = ( {\sqrt{ {\omega _R}^2+{\omega _I}^2 } })_k $, in the semiclassical limit \cite{magi}.
Since most black holes have $\omega _{I} \gg \omega _{R}$ at highly excited levels, we have $\omega _0 \sim \omega _I $ rather than $ \omega _0 \sim \omega _R$.
Therefore for the highly damped mode $( \omega _{I} \gg \omega _{R} )$ we have $\w_{c} = (\w_ {0})_{k} - (\w_ {0})_{k-1} \simeq ( | \w_ {I} | )_{k} - ( | \w_ {I} | )_{k-1}$, where $k \in \ N $ and $ k \gg 1$.
With this newly identified frequency, the area spectrum of the Schwarzschild black hole was obtained from the relation $\triangle M = \hbar \omega _c= { \hbar \over {4 M}}$ as follows \cite{magi}:
\begin{equation} \label{revi1}
A=8 \pi n \hbar ~.
\end{equation}
This area spectrum is equally spaced, but has different spacing from the previous result (\ref{ho}).
By using the newly identified frequency $\omega _c$ instead of $\omega _R$ in the formula (\ref{kuf}), the area spectrum (\ref{revi1}) was reproduced \cite{med, wei}.
With this transition frequency $\omega _c$ the area spectrum of the Kerr black hole was reconsidered by using Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization of the modified adiabatic invariant (\ref{mkuf}) \cite{med, vage}.
It was obtained again that the area spectrum of the Kerr black hole is not equally spaced, which is still in contradiction to Bekenstein's proposal \cite{be}.
In our recent work \cite{sk}, however, it was pointed out that Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization should be applied to an action variable of the system rather than an adiabatic invariant, and that not every adiabatic invariant is an action variable. It is well known that the action variable via Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization should be given by
\begin{equation}
{\mathfrak I}= {1 \over {2 \pi}} \oint p dq = n \hbar ~~,~~ (n=0,1,2.. )~.
\end{equation}
Based on Bohr's correspondence principle, the transition frequency $\w_c$ of a black hole in the semiclassical limit is considered as the oscillation frequency in a classical system of periodic motion.
So, the action variable of the corresponding classical system is identified and quantized via Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization in the semiclassical limit as follows \cite{sk}:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{mf}
{\mathfrak I} = \int { dE \over {\omega _c }} = n \hbar ~~,~~ (n=0,1,2.. )~.
\end{eqnarray}
A black hole with transition frequency can be considered as a classical system of periodic motion with oscillation frequency equal to the transition frequency in the semiclassical limit. Therefore the formula (\ref{mf}) holds for a black hole with quasinormal mode regardless of whether it is rotating or not \cite{sk}.
As an example for a rotating black hole, the BTZ black hole was considered in our previous work \cite{sk} and by using the formula (\ref{mf}) we obtained that the area and entropy spectra are equally spaced.
In this paper we would like to apply the method to topologically massive gravity theory in three dimensions \cite{deser, deser2}, and investigate the area and entropy spectra of black hole solutions in that theory, where the gravitational Chern-Simons term is considered in the Einstein-Hilbert action with the cosmological constant.
The reason we consider this is that the simple Bekenstein-Hawking area law, $S=A/(4 G \hbar)$, is no longer true, due to the presence of the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
We then face a small puzzle. Can either of the area spectrum or the entropy spectrum have a universal behavior of equally spaced spectrum? The physical quantity with the universal behavior should be regarded as more `fundamental'. So, it is a very interesting question to ask if the black holes in the topologically massive gravity have such a universal behavior and which one is `fundamental'.
If any of the spectra indeed has such a behavior, it will provide a substantial support for our earlier proposal \cite{sk}.
Further motivation for the inclusion of the gravitational Chern-Simons term comes from the fact that it rises naturally in string theory. Sometimes, the compactification of superstring theory down to odd dimensional spacetimes gives rise to the gravitational Chern-Simons term. In particular for the three dimensional case, it becomes the topologically massive gravity. As we know, in three dimensions there are no propagating degrees of freedom even though asymptotically $AdS_3$ black hole solution exists \cite{BTZ}. However, the topologically massive gravity has a single massive graviton mode because of the gravitational Chern-Simons term \cite{deser}.
So, we will consider black holes in three dimensional topologically massive gravity with a negative cosmological constant, whose action is given by \cite{deser, deser2, strom}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{action}
\fl {\rm I} &=& {\rm I_{EH} } + {\rm I_{CS} } \nonumber \\
\fl &=& {1 \over {16 \pi G}} \int _M d^3 x { \sqrt{-g} \left( R+{ 2 \over {l^2} } \right)}
- {l \over {96 \pi G \v}} \int _M d^3 x {\sqrt{-g} \varepsilon ^{\lambda \mu \nu} \Gamma ^{r} _ {\lambda \sigma} \left( \partial_\mu \Gamma ^{\sigma} _{r \nu} +{2 \over 3} \Gamma ^{\sigma} _{\mu \tau} \Gamma ^{\tau} _{\nu r} \right)} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\v$ is the coupling constant and $\varepsilon ^{\tau \sigma \mu}=1 / \sqrt{-g} $ is the Levi-Civita tensor. The first term $\rm I_{EH} $ is the Einstein-Hilbert action with a negative cosmological constant and the second term $\rm I_{CS} $ is the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
Varying this action with respect to the metric, we obtain the equation of motion;
\begin{equation} \label{revieq}
G_{\mu \nu} -{1 \over l^2} g_{\mu \nu} + {l \over {3 \v} } C_{\mu \nu} =0 ~,
\end{equation}
where $G_{\mu \nu} $ is the Einstein tensor and $C_{\mu \nu} $ is the Cotton tensor;
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mu \nu} = R_{\mu \nu} -{1 \over 2} g_{\mu \nu} R ~~, ~~ C_{\mu \nu} = \varepsilon _{\mu} ^{\alpha \beta} \nabla _\alpha \left( R_{\beta \nu} -{1 \over 4} g_{\beta \nu} R \right) ~.
\end{eqnarray}
We will consider two examples of black holes as the solutions of the equation of motion (\ref{revieq}).
One is the BTZ black hole and the other is the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole which is asymptotic to warped ${\rm AdS}_3$. The warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole without naked closed timelike curves is the spacelike stretched black hole for $\v >1$.
The warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v > 1$ has the non-vanishing Cotton tensor, $C_{\mu \nu} \neq 0$, while the BTZ black hole and the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v = 1$ have the vanishing Cotton tensor, $C_{\mu \nu}=0$.
Indeed the metrics of the BTZ black hole and the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v = 1$ are related by a coordinate transformation each other \cite{strom}.
We will apply the formula (\ref{mf}) for the BTZ black hole and the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole
and calculate the area and entropy spectra of the black holes with the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
This paper is organized as follows:
First, we will consider the BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term.
For the rotating case we find that the inner horizon area as well as the outer horizon area is quantized and the area spectra are not equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$.
However the entropy spectrum is equally spaced and independent of the coupling constant $\v$. This entropy spectrum is the exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk}.
This implies that the entropy is more `fundamental' than the horizon area.
For the non-rotating case both area and entropy spectra are equally spaced and independent of the coupling constant $\v$. The area and entropy spectra are the exactly same as for the non-rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk}.
Therefore the Chern-Simons term does not affect the area and entropy spectra of the non-rotating BTZ black hole, different from the rotating case.
Next, we will consider the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black holes for $\v \ge1$.
For $\v = 1$ case, we find that the spectra of the both inner and outer horizon areas are equally spaced and the entropy spectrum is also equally spaced. These area and entropy spectra are exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term for $\v=1$, as it is expected.
For $\v > 1$, we find that while the spectra of the inner and outer horizon areas are not equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$, the entropy spectrum is equally spaced and independent of the coupling constant $\v$.
This behavior of the area and entropy spectra is just like the rotating BTZ black hole case with the Chern-Simons term.
Moreover the entropy spectrum is exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole regardless of whether the Chern-Simons term is considered or not.
It implies that the entropy spectrum has a universal behavior regardless of the presence of the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
In the last section, we propose that the universality of the equally spaced entropy spectrum can be used for criteria for checking if the calculated quasinormal modes of a black hole are correct.
For the quasinormal modes of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v>1$, there are two different calculations which give different results in \cite{bin, bin2} and \cite{0912}.
The quasinormal modes in \cite{bin, bin2} are obtained from the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at radial infinity, while in \cite{0912} the quasinormal modes are obtained without imposing boundary condition at radial infinity.
Since the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v>1$ has the finite effective potential at radial infinity, it is not clear whether we can impose the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at radial infinity. However, as we propose, from the universality of the entropy spectrum we can find which one is right.
In light of the criteria that the equally spaced entropy spectrum should be universal, we find that the quasinormal modes in \cite{bin, bin2} are ruled out, since they give non-equally spaced entropy spectrum.
\section{Area and entropy spectra of the BTZ black hole with the gravitational Chern-Simons term}
We will consider the rotating BTZ black hole with the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
The metric of the rotating BTZ black hole is given by \cite{BTZ}
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl ds^2= \left(8 G M - { r^2 \over l^2} -{ {16 G^2 J^2} \over {r^2} } \right) dt^2+ { {dr^2} \over {\left(-8 G M+{ r^2 \over l^2} +{ {16 G^2 J^2} \over {r^2} }\right)} } + r^2 \left( d\phi -{{4 G J} \over {r^2} } dt \right) ^2 ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the cosmological constant is given by $\Lambda=-{1 \over l^2}$.
The mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$ of the black hole can be expressed in terms of the outer and inner horizons, $r_\pm$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
M= { { {r_+ ^2}+ {r_- ^2} } \over {8 G l^2}} ~~,~~ J= { { 2 {r_+} {r_-} } \over {8 G l}} ~.
\end{equation}
The quasinormal modes are same as for the rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term, since the metric is unchanged even though the Chern-Simons term is considered.
For the rotating BTZ black hole the two families of the quasinormal modes are given by \cite{bir}
\begin{eqnarray}
\w_{R} &=& -{\frac {m}{l}}- i {\frac { (r_{+}+r_{-} ) \left( 2 k+1+{\sqrt {1+\mu} }
\right) }{{l}^{2}}} ~, \\
\w_{L} &=& {\frac {m}{l}}- i {\frac { (r_{+}-r_{-} ) \left( 2 k+1+{\sqrt {1+\mu} }
\right) }{{l}^{2}}} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $m$ is the angular quantum number and $ k$ is the overtone quantum number which comes from the boundary condition in the radial direction. The mass parameter $\mu$ is given by $\mu \equiv u^2 l^2 / {\hbar ^2}$, where $u$ is the mass of the scalar field.
At large $k$ for a fixed $\vert m \vert$, in particular for $k \gg \vert m \vert$, the two transition frequencies corresponding to each quasinormal mode are obtained as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{btzq}
\w_{R c} &=& {{2 (r_{+}+r_{-} ) } \over {l^2}} = { {2 \sqrt{8 G M+{8 G J / l}} } \over l} ~,\\
\label{btzq1}
\w_{L c} &=& {{2 (r_{+}-r_{-} ) } \over {l^2}} = { {2 \sqrt{8 G M-{8 G J /l}} } \over l} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
We consider the two action variables, $\I_R$ and $\I_L$, corresponding to each possible transition frequency.
From the formula (\ref{mf}) two action variables are obtained and quantized.
We should note that when the Chern-Simons term is considered, the change of the energy of the black hole is not the change of the ADM mass $M$ of the black hole. Because of the Chern-Simons term, the conserved charge $\M$ of the BTZ black hole, which is called ADT mass, is given by \cite{clem, sol}
\begin{equation} \label{sole}
\M= M+{ J \over {3 \v l} } ~,
\end{equation}
where $M$ and $J$ are the mass and the angular momentum for the BTZ black hole in the absence of the Chern-Simons term.
So, the change of the energy of the black hole should be considered as the change of the ADT mass $\M$, i.e. $dE=d\M $.
Note that (\ref{sole}) holds only for the stability bound, $\v \ge 1/3$, which is from the requirement that central charges should be non-negative \cite{sol, song}.
Therefore we consider only the cases for $\v \ge 1/3 $, and the action variable $\I$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{btbt}
\I = \int { dE \over {\w_c} } = \int { d{\M} \over {\w_c} } =\int { dM \over {\w_c} } + {1 \over {3 \v l} } \int { dJ \over {\w_c} } ~.
\end{equation}
The two action variables, $\I_R$ and $\I_L$, are obtained and quantized as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{gt11}
\fl \I_{R} &=& \int { dM \over {\w_{Rc}} } + {1 \over {3 \v l} } \int { dJ \over {\w_{Rc}} } = {{(3 \v+1) l} \over {24 G \v}} \sqrt{ 8 G M+8 G J/l} = n_R \hbar ~,\\
\label{gt12}
\fl \I_{L} &=&\int { dM \over {\w_{Lc}} } + {1 \over {3 \v l} } \int { dJ \over {\w_{Lc}} } = { {(3 \v-1) l} \over {24 G \v}} \sqrt{8 G M-8 G J/l} = n_L \hbar ~.
\end{eqnarray}
First we will consider the case for $\v > 1/3$.
From (\ref{gt11}) we find that the total horizon area spectrum is given by
\begin{equation}
A_{tot} \equiv A_{out}+A_ {in} = 2 \pi l \sqrt{8 G M+8 G J/l} ={{48 \pi G \v} \over {(3 \v+1)}} n_R \hbar ~,
\end{equation}
where $n_R=0,1,2,.. $.
This spectrum is equally spaced and the spacing is dependent on the coupling constant $\v$.
From (\ref{gt12}) we find that the difference between the two horizon areas is also equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
A_{sub} \equiv A_{out}-A_ {in} = 2 \pi l \sqrt{ 8 G M-8 G J/l} = {{48 \pi G \v} \over {(3 \v-1)}} n_L \hbar ~,
\end{equation}
where $n_L=0,1,2,.. $.
Therefore the spectra of the outer and inner horizon areas are obtained as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{gC_4}
A_{out} &=& { {24 G \pi \v} \over {9 \v^2 -1} } \Big[ {(3 \v-1) n_R + (3 \v+1) n_L} \Big] \hbar ~, \\
\label{gC_5}
A_{in} &=& { {24 G \pi \v} \over {9 \v^2 -1} } \Big[ {(3 \v-1) n_R -(3 \v+1) n_L} \Big] \hbar ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ (3 \v-1) n_R \ge (3 \v+1) n_L $.
The area spectra are not equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$, so that they are affected by the Chern-Simons term.
Note that when we take the limit $\v$ goes to infinity, which means the vanishing of the Chern-Simons term in the action (\ref{action}), the area spectra become the ones for the rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk} where the units, $c=8 G=1$, are used.
Now let us find the entropy spectrum. When the Chern-Simons term is considered, the entropy of the BTZ black hole is not satisfied with the Bekenstein-Hawking area law, $S= {A \over {4 G \hbar}}$, any more. It has another term related to the inner horizon area as follows \cite{sol}:
\begin{equation} \label{gC_1}
S={1 \over {4 G \hbar} } \left( { { 2 \pi r_{+} + {{ 2 \pi r_{-}} \over {3 \v}} }} \right)= { 1 \over {4 G \hbar } } \left( {{ A_{out}+{1\over {3 \v}} A_{in} } } \right) ~,
\end{equation}
where $r_{\pm}$ are the outer and inner horizons, respectively.
Using (\ref{gC_4}) and (\ref{gC_5}), we find the equally spaced entropy spectrum as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{gC_2}
S= 2 \pi (n_R + n_L) ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore the spacing of the entropy spectrum is given by
\begin{equation} \label{gC_3}
\triangle S= 2 \pi ~.
\end{equation}
The entropy spectrum (\ref{gC_2}) is independent of the coupling constant $\v$ and exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk}.
Therefore the Chern-Simons term does not affect the entropy spectrum of the BTZ black hole, even though it affects the area spectra. This implies that the entropy is more fundamental than the horizon area.
Next, the case for $\v=1/3$ is considered, which corresponds to chiral gravity.
From (\ref{gt11}) and (\ref{gt12}), we have only one non-vanishing action variable $\I_R $;
\begin{equation} \label{e5}
\I_R ={l \over {4 G}} \sqrt{ 8 G M+8 G J/l} = n_R \hbar ~.
\end{equation}
This quantization gives the equally spaced spectrum of the total horizon area;
\begin{equation} \label{ee55}
A_{tot} \equiv A_{out}+A_ {in} = 2 \pi l \sqrt{8 G M+8 G J/l} =8 \pi G n_R \hbar ~,
\end{equation}
where $n_R=0,1,2,.. $.
However, we cannot obtain the spectrum of the difference between two horizon areas since $\I_L=0$.
Nevertheless the entropy spectrum can be obtained, since the entropy (\ref{gC_1}) for $\v=1/3$ is only proportional to the total horizon area. That is, when $\v=1/3$, the entropy reduces to the following simple form:
\begin{equation}
S= { { A_{out}+A_{in} } \over {4 G \hbar } } = { { A_{tot} } \over {4 G \hbar } } ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore using (\ref{ee55}), we find the equally spaced entropy spectrum as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{e6}
S= 2 \pi n_R ~.
\end{equation}
This entropy spectrum has the same spacing as for the rotating BTZ black hole for $\v > 1/3$, i.e. $\triangle S= 2 \pi $.
Lastly we will consider the non-rotating BTZ case whose horizon is located at $r_H = l \sqrt{8 G M}$.
The quasinormal modes of the non-rotating BTZ black hole are given by \cite{bir, cardo}
\begin{equation} \label{qn}
\omega =\pm {\frac {m}{l}} - i {\frac {2 \sqrt {8 G M} \left( k+1 \right) }{l}} ~~,~~ (m \in Z ,~ k =0,1,2,..)~,
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the angular quantum number and $k$ is the overtone quantum number of the quasinormal modes.
At large $k$ for a fixed $\vert m \vert$, in particular for $k \gg \vert m \vert$, we have a transition frequency in the semiclassical limit as follows:
\begin{equation}
\w_c = { {2 \sqrt{8 G M} } \over l} ={{ 2 r_H} \over l^2} ~.
\end{equation}
As mentioned before, when the Chern-Simons term is considered, the change of the energy of the black hole should be considered as the change of the ADT mass $\M$ which is given by (\ref{sole}).
However since the angular momentum $J$ is zero for the non-rotating BTZ black hole, we can consider the change of the energy of the black hole as the change of the ADM mass $M$, $dE=dM$.
Therefore from (\ref{mf}) the action variable $\I$ is calculated and quantized as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{e2}
\I = \int { {dE} \over {\w_c} } = \int { {dM} \over {\w_c} } = { l \over 2} \int { {dM} \over {\sqrt{8 G M} } } = { {l \sqrt{8 G M} } \over {8 G } } = n \hbar ~.
\end{equation}
From this quantization we find the equally spaced area spectrum as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{e3}
A = 2 \pi {r_H} =2 \pi l \sqrt{8 G M} =16 \pi G n \hbar ~.
\end{equation}
Note that this spectrum does not depend on the coupling constant $\v$.
The area spectrum is the exactly same as for the non-rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk} where the units, $c=8 G=1$, are used.
Let us calculate the entropy spectrum.
When the Chern-Simons term is considered, the entropy is given by (\ref{gC_1}).
For the non-rotating BTZ black hole, however, since the inner horizon area is zero, the entropy is simply given by
\begin{equation}
S={ { 2 \pi r_{+} } \over {4 G \hbar} } = { {A} \over {4 G \hbar } } ~.
\end{equation}
It satisfies the Bekenstein-Hawking area law.
Note that the entropy is also not affected by the Chern-Simons term.
Using the result of the area spectrum (\ref{e3}), we obtain the equally spaced entropy spectrum as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{e4}
S=4 \pi n ~.
\end{equation}
This spectrum is also exactly same as for the non-rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk}.
Therefore we conclude that for the non-rotating BTZ black hole the Chern-Simons term does not affect the area and entropy spectra.
\section{Area and entropy spectra of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole}
In this section, we would like to consider the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black holes for $\v \ge 1$. The case $\v=1$ is related to the BTZ black hole considered in the previous section. The metric is given by \cite{strom, bouch}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{wmt}
\fl {ds^2 } = l^2 \Biggl[ dt^2 + { {dr^2} \over { (\v^2 +3) (r- {r_+}) (r-{r_-}) }}+\left( 2 \v r-\sqrt{(\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-}
} \right) dt d\theta \nonumber \\
+ {r \over 4} \left( 3 (\v^2 -1) r+(\v^2 +3) ({r_+}+{r_-}) - 4 \v \sqrt{ (\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right) d\theta ^2 \Biggr] ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_+$ and $r_-$ are the outer and inner horizons, respectively.
Note that the coordinates $t$ and $r$ are dimensionless.
It is another black hole solution of gravity theory with the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
The entropy of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole is given by \cite{strom, bouch}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{went}
\fl S = { {\pi l} \over {24 G \v \hbar} } \left[ \left( 9 {\v}^{2} +3 \right) {r_+} - \left( {\v}^{2}+3 \right) {r_-} -4 \v\sqrt { (\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right] ~.
\end{eqnarray}
The conserved charges such as the ADT mass $\M$ and angular momentum $\J$ are given by \cite{strom, bouch}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{u1}
\fl \M &=& { { (\v^2 +3) } \over {24 G} } \left( { {r_+} + {r_-} - {1 \over \v} \sqrt{ (\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } } \right ) ~, \\
\label{u2}
\fl \J &=& { { (\v^2 +3) \v l } \over { 96 G} } \left [ \left( {r_+} + {r_-} - {1 \over \v} \sqrt{(\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-}} \right )^2 -{ {(5 \v^2 +3) } \over {4 \v^2}} ({r_+} - {r_-})^2 \right ] ,
\end{eqnarray}
which satisfy the first law of the black hole thermodynamics, $d\M ={\tilde T} dS+ {\tilde \Omega} d\J$, with the Hawking temperature ${\tilde T}$ and the angular velocity of the horizon $ {\tilde \Omega}$ given by \cite{strom}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\tilde T} &\equiv & {T \over l} = { {(\v^2 +3)} \over {4 \pi l} } { {(r_+ -r_-)} \over {(2 \v r_+ -\sqrt{(\v^2 +3) r_+ r_- } ) }} ~,\\
{\tilde \Omega} &\equiv & {\Omega \over l} = -{ { 2} \over { (2 \v r_+ -\sqrt{(\v^2 +3) r_+ r_-} ) l}} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
From the metric (\ref{wmt}) the outer and inner horizon areas are given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{outer}
A_{out} &=& \pi l \left( 2 \v {r_+} -\sqrt{(\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right) ~,\\
\label{inner}
A_{in} &=& \pi l \left| 2 \v {r_-} - \sqrt{ (\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right| ~.
\end{eqnarray}
We are considering the non-extremal warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole with the two horizons, $ r_+>r_-> 0$.
The expression of the inner horizon area is considered for the following two cases:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\fl &&{\rm (i)} ~~ {{r_+} \over {r_-}} > { {4 \v^2} \over {(\v^2 +3)} } ~~{\rm case} ~: A_{in} = \pi l \left( \sqrt{(\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } -2 \v {r_-} \right) ~.\\
\fl &&{\rm (ii)} ~~ 1< {{r_+} \over {r_-}} < { {4 \v^2} \over {(\v^2 +3)} }~~ {\rm case} ~: A_{in} = \pi l \left( 2 \v {r_-} -\sqrt{(\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right)~.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the expression of the inner horizon area for $\v=1$ only corresponds to the case (i) and the expression of the inner horizon area for $\v>1$ is divided to the two cases as the above.
For the case (i), the total horizon area, $A_{tot} \equiv A_{out}+A_ {in} $, and the area difference, $A_{sub} \equiv A_{out}-A_ {in}$, are rewritten in terms of ADT mass $\M$ and angular momentum $\J$, using (\ref{u1}) and (\ref{u2});
\begin{eqnarray} \label{add}
\fl A_{tot} &=& 2 \pi \v l ({r_+} - {r_-}) = {{16 \pi \v l} \over { {\v}^{2}+3 }} \sqrt { {{ {6 G \v \left( 6 G {\M}^{2} \v - \left( {\v}^{2}+3 \right) \J /l \right) }} \over {{5 {\v}^{2}+3}}} } ~,\\
\label{add2}
\fl A_{sub} &=& 2 \pi \v l \left( {r_+} + {r_-} - \sqrt{ (\v^2+3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right) = { {48 \pi G \v l} \over {\v^2 +3}} \M ~.
\end{eqnarray}
For the case (ii) it is easily found that $A_{tot}$ and $A_{sub}$ are interchanged each other.
Now let us calculate the area and entropy spectra from the quasinormal modes of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole by using the formula (\ref{mf}).
Usually the quasinormal modes can be obtained from the radial boundary conditions of the wavefunction, which is a solution of the wave equation obtained by a perturbation. In particular for black holes in AdS background, the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at radial infinity is imposed, since the effective potential in the wave equation is divergent at radial infinity \cite{cardo, horo}.
In \cite{bin, bin2} the quasinormal modes of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole are obtained from the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition.
Since the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v=1$ has the divergent effective potential at radial infinity, the appropriate boundary condition which should be imposed at radial infinity is the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition. However, in the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v>1$ the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition is not natural, since it has the finite effective potential at radial infinity, in contrast to the case for $\v=1$ \cite{bin, 0907}. Rather the Dirichlet boundary condition is not appropriate for the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v>1$, since it can have a non-vanishing wavefunction for the finite effective potential at radial infinity.
Therefore, since the boundary condition at radial infinity is not obvious for $\v>1$ \cite{bin, bin2}, we need to find the correct quasinormal modes for $\v>1$ in a different way. In obtaining quasinormal modes there are various methods. For example, the quasinormal modes of the BTZ black hole were obtained from the appropriate boundary condition at radial infinity in \cite{bir, cardo}.
However by using monodromy method the same quasinormal modes were also obtained in \cite{0308, 0311, 0504}. In particular, without imposing any boundary condition at radial infinity the same quasinormal modes for the BTZ black hole were obtained in \cite{0311, 0504}. Likewise, recently without imposing any boundary condition at radial infinity the quasinormal modes of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v \ge 1$ for the massless scalar field were obtained by using monodromies at inner and outer horizons \cite{0912}. These are called holographic quasinormal modes, which are given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{hqh}
\tilde \w_R^h &\equiv & { { \w_{R}^h } \over l} = { { {-4 m } - i (\v ^2+3) ({r_+} - {r_-}) k} \over {2 {\left( \v ({r_+} + {r_-}) - \sqrt{(\v^2 +3) {r_+} {r_-} } \right) l} } } ~, \\
\label{hqh2}
\tilde \w_L^h & \equiv & { { \w_{L}^h } \over l} = - i { {(\v^2+3) k} \over {2 \v l} }~~,~~ (k \in N) ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $m$ is the angular quantum number and negative imaginaries are taken for $e^{- i \w t} $ of the wavefunction to have damped quasinormal modes.
Note that $\tilde \w^h_{R(L)}$ is dimensionful and gives the transition frequency, $\tilde \w^h_{Rc(Lc)}$, which has the dimension of $E/\hbar$.
When $\v=1$, the quasinormal modes are the same as what have been obtained by imposing the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at radial infinity in \cite{bin, bin2}, which is the appropriate boundary condition only for $\v=1$.
At large $k$ for a fixed $\vert m \vert$, in particular for $k \gg \vert m \vert$, the two possible transition frequencies are obtained from the two families of the quasinormal modes (\ref{hqh}) and (\ref{hqh2}) as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{addqnm}
\tilde \w_{Rc}^h &=& { {\v ^2+3} \over {2 \v l}} { {\v ({r_+} - {r_-})} \over { \v ({r_+} + {r_-}) - \sqrt{(\v^2+3) {r_+} {r_-} } } } \nonumber \\
&=&{{\left(\v^2 +3 \right)} \over {2 \v l} } {1\ \over{3 G \M}} \sqrt{ { {6 G \v} \over {5 \v^2 +3} } \left(6 G \M^2 \v - {\left(\v^2 +3\right)} {\J/ l} \right) } ~, \\
\label{addqnm2}
\tilde \w_{Lc}^h &=& { {\v^2+3} \over {2 \v l} } ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where (\ref{u1}) and (\ref{u2}) are used in rewriting in terms of $\M$ and $\J$.
From the formula (\ref{mf}) the action variable $\I$ is obtained and quantized;
\begin{equation} \label{hmff}
\I = \int { dE \over {\tilde \w_c ^h} } = \int { d\M \over {\tilde \w_c ^h} } = n \hbar ~,
\end{equation}
where the change of the energy of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole is considered as the change of the ADT mass $\M$.
Therefore two action variables $\I_R$ and $\I_L$ are obtained and quantized as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{add3}
\I_{R} &=& \int { {d\M} \over {\tilde \w_{Rc}^h }} ={ {l \sqrt { \left( 5 {\v}^{2}+3 \right) \left( 6 G {\M}^{2}
\v - \left( {\v}^{2}+3 \right)\J /l \right) } } \over { \sqrt{6 G \v} \left( {\v}^{2}+3
\right) }} = n_R \hbar ~, \qquad \\
\label{add4}
\I_{L} &=& \int { d\M \over {\tilde \w_{Lc}^h } } = {{2 \v l} \over {\v^2 +3}} \M= n_L \hbar ~.
\end{eqnarray}
From these quantization conditions, we find the spectra of $A_{tot}$ and $A_{sub}$ which are given by (\ref{add}) and(\ref{add2});
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{tot} = { {96 \pi G \v^2} \over {5 \v^2 +3} } n_R \hbar ~~,~~ A_{sub} = {24 \pi G} n_L \hbar ~.
\end{eqnarray}
The total horizon area $A_{tot}$ is equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$, and the area difference $A_{sub}$ is also equally spaced and independent of the coupling constant $\v$. Therefore the spectra of the outer and inner horizon areas are obtained as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{hqare}
A_{out} &=& { {48 \pi G \v^2} \over {5 \v^2+3} } \left( n_R + { {5 \v^2+3} \over {4 \v^2} } n_L\right) \hbar ~, \\ \label{hqare2}
A_{in} &=& \pm { {48 \pi G \v^2} \over {5 \v^2+3} } \left( n_R - { {5 \v^2+3} \over {4 \v^2} } n_L\right) \hbar ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $+$ sign in $ A_{in}$ with $ n_R > { {5 \v^2+3} \over {4 \v^2} } n_L $ corresponds to the case (i) and $-$ sign in $ A_{in}$ with $ n_R < { {5 \v^2+3} \over {4 \v^2} } n_L $ corresponds to the case (ii).
These area spectra are not equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$.
For the $\v=1$ case, the area spectra are equally spaced as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{60}
A_{out} = 6 \pi G (n_R + 2 n_L ) \hbar ~~,~~ A_{in} = 6 \pi G (n_R -2 n_L) \hbar ~,
\end{equation}
where $ n_R > 2 n_L $.
So, the spacing of the area spectra is given by $\triangle A_{out} =\triangle A_{in}=6 \pi G$.
The area spectra (\ref{60}) are the exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term for $\v=1$ in the previous section. This is natural because the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v=1$ is the rotating BTZ black hole in a rotating frame \cite{strom}.
Note that this spacing is different from the rotating BTZ black hole case without the Chern-Simons term, which is given by $\triangle A_{out} =\triangle A_{in}=8 \pi G$ in \cite{sk}. So, it can be considered that the Chern-Simons term affects the spacing of the area spectra.
The entropy spectrum is obtained by
rewriting the entropy expression (\ref{went}) in terms of the horizon areas as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{add5}
S &=& {\frac {\pi l \left( \left( 9 {\v}^{2} +3 \right) {r_+} - \left( {\v}^{2}+3 \right) {r_-} -4 \v\sqrt { ( {\v}^{2}+3) {r_+}
{r_-} } \right) }{
24 G \v \hbar}} \nonumber \\
& =& { {(9 \v^2 +3) A_{out} \pm (\v^2 +3) A_{in}} \over {48 G \v^2 \hbar}} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $+$ is for the case (i) and $-$ is for the case (ii).
Because of the Chern-Simons term, the entropy is proportional to not only the outer horizon area but also the inner horizon area, so that the Bekenstein-Hawking area law, $S={ A_{out} \over {4 G \hbar}}$, does not hold anymore.
Notice that the entropy in terms of the horizon areas is dependent on $\v$. However a remarkable cancellation of $\v$ dependence happens when we substitute (\ref{hqare}) and (\ref{hqare2}) into (\ref{add5}). We find that the entropy spectrum is equally spaced as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{adden}
S = 2 \pi (n_R+n_L) ~.
\end{eqnarray}
This entropy spectrum is independent of the coupling constant $\v$ and the spacing is given by $\triangle S= 2 \pi$. The result (\ref{adden}) is the same for both cases (i) and (ii).
Furthermore this is the exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black holes with and without the Chern-Simons term.
It implies that the entropy spectra of the black holes have a universal behavior regardless of the presence of the gravitational Chern-Simons term. Therefore we would like to claim that the entropy spectrum rather than the area spectrum of a black hole should be equally spaced.
\section{Entropy spectrum as criteria for quasinormal modes}
In certain cases there are several different calculations for quasinormal modes of a black hole, with different results. As mentioned before, for example, there was another work on the quasinormal modes for the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole \cite{bin, bin2}. These quasinormal modes are obtained from the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition which is not natural for the case $\v>1$.
In this section we would like to show that the universality of the equally spaced entropy spectrum can be taken as criteria for determining correct quasinormal modes. We propose that the quasinormal modes of a black hole which give rise to equal spacing in its entropy spectrum are the correct ones.
For that purpose we will show how the area and entropy spectra are given, when the quasinormal modes of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v >1$ which are obtained from the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition are used.
From the quasinormal modes obtained in \cite{bin, bin2} the two transition frequencies are obtained as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{w}
\fl \tilde \w_{R c} \equiv { { \w_{R c} } \over l} &=& {\frac { ({\v}^{2}+3) ( {r_+} - {r_-} ) }{2 \v \left( {r_+} + {r_-} \right) -2 \sqrt { \left( {\v}^{2}+3 \right) {r_+} {r_-}}-\sqrt {3 ({\v}^{2}-1 ) } \left( {r_+} - {r_-} \right) }} {1 \over l} ~,\\
\label{w1}
\fl \tilde \w_{L c} \equiv { { \w_{L c} } \over l} &=& {{ 2 \v+\sqrt{ 3 (\v^2 -1)} } \over l} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\tilde \w_{Rc(Lc)}$ is dimensionful and identified with the transition frequency which has the dimension of $E/\hbar$.
When the formula (\ref{mf}) with $dE=d\M$ is applied with these two possible transition frequencies, we obtain the area spectra as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{was}
A_{out} &=& {{48 \pi G {\v}^{2}} \over{ 5 {\v}^{2}+3 }} \left( n_R+ {\frac { 16 {\v}^{3}+ \left( 9 {\v}^{2}+3 \right) \sqrt {3 ({\v}^{2}-1) } }{2 \v
\left( {\v}^{2}+3 \right) }} n_L \right) \hbar ~, \\
\label{was1}
A_{in} &=& \pm {{48 \pi G {\v}^{2}} \over { 5 {\v}^{2}+3 }} \left( n_R - {\frac { 4 \v+\sqrt {3 ({\v}^{2}-1)} }{2 \v}} n_L \right) \hbar ~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $+$ sign in $ A_{in}$ with $ n_R > {\frac { 4 \v+\sqrt {3 ({\v}^{2}-1)} }{2 \v}} n_L $ corresponds to the case (i) and $-$ sign in $ A_{in}$ with $ n_R < {\frac { 4 \v +\sqrt {3 ({\v}^{2}-1)} }{2 \v}} n_L $ corresponds to the case (ii).
Using these area quantizations, the entropy (\ref{add5}) are quantized for both cases (i) and (ii) as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{ct13}
S = {2 \pi} \left( n_R + { { { 7 {\v}^{2}-3+4 \v \sqrt {3 ({\v}^{2}-1)} } \over { {\v}^{2}+3 } } } n_L \right) ~.
\end{equation}
This is not equally spaced and depends on the coupling constant $\v$.
No cancellation of $\v$ dependence happens here.
There are general arguments that the entropy should be equally spaced \cite{medved2, kotwal}.
We expect these types of arguments should go through even in the presence of the gravitational Chern-Simons term, and thus we expect equally spaced entropy spectrum. When a quasinormal mode fails to give equally spaced entropy, presumably it is an erroneous one.
Therefore in the sense that the entropy spectrum should have a universal behavior as an equally spaced one, the non-equally spaced entropy spectrum (\ref{ct13}) with $\v$ dependence implies that the quasinormal modes obtained from the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at radial infinity in \cite{bin, bin2} are not correct for $\v>1$.
Therefore we conclude that the correct entropy spectra of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v >1$ are given by (\ref{adden}), and not by (\ref{ct13}).
\section{Conclusion}
We calculated the area and entropy spectra of the black holes in the topologically massive gravity.
From the quasinormal modes of the black holes, we obtained possible transition frequencies between quantum levels of the black holes.
By Bohr's correspondence principle, a quantum black hole with a transition frequency can be regarded as a classical system of periodic motion with the transition frequency as an oscillation frequency in the semiclassical limit. The action variable of the classical system is identified and quantized via Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization. From this we obtained the area and entropy spectra of the BTZ black hole and the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole under the consideration of the gravitational Chern-Simons term.
First we considered the BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term.
For the non-rotating case we found that the area and entropy spectra are equally spaced and the exactly same as for the non-rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk}. This is because the Chern-Simons term does not affect the energy and entropy of the black hole.
For the rotating BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term the spectra of the outer and inner horizon areas are not equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$.
However the entropy spectrum is equally spaced and independent of the coupling constant $\v$.
Furthermore this entropy spectrum is the exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole without the Chern-Simons term obtained in \cite{sk}.
In particular for the rotating BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term for $\v =1/3$, which corresponds to chiral gravity, only the total horizon area spectrum was obtained and equally spaced. So, the spectra of the outer and inner horizon areas were not obtained. However we could find the equally spaced entropy spectrum, since the entropy is only proportional to the total horizon area.
The entropy spectrum has the same spacing as for the rotating BTZ black hole for other values of $\v$, i.e. $\triangle S=2 \pi$.
Next, the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black holes for $\v \ge1$ were considered.
It is known that the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v=1$ is related to the rotating BTZ black hole by a coordinate transformation. In this sense we obtained the consistent result that the area and entropy spectra of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v=1$ are the exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black hole with the Chern-Simons term for $\v=1$. We found that the both area and entropy spectra are equally spaced.
For the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole for $\v >1$, the quasinormal modes were obtained by imposing the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at radial infinity \cite{bin, bin2}. But this boundary condition is not appropriate, since the effective potential in the wave equation is finite at radial infinity.
There can be a non-vanishing wavefunction at radial infinity.
This is different from usual AdS black holes such as the BTZ black hole for which the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition should be imposed at radial infinity because of the divergent effective potential.
There is another calculation for the quasinormal modes of the warped ${\rm AdS}_3$ black hole \cite{0912}, obtained without imposing any boundary condition at radial infinity.
Using these quasinormal modes obtained in \cite{0912}, we found that the entropy spectrum is equally spaced and independent of the coupling constant $\v$, even though the area spectra are not equally spaced and dependent on the coupling constant $\v$.
Moreover the entropy spectrum is the exactly same as for the rotating BTZ black holes with and without the Chern-Simons term. So, it implies that the entropy spectrum has a universal behavior.
This universality that the entropy spectrum of a black hole is equally spaced can be taken as criteria for determining correct quasinormal modes. We proposed that the correct quasinormal modes should result in the equally spaced entropy spectrum.
By calculating the entropy spectrum with quasinormal modes in two different methods, we found two different entropy spectra. Of course only one of these should be correct. What we found is that the quasinormal modes obtained from the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition \cite{bin, bin2} does not give equally spaced entropy spectrum.
On the other hand, the other quasinormal modes obtained without imposing any boundary condition at radial infinity \cite{0912} does give equal spacing. Therefore the latter should be the correct one.
In this paper we extended the method for black hole quantization proposed in the previous work \cite{sk} to the black holes in topologically massive gravity theory.
We found that the entropy spectra of the black holes are equally spaced, even though the area spectra are not equally spaced.
Therefore, it should be considered that the entropy spectrum is more `fundamental' than area spectrum.
This has been observed before in \cite{wei, kotwal}, where the entropy spectrum of the five dimensional black hole with the Gauss-Bonnet term is equally spaced, even though the area spectrum is not equally spaced.
For the future investigation, it will be worth to find if entropy spectra for other black holes in higher dimensions and different gravity theory have universal behavior. For example, the quantization of the four dimensional black holes, in particular for the Kerr black hole whose area spectrum is not clear yet, as was explained in the introduction.
It is expected that the equally spaced entropy spectrum of a black hole can be used for various investigations on a quantum black hole as a quantum property of a black hole.
For example, very recently the equally spaced entropy spectrum was used as what is associated with the information of a black hole in the work on the emergent gravity \cite{ver}.
\ack{ This work of YK and SN was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MEST) (No. 2009-0063068) and the work of YK was also supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MEST) (No. 2009-0085995). YK thanks Dr. Jong-Dae~Park for useful discussions.}
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent We continue our numerical study on the lattice of the topological charge
distribution in the $SU(3)$ Yang-Mills theory adopting the definition suggested
by Neuberger fermions as discussed in a series of papers~\cite{Neu1}-\cite{Lus2}.\\
\indent Recent numerical studies on this subject can be found in
refs.\cite{Edwards:1998wx,GLWW03,DP} and ref.~\cite{DGP04}. In the last paper a
systematic study at different volumes and values of the lattice spacing was performed
in order to obtain a reliable determination of the topological susceptibility,
the first cumulant of the distribution, at the $5\%$ level in the continuum limit
at infinite volume. The result supports the Witten-Veneziano explanation
for the large mass of the ${\eta}'$.\\
\indent The aim of refs \cite{secondo,terzo} was to look for
non-gaussianities in the topological charge distribution of the $SU(3)$
Yang-Mills theory. This is particularly challenging since the contribution
of the $n^\mathrm{th}$ cumulant to the charge distribution is suppressed as
$V^{n-1}$ in its asymptotic expansion, even though the cumulant itself is a
quantity of $O(1)$ in the infinite volume limit. It is also worth noting that
in order to search for such very small sub-leading effects it is necessary to
be sure that all the systematics of the calculation cannot either simulate
or hide the effect, and therefore a solid theoretical framework, such as
the one provided by the topological charge definition suggested from
Ginsparg-Wilson fermions, is indispensable. In ref.~\cite{DGP04} three
different lattices at the same physical volume of $\sim (1.12 {\rm fm})^4$
but with about ten time more statistics than in ref.~\cite{DGP04}, i.e.
roughly $3\cdot 10^4$ configurations, were studied in order to be able to unveil
deviations from the Gaussian distribution.
Significant deviations were found,
the second cumulant of the distribution gets a value definitively
different from zero within errors, and the distribution function agrees at that
precision level with a first order modification in $V^{-1} $ of the Gaussian
(Edgeworth expansion). The results clearly disfavour the $\theta$ behaviour of
the vacuum energy predicted by dilute instanton models, while they are compatible
with the expectation from the large $N_c$ expansion.\\
\noindent Here we present preliminary results for a measurement on the lattice of
the topological susceptibility at the $2\%$ level.
In order to keep finite volume and
discretization effects below this level of precision,
we have exploited data produced in ref.~\cite{terzo} together with new data generated
by additional lattices as described below.\\
\noindent All the above challenging Monte Carlo calculation have been made possible
by important improvements in algorithms which guarantee the reliability and the feasibility
of high statistics. In particular we have used algorithms for zero mode counting with no
contamination from quasi zero modes, optimized to run fast on a single processor~\cite{GHLW02}.
The considerable amount of computer time needed has been granted to us by the INFN GRID project.
It allowed us to use the computer resources shared in the scientific Italian network provided
by INFN along these years. We have also taken in advantage of the computer resources of the Italian
organization COMETA.
\section{Theoretical framework}
\noindent In this section we summarize our notation and the necessary theoretical framework, for a complete
discussion see for example~\cite{terzo}. In the following we use the plaquette Wilson action of the
$SU(3)$ gauge field. The massless lattice Neuberger-Dirac operator $D$ satisfies the Ginsparg-Wilson
relation \cite{Neu1,Neu2}
\begin{equation}
\gamma_5 D + D \gamma_5= \bar{a} D \gamma_5 D \; ,
\end{equation}
and the associated topological charge density can be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qx}
a^4 q(x) = -\frac{\bar a}{2}\, \mathrm{Tr}\Big[\gamma_5 D(x,x)\Big] ,
\label{eq:chaden}
\end{equation}
where ${\bar a}=a/(1+s)$, $a$ is the lattice spacing and
$s$ is the negative mass parameter. The latter has been fixed in our calculation at the values
$s=0.4$ for the study of the volume effects and to $s=0.0$ and $s=0.4$ for the study of the
discretization behaviour. The topological charge is obtained from the lattice by computing on each
gauge configuration the number and the chirality of the zero modes of $D$ with the algorithm proposed
in Ref.~\cite{GHLW02}. The index $\nu$ of the Dirac operator
\begin{equation}
\nu =n_+ - n_-
\end{equation}
is directly related to the topological charge $Q$
\begin{displaymath}
\nu=Q=a^4 \sum_x q(x)\; .
\end{displaymath}
In the Euclidean space-time the ground-state energy $F(\theta)$ is
defined as
\begin{equation}
e^{- F(\theta)} = \langle e^{i\theta Q}\rangle\; ,
\end{equation}
where, as usual, $\langle\dots\rangle$ indicates the path-integral
average (our normalization is $F(0)=0$). In the large volume regime
$F(\theta)$ is proportional to the size $V$ of the system,
a direct consequence of the fact that the topological charge operator $Q$
is the four-dimensional integral of a local density.
The function $F(\theta)$ is related to the probability
of finding a gauge field configuration with
topological charge $Q=\nu$ by the Fourier transform
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pnu}
P_\nu = \int_{-\pi}^\pi \frac{d\theta}{2 \pi}
e^{-i\theta\nu} e^{- F(\theta)}\; .
\end{equation}
Large $N_c$ arguments
with $N_c$ being the number of colors, suggest that the fluctuations
of the topological charge are of quantum non-perturbative
nature. The $\theta$ dependence of the vacuum energy is expected
at leading order in $1/N_c$, and the normalized cumulants
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cn}
{C}_{n} = (-1)^{n+1}\frac{1}{V}\frac{d^{2n}}{d\theta^{2n}}
F(\theta) \Big|_{\theta=0}\qquad n=1,2,\dots\; ,
\end{equation}
which should scale asymptotically as $N_c^{2-2n}$,
have to be determined with a non-perturbative
computation. The normalized cumulants ${C}_{n}$ can thus be
defined as the integrated connected correlation functions of $n$
charge densities (correlation functions
of an odd number of topological charges vanish thanks
to the invariance of the theory under parity):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CnQCd}
{C}_{n} = \frac{a^{8n}}{V} \sum_{x_1,\dots,x_{2n}}
\langle q(x_1)\dots q(x_{2n})\rangle^\mathrm{con}\; .
\end{equation}
They have an unambiguous finite continuum limit which is
independent of the details of the regularization~\cite{GRTV,GRT,Lus2}.
At finite lattice spacing they are affected by discretization
errors which start at $O(a^2)$.
The Monte Carlo technique adopted here generates the gauge configurations
with a probability density proportional to $e^{-S_\mathrm{YM}}$, with
$S_\mathrm{YM}$ being the chosen discretization of the Yang--Mills action. This
algorithm performs an importance sampling of the topological charge with the
probability distribution given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:pnu}). A statistical signal for the
$n^\mathrm{th}$ cumulant is then obtained when the number of configurations
in the sample is
high enough to be sensitive to terms suppressed
as $V^{n-1}$ in the asymptotic expansion. For instance, the estimators of the first two
cumulants
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{Q^2} & = & \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \nu^2_i\; , \label{eq:est1}\\[0.125cm]
\overline{Q^{4,}} \,\!^\mathrm{con} & = &
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \nu^4_i - 3 \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \nu^2_i\right)^2\; ,
\label{eq:est2}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\nu_i$ being the value of the topological charge for a given gauge configuration
and $N$ the total number of configurations, have variances which, up to sub-leading
corrections, are given by $(2\sigma^4+\sigma^2\tau)/N$ and $(24\sigma^8 + 72 \sigma^6\tau)/N$
respectively being $\sigma^2 = V {C}_1$ and $\tau={C}_2/{C}_1$.
\section{Lattice data and results}
\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llccccll}
\hline
Lat &$\beta$&$L/a$&$r_0/a$&$L$[fm]&$N$& $\langle Q^2 \rangle$&$r_0^4 \chi$\\[0.125cm]
\hline
${\rm A}_1$&$6.0$ &$12$& $5.368$ &$1.12$&$34800$& $1.627(13)$ & $0.0652(12)$ \\[0.125cm]
${\rm B}_0$&$5.9138$&$12$& $4.601$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $3.271(47)$ & $0.0707(15)$\\[0.125cm]
${\rm B}_1$&$6.0$ &$14$& $5.368$ &$1.30$&$30000$& $3.097(26)$ & $0.0669(12)$ \\[0.125cm]
${\rm B}_2$&$6.0808$&$16$& $6.135$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $2.914(43)$ & $0.0630(14)$\\[0.125cm]
${\rm B}_3$&$6.1568$&$18$& $6.902$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $2.843(42)$ & $0.0615(14)$ \\[0.125cm]
${\rm C}_1$&$6.0$ &$16$& $5.368$ &$1.49$&$10000$& $5.314(75)$ & $0.0673(14)$ \\[0.125cm]
${\rm D}_1$&$6.0$ &$18$& $5.368$ &$1.60$&$10000$& $8.40(12) $ & $0.0664(14)$ \\[0.125cm]
\hline
${\cal B}_0$&$5.9138$&$12$& $4.601$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $2.501(36)$ & $0.0541(11) $\\[0.125cm]
${\cal B}_1$&$6.0$ &$14$& $5.368$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $2.761(40)$ & $0.0597(13)$\\[0.125cm]
${\cal B}_2$&$6.0808$&$16$& $6.135$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $2.723(40)$ & $0.0589(13)$\\[0.125cm]
${\cal B}_3$&$6.1568$&$18$& $6.902$ &$1.30$&$10000$& $2.788(40)$ & $0.0602(14)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Simulation parameters and results.The first seven lattices are generated
with the parameter value $s=0.4$, while the other four, under the horizontal
line, are for $s=0.0$. The topological susceptibility is given by $\chi={\langle Q^2\rangle / V}=C_1$. \label{tab:newresults}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\noindent The properties of the lattices considered and the results obtained
for the topological susceptibility are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:newresults}.
On the sets ${\rm A}_1, \, {\rm B}_0, \,
{\rm B}_1, \, {\rm B}_2, \, {\rm B}_3, \, {\rm C}_1$ and ${\rm D}_1$ the topological charge
is computed with $s=0.4$, while it is determined with $s=0.0$ on the lattices
${\cal B}_0,\, {\cal B}_1,\, {\cal B}_2$ and ${\cal B}_3$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{vol.pdf}
\caption{Rescaled topological charge as a function of the lattice size. Bands of $\pm 2\%$
and $\pm 5\%$ centered at the value measured at $L=14$ are also shown.}
\label{fig:volume}
\end{figure}
In order to estimate the magnitude of finite size effects we have considered
four lattices (${\rm A}_1$, ${\rm B}_1$, ${\rm C}_1$, ${\rm D}_1)$) at the same
value of the coupling constant corresponding to $\beta=6.0$ and at the same value
of the negative mass parameter $s=0.4$. The values of the topological
charge rescaled with respect to the reference volume of $16^4$ are shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:volume}. It is rather clear that for these volumes
the results are scattered in a $2\%$ band centered around the point with
$L/a=14$. While we cannot exclude that the point at $L/a=12$ turns out to be lower
with respect to the others due to a statistical fluctuation only, the other
three points indicate clearly that finite size effects are within our statistical errors
for volumes larger or equal than $(1.3\; {\rm fm})^4$.\\
\indent Building on this result, the coupling constant of the other seven lattices
have been chosen so that the lattice linear extent is fixed to be $1.3$~fm, while the
values of the coupling constant and of the negative mass $s$ are chosen in order to
properly estimate discretization errors at this level of precision. The results
for the topological susceptibility for all lattices with linear extent of $1.3$~fm
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:discreto} as a function of $(a/r_0)^2$. The data show a clear
trend to converge to the same value in the continuum limit within the statistical precision
reached. Nevertheless a better understanding of the behaviour at small lattice spacing values,
i.e. larger lattice volumes, seems to be necessary in order to improve the continuum limit
study. In fact, data at the $2\%$ level of error indicate a statistically non-negligible
(and non-universal) contributions of terms of $O(a^4)$ to the behaviour of the two curves
in this range of values of $\beta$. Simulations at larger values of $\beta$ are underway.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{disc1.pdf}
\caption{Topological susceptibility
as a function of the square of the lattice spacing at a fixed value
of the lattice size $L=1.304$~fm: data at mass parameter $s=0$ (squares) and $s=0.4$ (circles)
are shown. The continuum limit point is the result quoted in ref.~\cite{DGP04}.}
\label{fig:discreto}
\end{figure}
\section{Acknowledgments}
\noindent We warmly thank G. Andronico for the great organization of Theophys, the virtual organization
of INFN Grid Project for theoretical physics. We thank A. De Salvo and A. Colla of the INFN sez. Rome
for the continuous effort in helping us during the accomplishment of the project and the COMETA
organization for having opened their virtual organization to us.
|
\subsection{Observations and data reduction}
The Geminga field was observed with {\sl Chandra}\ ACIS on 2007 August 27
for
78.12 ks (ObsID 7592). The observation was taken in Timed Exposure (TE)
mode, with the frame time of 3.24 s.
After removing 20 s of high background
and correcting for the detector dead time,
the scientific exposure time (live time)
is 77,077 s.
To maximize the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) for the very faint
PWN emission, we imaged the field onto the front-illuminated
I3 chip, which has a
lower background than the commonly used (and slightly more sensitive)
back-illuminated
S3 chip\footnote{See \S\,6.16 of The Chandra Proposers' Observatory Guide (POG),
\url{http://asc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG}.}.
We used the Very Faint telemetry format to provide a better screening of background
events\footnote{See \S\,6.14 of the {\sl Chandra}\ POG.}.
As putting the target at the ACIS-I aimpoint (near the corner of the
I3 chip) could result in chip gaps crossing the PWN image, we moved
the focus to the middle of node 2 on the I3 chip
(SIM-Z $=-7.42\,{\rm mm} = - 2\farcm53$) and applied the
$\Delta Y=-1\farcm6$ offset to put the pulsar at $\gtrsim 2'$ from the chip
boundaries.
To obtain a deeper PWN image and examine a possible PWN variability, we also
used the previous {\sl Chandra}\ observation of Geminga carried out
on 2004 February 7 (ObsID 4674; 18,793 s scientific exposure ).
The details of that observation have been described by P+06. Here we only
mention that the observation was taken in Faint telemetry format, and the
Geminga pulsar and its PWN were imaged on 1/8 subarray of the S3 chip
($\approx 1'\times 8'$ FOV), which
reduced the pileup in the pulsar image but did not allow us to image the
whole PWN.
We have used the Chandra Interactive Analysis
of Observations (CIAO) software (ver.\ 4.0; CALDB ver.\ 3.4.0) for
the ACIS data analysis, starting from the level 1 event files. We have applied
the standard grade filtering
and used the energy range 0.3--8 keV to minimize the background
contribution.
We have also applied
the exposure map correction, but found that the effects of nonuniform exposure and
nonuniform CCD response in the PWN region are small (except for the boundary
of the 1/8 subarray used in the observation of 2004).
To confront the high-resolution {\sl Chandra}\ data with the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ results, we also
used the data obtained with the MOS1 and MOS2 detectors
of the European Photon
Imaging Camera (EPIC) on board {\sl XMM-Newton}. In addition to the observation of
2002 April 4--5
(ObsID 011117010;
77.97 ks scientific exposure, after removing
the periods of high background) reported by
C+03 and P+06, we also
used the data sets obtained in observations 0201350101 of
2004 March 13 (16.23 ks scientific exposure),
031159100 of 2006 March 17 (4.46 ks),
0400260201, 2006 October 2 (19.70 ks), and
0400260301 of 2007 March 11 (23.83 ks). The total effective exposure
of the five observations is 142.18 ks.
All the observations were taken with medium filter in Full Frame mode,
providing a $30'$ diameter FOV.
The data reduction was performed with the Scientific Analysis
System (SAS) package (ver.\ 8.0.0).
Good events with patterns 0--12 and energies
within the 0.3--8 keV range were selected for the data analysis.
\subsection{Images and spectra of the PWN elements}
The {\sl Chandra}\ ACIS data of 2007 provide the
high-resolution image of the entire Geminga PWN
for the first time (see the top panel of Fig.\ 2 and Fig.\ 3).
Below we will describe
the observed properties of the PWN elements,
and compare them with the results of the 2004 ACIS
observation.
To calculate the net source counts $N_S$
in the area $A_S$ of a PWN element, we use the formula $N_S =
N_T - (A_S/A_B)N_B$, where $N_T$ is the total
number of counts detected from the area $A_S$, and $N_B$ is the number
of background counts detected from the area $A_B$. Then the
$1\, \sigma$ error of $N_S$ and the
signal-to-noise ratio are given by $\delta N_S =
[N_S + (1 + A_S/A_B)(A_S/A_B)N_B]^{1/2}$
and $S/N = N_S/\delta N_S$, respectively.
For the analysis of the 2004 data, we use a source-free rectangular background region
($A_B=
3439$ arcsec$^2$, $N_B=129$ counts in the 0.3--8 keV band)
to the north of the Geminga pulsar.
For the 2007 data, we
use the background measured from
a source-free rectangular region, with the area $A_B = 5399$ arcsec$^2$,
in the northeast portion of the ACIS-I3 chip (unless stated otherwise).
This region contains $N_B=416$ counts
in the 0.3--8 keV band,
which corresponds to the background brightness of $1.0\times 10^{-6}$
counts arcsec$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, a factor of 2 lower than in the {\sl Chandra}\ observation of 2004.
The values of $N_S$ and $S/N$ for the PWN elements are given in Table 1.
For the spectral analysis, we have used
the XSPEC package (ver.\ 12.4.0) and fit the spectra with the
absorbed power-law (PL) model ({\tt wabs*powerlaw}),
with the fixed hydrogen column density $N_{\rm H} =
1.1\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Halpern \& Wang 1997; de Luca et al. 2005).
As the number of counts in the PWN is small,
we use the maximum likelihood method (C-statistic) for spectral fitting.
Table 1 provides the values of the photon index $\Gamma$ and the flux
$F$ of the PWN elements.
\subsubsection{Axial tail}
The brightest feature of the Geminga PWN in the {\sl Chandra} data
of 2004
is the axial tail (A-tail hereafter),
seen up to at least $25''$ from the pulsar in the
direction opposite to the pulsar's proper motion
(see P+06 and Fig.\ 2, middle).
In the image from the 2007 observation, we see the
A-tail up to at least $50''$ ($0.06\, d_{250}$ pc) from the pulsar
(Fig.\ 2, top), with
$83\pm 12$ source counts within the
region of
706 arcsec$^2$ area shown
by the solid lines in Figure 3.
The PL fit of its spectrum
(see Table 1 and Fig.\ 4) gives the photon index $\Gamma=1.8\pm 0.3$
and the 0.3--8 keV
luminosity $L= (0.9\pm 0.1)\times 10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$
(assuming an isotropic emission at $d=250$ pc),
versus $\Gamma=1.3\pm 0.3$ and $L=(1.6\pm 0.3)\times 10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$
in the 2004 data,
as measured in the
118 arcsec$^2$ area rectangle that contains $46\pm 7$ counts
(shown in the middle panel of Fig.\ 2).
The A-tail looks patchy in both the 2004 and 2007
observations, with some ``blobs'' standing out.
The blobs, labeled A, B, and C in Figure 2
are at the
distances of about $9''$, $20''$, and $43''$
from the pulsar,
respectively
(blob A is seen in the 2004 image, while blob B and blob C are seen
in the 2007 image).
They contain
$24.9\pm 5.1$, $12.8\pm 3.9$, and $25.8\pm 5.3$ source counts, respectively,
within the $3''$-radius circles around their centers.
The analysis of the brightness distribution along the A-tail shows that
the blobs are significant at $>3\sigma$ levels (i.e., they
are not just statistical fluctuations of the brightness distributions).
For instance, the number of
counts in the $2''$ radius circle around the center of blob B
(15 counts) exceeds
the average number of counts per the same 12.6 arcsec$^2$ area
in the A-tail ($2.44\pm 0.21$ counts) at the $3.2\,\sigma$ level.
The nonuniform surface brightness distribution along the A-tail,
and the difference of these distributions in the 2004 and 2007 images
are
shown in Figure 5.
The brightest in the 2007 data is blob C at the apparent end of the tail,
centered at
$\alpha=06^{\rm h}33^{\rm m}51\fs71$, $\delta= +17^\circ 45' 53\farcs1$ (J2000).
Because of the small number of counts, we cannot firmly determine whether
the blob corresponds to a point source or an extended one.
Interestingly, the end portion of the tail looks attached
to this blob, while the tail looks detached from the pulsar in both
the 2004 and 2007 images. Therefore, one could even speculate that the tail might belong
not to Geminga but to some unrelated field object (e.g., it might be a jet
of an active galactic nucleus [AGN], accidentally oriented toward Geminga
in the sky projection).
To check whether the blobs are indeed associated with the tail or they may be
background sources, we examined the optical/NIR catalogs.
We found no optical counterparts to blob A and blob B, but we
found
an object at $\alpha=06^{\rm h}33^{\rm m}51\fs69$,
$\delta= +17^\circ 45' 54\farcs2$ (J2000),
about
$1''$ from the center of blob C
(the coordinates are from the USNO-B1.0 catalog
[Monet et al.\ 2003], with the
quoted
mean uncertainties of $0\farcs075$ and $0\farcs094$ in $\alpha$ and
$\delta$, respectively).
Based on the magnitudes and colors (e.g., $V=17.7\pm 0.3$
[GSC2.3 catalog; Lasker et al.\ 2008],
$J=16.18\pm 0.09$, $H=15.54\pm 0.11$, $K=15.6\pm 0.2$
[2MASS catalog; Cutri et al.\ 2003]), this object could be a background
K star. Such a star could contribute to the X-ray emission of blob C.
The observed X-ray flux in the $3''$ radius aperture
is $F_{\rm 0.3-3.5\,keV}\approx
3.8\times 10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
According to Maccacaro et al.\ (1988), the X-ray/optical flux ratio,
$\log (F_{\rm 0.3-3.5\,keV}/F_V)
\approx -2.0$, corresponds to a K or M star, and it excludes an AGN
[for which $-1.2 < \log (F_{\rm 0.3-3.5\,keV}/F_V) < +1.6$)
as the source of the X-ray and optical emission
(hence the tail is not an AGN jet).
Thus,
we cannot rule out the possibility that a K star, accidentally projected onto
the A-tail, is at least partly responsible for the brightened end of the
tail in the 2007 image.
However, if
we exclude blob C,
the tail's luminosity
decreases by a factor of 1.5, but the spectral slope remains virtually
the same (see Table 1 and Fig.\ 4). This suggests that the
star's contribution does not dominate in the
blob C emission, but, because of the small number of counts and large statistical
errors, we cannot firmly conclude on the nature of blob C.
In the observation of 2004,
blob C was imaged onto an underexposed
part of the FOV (because of the dither),
between the dashed lines in the middle panel of Figure 2.
Taking into
account the shorter effective exposure of that observation
(but the higher sensitivity
of the S3 chip), we expect $4.2\pm 2.1$ counts to be detected
in the $2''$ radius circle around the position of
the blob C centroid;
however,
there are no counts within that circle.
This may suggest some variability of the source,
but the statistical significance of this difference
is marginal (e.g., the probability of detecting zero counts when 4.2 counts
are expected is 0.0145, which corresponds to a $2.4\, \sigma$ significance).
Based on the ACIS count rate of blob C in 2007,
one could expect to detect about 90 counts in the $15''$
radius aperture in the 142 ks MOS1+MOS2 exposure, but we found only
$49\pm12$ counts in the MOS data.
Furthermore,
we note that the blob C position is projected onto the
wings of the pulsar PSF in the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ images (see Fig.\ 1),
whose contribution to the number of extracted counts
is difficult to evaluate because of the ``spiky'' shape of the PSF.
Anyway, the number
of counts expected for blob C in the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ data
significantly exceeds
the measured one, suggesting
variability of blob C.
The A-tail images (Fig.\ 2)
look appreciably different in the 2004 and 2007 data, in both
the overall flux and the surface brightness distribution (see Fig.\ 5).
For instance, the flux, $2.2\times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,
in the 118 arcsec$^{2}$ area of the tail in the 2004 data is a factor of
6 higher than the flux from the same area
in the 2007 data
(the difference between the count rates
is significant at the $5\,\sigma$ level, with
account for a factor of 1.6 higher sensitivity of the S3 chip
compared to that of the I3 chip, for $\Gamma=1.8$ and $N_{\rm H}=1.1\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$).
The different positions of the blobs in the 2004 and 2007 images suggest
that the blobs are moving along the A-tail (perhaps similar
to the blobs in the Vela pulsar jet; Pavlov et al.\ 2003).
One might even speculate that, for instance, blob B is, in fact, blob A that had
moved $11''$ ($4\times 10^{16}\, d_{250}$ cm) in 3.5 yr
between the observations
(which would correspond to the transverse
velocity of $v_{\rm blob, \perp}\sim 3700\, d_{250}$ km s$^{-1}$).
However, as blob B could also form independently after the disappearance of
blob A, this will remain a speculation until the
characteristic blob lifetime is estimated in a series of monitoring
observations.
In the large-scale {\sl Chandra} image of 2007 (Fig.\ 3),
one can see
a possible faint
extension of the A-tail
(within the dashed polygon in Fig.\ 3).
This faint portion has a factor of 1.5 higher
observed flux (but a factor of 2.4 lower average brightness)
than the bright portion (see Table 1).
However, its statistical significance is only $1.7\,\sigma$, and it
is not seen
in the deep {\sl XMM-Newton}\ image (see Fig.\ 1). Therefore,
this ``faint portion'' most likely represents a string of background
fluctuations accidentally aligned in the A-tail direction.
\subsubsection{Outer tails}
The two ``outer tails'' of the Geminga PWN, seen up to $\sim 2'$ from
the pulsar, were originally detected in the
{\sl XMM-Newton}\ observations of 2002 April (C+03). Adding four shorter
observations of
2004--2007, which increases the total exposure by a factor of 1.8, shows
qualitatively the same picture (Fig.\ 1). The two tails are approximately
symmetric with respect to the pulsar's trajectory in the sky, forming
a horseshoe-like structure. The southern and northern tails (we will call
them the S-tail and N-tail, for brevity) are seen up to
$3\farcm1$ and $2\farcm7$ from the pulsar,
respectively, in the summed MOS1+MOS2 image.
Their typical width, $\sim 20''$--$30''$, is comparable to the {\sl XMM-Newton}\
angular resolution. The tails in the pulsar vicinity (within
$\approx30''$) are
immersed in the bright pulsar's
image.
The spectrum of the combined emission from the two tails,
extracted from the
$120''\times 40''$ elliptical regions
shown in Figure 1 (about 560 source counts),
can be described by a PL model with $\Gamma=1.7\pm0.2$
($\chi_\nu^2 = 1.36$ for 50 degrees of freedom [d.o.f], for fixed $N_{\rm H}
=1.1\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$).
The unabsorbed flux and
luminosity of the two tails,
are
$F^{\rm unabs}\simeq 1.7\times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and
$L\simeq 1.3\times 10^{29} d_{250}^2$ erg s$^{-1}$, in the 0.3--8 keV band.
Both the total flux and the spectral slope are
consistent with those obtained by C+03.
The contribution of the S-tail into the total energy flux is about 76\%.
The average specific
intensities in the S-tail and N-tail elliptical regions
are $3.4\times 10^{-18}$ and
$1.1\times 10^{-18}$
erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-2}$, respectively.
Fitting the spectra of the S-tail and N-tail separately, we obtained
$\Gamma=1.4\pm0.3$ and $2.7\pm 1.1$,
respectively. The apparently large difference
between the spectral slopes, $\Delta\Gamma = 1.3\pm 1.1$, is not
statistically significant.
The spectra can also be fitted by the models for emission of an optically thin
thermal plasma (e.g, $kT=8^{+10}_{-3}$ keV for the fit
of the S-tail + N-tail spectrum with the {\tt mekal}
model; $\chi_\nu^2=1.36$ for 50 d.o.f.).
Thanks to its high angular resolution,
{\sl Chandra}\ observations
make it possible to image the tails in the pulsar vicinity
and resolve the tail structure. In the short
observation of 2004 the N-tail
was not detected, while the initial portion of the S-tail was detected
with about $3\,\sigma$ significance (P+06). The entire extent of the tails
could not be seen because the 1/8 subarray was used.
In the {\sl Chandra}\ data of 2007 we have detected
both outer tails.
For the analysis, we divide each of the tails into two parts.
The bright initial parts (up to $2'$ and $40''$ from the pulsar,
for the S-tail and N-tail, respectively) are delineated by solid polygons
in Figure 3, while the longer faint parts
(up to 4\farcm2 and 3\farcm6 from the pulsar, respectively)
are shown by dashed
polygons.
(We note that the bright portion of the N-tail and a substantial part
of the bright portion of the S-tail are hidden behind the
pulsar image in the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ data.)
The statistical significance of the faint parts is marginal in
the {\sl Chandra}\ data (see Table 1), but
their reality
is supported by the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ data (see Fig.\ 6,
where the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ brightness contours are overlaid on the {\sl Chandra}\ image).
The end parts of the S-tail in the {\sl Chandra}\ and {\sl XMM-Newton}\ images
are slightly shifted with respect to each other, which might suggest
possible variability of the outer tails.
The {\sl Chandra}\ image resolves the tails in the transverse dimension,
showing $\gtrsim 20''$ widths, but
the image is not deep enough to infer the brightness distribution across
the tails. Also, the tails do not show sharp-cut outer boundaries,
perhaps because of the same reason.
Figure 6 also shows the locations of four optical-NIR
sources that are projected onto the tails.
We have already discussed one of them (\#1 in Fig.\ 6,
whose position coincides
with blob C in the
A-tail).
The other three sources (numbered 2, 3, and 4 in Fig.\ 6,
with V magnitudes of 17.6, 15.3, and 13.4, respectively,
from the NOMAD catalog; Zacharias et al.\ 2004)
are projected onto the S-tail.
Source 3 and source 4 are likely an F star and a K star,
respectively, based on their
optical-NIR colors, while the magnitude errors for the fainter source 2
are too large to determine its nature.
The $2.55''$ radius circles around the positions of the sources 2, 3, and 4
contain 7, 1, and 11 counts, respectively.
Even if the X-ray emission at these locations is due to
the optical sources, the
total number of detected source counts from all the
three sources (assuming they are pointlike)
is only $14.3\pm4.4$,
while
the number of counts from the entire S-tail is $168\pm 34$ (Table 1). Therefore,
their contribution to the observed X-ray emission from the entire S-tail is
negligible.
The PL fits of the outer tails' spectra
(see Table 1 and Fig.\ 4) indicate
that the spectral slope of the S-tail
does not differ significantly from that of the A-tail (e.g., $\Gamma \approx 1.5$
fits both spectra within the $1\, \sigma$ uncertainties),
while the N-tail is
apparently harder, in contradiction to the result found from the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ data.
Although the observed number of counts from the N-tail is
a factor of 1.8 lower than that
from the S-tail,
their luminosities are comparable.
Table 1 also suggests that both the N-tail and S-tail spectra soften from the
bright parts toward the extended faint portions, but the statistical
significance of the softening is low (e.g., $\Delta\Gamma\approx 0.7\pm 0.5$ for
the S-tail).
The total
luminosity of the two tails is
$L\approx 4.2\times 10^{29}\,d_{250}^2$ erg s$^{-1}$,
in the 0.3--8 keV band, assuming isotropic emission.
This value exceeds
the estimate derived above from the
{\sl XMM-Newton}\ data
by a factor of about 3,
but that estimate was obtained for a fraction of outer tails,
which did not include the bright part of the N-tail and included
only a small portion of the bright part of the S-tail.
The average specific
intensities in the bright parts are about
$1.2\times 10^{-17}$ and $2.6\times 10^{-17}$ erg
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-2}$, for the S-tail and N-tail, respectively.
Similar to the A-tail,
the bright and faint portions of the S-tail
and the faint portion of the N-tail look patchy.
To quantify the statistical significance of the patchiness, we have
compared the net counts from
brighter and fainter regions of equal size for each of these
components.
For the bright S-tail, faint S-tail, and faint N-tail,
we found significancies of $2.5\,\sigma$, $2.2\,\sigma$, and $2.1\,\sigma$,
respectively.
Therefore, the patchiness is not ruled out, but a deeper observation
is required to prove it firmly.
A similar analysis of the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ data does not show a statistically
significant patchiness,
because of large noise and poor angular resolution.
To examine variability of the outer tails, we have compared the count
rates in the area of
462 arcsec$^2$ of the bright part of the N-tail ($39.4\pm 8.8$ and
$5.7\pm 5.0$ net counts in the observations of 2007 and 2004, respectively).
Accounting for the factor of 1.2 higher sensitivity of the S3 chip
compared to the I3 chip (for the spectral parameters derived from the 2007
observation), the difference between the count rates is significant
at the $3.5\,\sigma$ level.
On the other hand, the difference of the count rates in the
985 arcsec$^2$ area of the bright part of the S-tail,
which was detected in both the 2004 and 2007 {\sl Chandra}\ observations
($33.0\pm9.0$ and $79.1\pm13.0$ net counts, respectively),
is statistically insignificant.
We have also looked for variability of the outer tails in the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ data,
but found no statistically significant differences between the separate
observations because of the strong noise.
As it is natural to assume that the ``outer tails'' represent
the sky projection of
limb-brightened boundaries of a shell,
one can expect some X-ray emission from the region
between the outer tails, in addition to the A-tail.
To look for this emission, we have
inspected two inter-tail regions of combined area
$A_S=12,898$ arcsec$^2$ that exclude
the entire (bright plus faint) A-tail and contain $N_T=886$ counts.
Using the background extracted from three source-free
rectangles around the PWN ($N_B=2222$ counts in the combined area
$A_B=29,578$ arcsec$^2$),
we found $N_S=-88\pm36$
net counts from the ``source".
Adding the alleged faint portion of the
A-tail,
which gives $N_T=1101$ counts in the area $A_S=15,302$ arcsec$^2$,
we found $N_S=-48\pm41$ net counts.
Thus, we conclude that there is no detectable
emission from the region between the outer tails, and the ``faint portion''
of the A-tail is likely an illusion (in agreement with our conclusion
at the end of \S\,2.2.1).
Using the approach outlined by Weisskopf et al.\ (2007), we find the
$3\,\sigma$ upper limit of
94 counts in the area $A_S=15,302$ arcsec$^2$
(99\% and 90\% upper limits are
78 and 45 respectively).
The corresponding $3\,\sigma$ upper limit on
the surface brightness, $6.1\times 10^{-3}$ counts arcsec$^{-2}$,
is lower than the average surface brightness of the
outer tails
(e.g., by factors of $4.6\pm 0.9$ and $3.4\pm 1.0$ for the
``entire'' S-tail
and N-tail, respectively).
The {\sl XMM-Newton}\ image also does not show detectable inter-tail emission.
Using the same approach, we found the $3\,\sigma$ upper limit of
37 counts
in the $32''\times 64''$ box between the outer tails shown in Figure 1
(99\% and 90\% upper limits are
32 and 22 counts, respectively).
The corresponding $3\,\sigma$ upper limit on surface brightness, $1.8\times 10^{-2}$ counts arcsec$^{-2}$,
is lower by factors of $6.2\pm 0.2$ and $2.0\pm 0.4$
than the surface brightnesses
of the S-tail and N-tail, respectively.
\subsubsection{Emission ahead of the pulsar}
An arc-like diffuse emission region, about $5''$--$7''$ ahead of the pulsar,
was reported by P+06 from the 2004 {\it Chandra} data.
We have analyzed the data inside a polygon (area $= 86.6$ arcsec$^2$)
and found $22.8\pm5.1$
source counts.
Our spectral analysis provides a photon index
$\Gamma=0.9\pm0.5$ and the observed flux
$F\approx 1.2\times10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,
in the 0.3--8 keV band, consistent with the P+06 estimates.
Based on these results,
the expected number of arc counts in the {\sl Chandra}\ observation of
2007\footnote{Estimated with the aid of the {\sl Chandra}\ PIMMS tool;
\url{http://asc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp}} is $83\pm 24$.
However, although some diffuse emission is seen at that site in the 2007
data, there are only $16.3\pm4.8$ source counts in the corresponding polygon
(at the same distance from the pulsar, which has moved $0\farcs62$ in the sky in the
3.5 years),
and the shape of the count distribution does not resemble an arc
(see the upper panel of Fig.\ 2).
The spectral slope,
$\Gamma=1.1\pm0.7$, is
consistent with that of the 2004 arc, but the observed flux,
$F\approx 2.5 \times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,
is a factor of 5 lower.
This suggests that the emission ahead of the pulsar is
variable, but the significance of this variability is not very high
(e.g., $2.8\,\sigma$ in the difference between the expected and observed
counts).
The alleged arc cannot be seen in the {\sl XMM-Newton}\ images because it is hidden
in the pulsar PSF. However, these images show a ``streak'' ahead of the pulsar,
in the direction of the proper motion, which is best seen in the summed image
(bottom panels of Fig.\ 1). One might speculate that this streak is
a Geminga PWN element
(e.g., a forward jet). To check this hypothesis, we extracted
760 source counts from the $20''\times 50''$ rectangle that includes the
streak (shown in the bottom panels of Fig.\ 1) and fit the spectrum with various
models. We found that the very soft streak spectrum does not fit the PL model
($\chi_\nu^2=4.3$ for 44 d.o.f.), but it fits the two-component
PL+blackbody model ($\Gamma=1.8\pm 0.1$, $kT=0.53\pm 0.05$ keV,
$\chi_\nu^2=1.1$ for 42 d.o.f.) that is
consistent with the pulsar's spectrum (e.g., Kargaltsev et al.\ 2005).
Therefore, we conclude that the streak is not related to the PWN, but it
is an artificial spike-like feature
in the MOS PSF caused by the ``spiders'' holding
the X-ray telescopes (see the XMM-Newton Users' Handbook, Sec.\ 3.2.1.1)
This conclusion is also supported by a lack of any excess above the
background at the corresponding area in the {\sl Chandra}\ images.
Interestingly, the summed 2004 + 2007 {\sl Chandra}\
image in the bottom panel of Figure 2
shows a hint of a short, $10''$--$15''$, jetlike structure ahead of the
pulsar, with its end seemingly connecting to the N-tail.
The number of
counts is, however, too small to conclude whether this structure is
an accidentally aligned superposition of events from the two
images or there is indeed a forward jet, perhaps bent in the north-northwest
direction into the N-tail, which we cannot see in the separate images
because of the scarce statistics. A deeper observation is needed to
understand the true nature of this and other apparent structures
in the immediate vicinity of the pulsar.
\section {Discussion} \label{sec: 3}
The {\sl Chandra}\ observation of 2007 has confirmed the
existence of three tail-like features
in the
Geminga PWN image, with comparable luminosities,
and allowed us to study the PWN in more detail
(e.g., to detect the A-tail at larger distances from the pulsar
and investigate the PWN in the immediate vicinity of the pulsar).
Moreover, it has provided first evidence of variability of the PWN elements,
in particular, of the A-tail and the emission in the pulsar vicinity.
The observed structure of the Geminga PWN looks very unusual.
Although the overall appearance of the PWN,
particularly the alignment of the tails with the pulsar's proper
motion, leaves no doubts that the PWN structure is caused by the
supersonic motion of the pulsar in the ISM,
none of the other $\sim$20 bowshock-tail PWNe detected by {\sl Chandra}\ (see KP08)
show three distinct tails.
To interpret the observed structure in terms of the PWN models,
we should first understand the intrinsic
three-dimensional morphology of the X-ray PWN, which is by no means
obvious.
At the first glance,
the most natural interpretation of the PWN elements is that the ``outer
tails'', together with the ``arc'' that apparently connects the tails
ahead of the pulsar, delineate the limb-brightened boundary
of the sky projection
of an optically thin
shell, shaped
approximately as a paraboloid of revolution, while the nearly straight
axial tail represents
a collimated outflow
in the direction opposite to that of the pulsar's motion. On the
other hand,
one cannot exclude the possibility
that the outer
tails are,
in fact, hose-like
structures, such as jets confined by their own magnetic fields and bent
by the head wind of ISM matter.
Moreover,
one could even speculate that the axial ``tail'' is Doppler-boosted
emission from a narrow region of a shell
formed by material flowing with relativistic speeds.
Below we will discuss
these possibilities in more detail.
\subsection{Possible interpretations of the outer tails}
The patchy outer tails of $20''$--$30''$ width are seen up to $\sim 3'$
($\sim 0.2 d_{250}$ pc) from the pulsar. Their X-ray luminosity,
$L_X\sim 4\times 10^{29} d_{250}^2$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the 0.3--8 keV band,
is a fraction of $\sim 1.2\times 10^{-5}d_{250}^2$ of the pulsar's
spin-down power $\dot{E}$, lower than the typical $L_X/\dot{E} \sim 10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$ for younger PWNe (KP08). The outer tails' luminosity is a factor of
$\sim 7$ lower than the pulsar's magnetospheric luminosity, while
the PWN luminosity is usually higher than the magnetospheric
luminosity for younger pulsars (Kargaltsev et al.\ 2007). The
spectrum of the outer tails can be described by the absorbed PL model with
$\Gamma \sim 1$, which is apparently harder than the typical PWN spectra.
The explanation of the outer tails' properties depends on the topology of
the PW outflow.
\subsubsection{The outer tails are shell boundaries?}
Let us assume that the outer tails are
limb-brightened shell boundaries and explore
the consequences of this assumption.
First of all, the very fact that the shell boundaries are much brighter
than the rest of the shell image
(see \S\,2.2.2) implies a nonrelativistic speed
of the bulk outflow along the shell.
If it were relativistic,
then, due to the Doppler boosting, the brightest parts of the
shell image would be not the boundaries
but they would correspond to the smallest angles between the flow velocity
and the line of sight.
This inference restricts the number of possible
interpretations of the shell.
For instance, the shell cannot be interpreted as
synchrotron emission from the shocked PW immediately outside
the (bullet-like) TS surface -- not only because the cylindrical radius of the
shell is too large (see P+06), but also because the shocked PW
is expected to flow
with nearly relativistic speed, $v_{\rm flow} =0.8c$--$0.9 c$,
along the lateral TS boundary (B+05). As the brightness is proportional to
$[1-(v_{\rm flow}/c)\cos\theta]^{-\Gamma-2}$, where $\theta$ is the angle
between the flow direction and the line of sight, the flow toward the
observer would be a factor of $\gtrsim 100$ brighter than the flow in the
perpendicular direction, for the photon index $\Gamma\approx 1$.
One might consider the possibility that the shell
emission comes from
the shocked ISM material heated up to X-ray temperatures.
In this case,
we would associate the outer tails with the FS, and the emission mechanism
with the thermal emission of an optically thin plasma rather than synchrotron
emission from relativistic electrons. From the junction conditions at
the shock front, the expected temperature of the shocked ISM material at
the head of the bowshock is
$kT = (3/16)\mu m_p V_{\rm psr}^2 =
0.078 \mu V_{200}^2$ keV
[where $\mu$ is the chemical weight,
$V_{200}=V_{\rm psr}/(200\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1})$, and adiabatic index
$\gamma_{\rm ad} =5/3$ is assumed for the ISM gas],
and it should be even lower behind the pulsar because of the
obliqueness of the shock.
Since the fit of the outer tails spectrum with the {\tt mekal} model
gives $kT\approx 5$--18 keV (see \S\,2.2.2),
the expected temperature of the shocked ISM gas looks too low to explain the hard spectrum of the
tails emission
unless $V_{\rm psr}\gtrsim 2300 \mu^{-1/2}(kT/10\,{\rm keV})^{1/2}$ km s$^{-1}$, which
would imply that the pulsar
moves at a small inclination angle $i$ with respect to the line of sight,
$\sin i \lesssim 0.1$.
However, since such a speed is higher than those observed for other pulsars,
and
the PWN appearance can hardly be reconciled with such small inclination angles,
we can discard this interpretation.
It seems more reasonable to assume that the shell
is formed by the shocked PW
flowing immediately inside the CD surface, where the magnetic field is
compressed (B+05)
and the synchrotron radiation is enhanced.
However, such an interpretation contradicts the available
PWN models, which
predict a nearly relativistic
flow speed in the outer layers of the synchrotron
emitting PWN
(hence dim boundaries and bright central part)
because of the
Doppler boosting (see above).
Indeed, the simulated PWN images for $i=90^\circ$ (see Fig.\ 4
in B+05) show the brightest synchrotron emission from the
bowshock head region, while throughout the
entire PWN the brightness decreases from the axis
toward the CD, in contrast to the observed images.
(This is partly caused by the assumption that the PWN magnetic field
is purely toroidal, which reduces the synchrotron intensity at the PWN
boundaries, where the magnetic field
is parallel to the line of sight.
However, even if the magnetic field is
completely disordered, the brightness does not grow from the axis
toward the boundaries; see Fig.\ 5 in B+05.)
Therefore, this interpretation of the outer tails implies
that there is a mechanism that decelerates the flow.
The deceleration can be provided by
the shear (Kelvin-Helmholtz) instabilities at the CD, which
can lead to advection of clumps of the heavier shocked ISM material into the
shocked PW and slow down the latter (e.g., B+05).
The diffuse appearance and the patchiness
of the tails in the high-resolution {\sl Chandra}\
images (see \S\,2.2.2 and Figs.\ 2 and 3) are consistent with
this hypothesis.
It could be verified observationally
if the speed of the nonuniformities in
the outer tails, which should form in the process of mass loading, is
measured in a series of deep observations.
Another apparent problem with the interpretation of the outer tails
and the arc as traces of the CD surface
is the discrepancy between the observed
and predicted ratios of the CD's cylindrcal radius,
$r_{\rm CD}$, to
the distance $R_{\rm CD,h}\approx 1.3 R_{\rm TS,h}$ of the
CD head from the pulsar.
For instance,
the B+05 model predicts $r_{\rm CD}/R_{\rm CD,h}\approx 3$ while the observed
ratio is $\gtrsim 10 \sin i$ (if we interpret the
``arc'' ahead of the pulsar as the head
of the CD surface\footnote{ If the PW is anisotropic,
the head of the CD surface could
be much closer to the pulsar than the observed arclike emission. In this case,
the emission ahead of the pulsar could be a forward axial outflow destroyed
by the ISM ram pressure. Such an outflow should be seen as a diffuse
emission of an irregular, variable shape, in contrast to the CD surface
head that would preserve its arclike shape and could show variations
if the ISM is nonuniform.}.)
This means that either the inclination angle is small,
$i < 15^\circ$--$20^\circ$,
or some assumptions of the B+05 model are violated.
Since the observed PWN shape
can hardly be reconciled with such small inclination
angles (see Fig.\ 3 in C+03), we suggest that the discrepancy
is caused by the assumption that the unshocked PW is isotropic.
Indeed, if the wind is predominantly equatorial (i.e., concentrated
around the plane perpendicular to the pulsar's spin axis),
and the spin axis is aligned with the direction of pulsar motion
(as observed in a number of young pulsars), then
the lower wind ram pressure ahead of the pulsar should result in a smaller
distance between the pulsar and the TS (and CD) apex.
The only models of PWNe with anisotropic wind outflow we are aware of
have been presented by Vigelius et al.\ (2007).
These models consider only nonrelativistic flows and, more
importantly, assume zero magnetic field, but they
should satisfactorily describe
the PWN morphology for small values of the PW magnetization
parameter (defined as the ratio of the Poynting flux to the kinetic energy flux).
Although Vigelius et al.\ did not directly consider the case of
an equatorial outflow perpendicular to the pulsar velocity, some of the
considered cases (e.g., Fig.\ 6 in that paper)
qualitatively confirm our explanation.
For completeness, we should also mention the interpretation suggested by C+03,
that the outer tails represent the synchrotron radiation of the PW
in the interstellar magnetic field ``compressed in the bowshock'' by
a factor of 4 (for an adiabatic shock with $\gamma_{\rm ad}=5/3$ and a large
Mach number), up to $\sim 10\,\mu$G. As C+03 assume
a one-zone shock model,
which apparently
does not describe realistic PWNe, this interpretation may not be directly
applicable. One may speculate, however,
that ultrarelativistic electrons from
the high-energy tail of the electron energy distribution could leak
from the shocked wind region (incide the CD) into the shocked ISM region
and generate synchrotron radiation in the interstellar
magnetic field amplified at the FS.
We should note, however, that only the magnetic field component
parallel to the shock surface is amplified by this mechanism, and the
amplification becomes insignificant behind the pulsar because of
the shock obliqueness. Therefore, we believe that there is no need
to invoke this complicated
hypothesis as long as the more straightforward explanation
(synchrotron
radiation from the region of the CD surface) seems viable.
Finally, we should explain the fact that the outer tails are not truly
symmetric with respect to the trajectory of Geminga on the sky,
neither in shape (especially close to the pulsar) nor, particularly,
in brightness (the
S-tail is considerably brighter). We could tentatively ascribe this asymmetry
to nonuniform conditions (density and/or temperature)
in the ambient medium.
The nonuniformity is supported by the
Very Large Array (VLA) and Effelsberg radio telescope
HI (21 cm line) observations of the Geminga field
(Giacani et al.\ 2005). These observations
have shown the pulsar and its X-ray PWN
to be in a local minimum of the HI emission,
surrounded by an open HI shell (an incomplete ring with an average radius
of $9'$) that envelopes the southern part of the X-ray PWN, with the internal
border of the shell close to the S-tail. The lack of neutral hydrogen in the
vicinity of the pulsar can be explained by the ionization caused by
the pulsar's UV and
soft X-ray emission. The openness of the shell (no HI emission northwest
of the X-ray PWN) might imply a higher temperature (and perhaps a lower density)
of the ISM in that direction. One may speculate that Geminga is
crossing
a cold ISM cloud and is now
approaching the cloud's northwest boundary. It remains to
be understood, however, how the relative brightness of the S-tail is connected
with the alleged lower temperature and higher density in that region.
We should also mention that, based on the HI radio results, one could expect an
H$_\alpha$ PWN south of the S-tail, associated with the FS. However, C+03
report the nondetection of ``organized diffuse H$_\alpha$ emission from the
X-ray structure surrounding Geminga'' in a 5 hour observation with
the VLT-ANTU telescope. Their Figure 2 shows an apparent filament
at the outer border of the S-tail, but it is not immediately
clear whether or
not this feature is related to the PWN.
To conclude, if the outer tails represent the limb-brightened boundaries
of the sky projection of a shell, this shell is most likely the synchrotron
radiation from the region of interaction of the shocked PW and
shocked ISM material, where the wind flow is decelerated to nonrelativistic
velocities by the shear instability, which implies mass loading.
The shape of the shell is somewhat
different from the shape of the CD surface in the available
numerical PWN models, perhaps
because the models do not include the mass loading and proper anisotropy
of the unshocked PW.
\subsubsection{The outer tails are bent polar outflows?}
The hypothesis that the outer ``tails'' represent the boundary of
a shell
is not the only possible explanation.
In particular, as no emission is seen between the outer tails
except for the A-tail (see \S2.2.2),
we cannot exclude the possibility that the outer
tails are in fact
some collimated flows emanating from the pulsar
magnetosphere,
such as two jets
aligned with the pulsar's spin axis near the pulsar
and bent by the
ram pressure at larger distances.
This interpretation implies a large angle $\Theta$
between the spin axis and
pulsar's velocity ($\Theta\gtrsim 60^\circ$--$70^\circ$, as
follows from Figs.\ 2 and 3) and a sufficiently large angle $\zeta$
between the spin axis and the line of sight\footnote{ The large value of
$\zeta$ supports the outer gap interpretation of Geminga's
$\gamma$-ray emission
(Romani \& Watters 2010).}.
{\sl Chandra} observations have shown that jets emanating along the spin
axes are ubiquitous among
young PWNe (see, e.g., Weisskopf et al.\ 2000; Pavlov et al.\ 2003),
and the spin axis is often
approximately aligned with the pulsar velocity direction (Ng \& Romani 2007).
The mechanisms of jet formation and collimation are currently not certain.
In the scenario discussed by Benford (1984),
a fraction of electrons created in
the vacuum gaps above the
magnetic poles and accelerated along the open magnetic field lines is
deflected toward the spin axis and forms a beam collimated by its own
toroidal magnetic field.
Another mechanism of axial outflow formation has been
discussed by Komissarov \& Lyubarsky (2004),
who assume that the outflow is originally equatorial
and show that the magnetic hoop stress can stop
the outflow in the surface layers of the equatorial disk and redirect
it into magnetically confined
polar jets.
If the pulsar were not moving
with respect to the ambient medium, the jet matter would keep flowing
along the spin axis until the jet is destroyed by the interaction with
the medium.
The ram pressure exerted onto the jets
of a moving pulsar can bend the jets in the direction opposite to
that of the pulsar's motion, so that the jets are seen as two
tails behind the moving pulsar\footnote{A similar model has been discussed
by Heinz et al.\ (2008) for microquasars.}.
This scenario allows one to explain the observed asymmetry of the Geminga's
outer tails
(see \S2.2.2).
The asymmetry can be associated with the large (but
different from $90^\circ$) angle $\Theta$ between the spin axis and the
pulsar's velocity. At such an orientation the angles between the ram pressure
direction and the jet matter velocity directions are acute and obtuse for
the southeastern and northwestern jets, respectively, which means that bending the northwestern jet is more
difficult. An additional reason for the asymmetry
might be a deviation of the pulsar's magnetic field geometry
from an ideal centered dipole, which
would lead to different structures of the magnetic field at the two poles and
different properties of the two jets.
Different brightness of the jets, especially in the pulsar vicinity,
might be caused by Doppler boosting (if
the angle $\zeta$ between the spin axis and line of sight is different from
$90^\circ$), but it is hard to estimate the
Doppler factor and to infer the angles with the current noisy data.
As the bent polar outflow interpretation of the
outer tails requires a large
value of the angle $\Theta$, while $\Theta$ is apparently
small for most pulsars, this interpretation
implies that the outer tails are a rare phenomenon,
in agreement with PWN observations
that have not shown such tails in other PWNe.
It, however, remains to be understood why $\Theta$ is so different for Geminga.
A theoretical study of the expected distribution of this angle using the
physics of the neutron star birth is required to confirm this
explanation.
\subsection{The nature of the axial tail}
The straight, patchy A-tail is seen up to $50''$ ($0.06 d_{250}$ pc)
from the pulsar.
Its surface
brightness is not only nonuniform but also variable, as we see
from the comparison of the 2007 and 2004 data.
Assuming a nearly isotropic emission
(which, rigorously speaking, implies a nonrelativistic flow), the A-tail
luminosity, $L_X\sim
(1$--$2)\times 10^{29} d_{250}^2$ erg s$^{-1}$
in the 0.3--8 keV band,
is
$\sim (3$--$6)\times 10^{-6} d_{250}^2$
of Geminga's spin-down power $\dot{E}$.
The A-tail luminosity
is $\sim 0.03$--0.06 of the nonthermal (magnetospheric)
luminosity of the
Geminga pulsar in the same energy range and is
a factor of 2--4 lower than the total luminosity of the outer tails.
There are three
conceivable explanations of the A-tail:
a jet emanating from the pulsar magnetosphere in
the direction opposite to the pulsar velocity,
a tail part of the bowshock-tail PWN created by the supesonic motion of the pulsar,
and a Doppler-boosted image of
a shell into which a fraction of the relativistic PW is directed.
We will discuss these interpretations below, taking into account their
connection with the above-discussed interpretations of the outer tails.
\subsubsection{The axial tail is a pulsar jet?}
The interpretation of the A-tail as a pulsar jet, suggested by P+06,
is consistent with only one of the above-discussed interpretations of
the outer tails, namely, the hypothesis that
the outer tails represent a boundary of a shell (e.g., an equatorial outflow
bent by the ram pressure).
As pulsar jets emerge
along the pulsar's spin axis,
and the A-tail is aligned with the pulsar's trajectory in the sky,
the jet interpretation of the A-tail implies that the spin
axis is likely aligned with the pulsar's velocity. This suggests
that the ``natal kick'' of the Geminga pulsar was directed along
the spin axis,
which has
important implications for the mechanisms of supernova explosion and
neutron star formation (e.g., Ng \& Romani 2007).
The lack of a clear (counter)jet ahead of the pulsar (see, however, the note
at the end of \S\,2.2.3) could be explained by Doppler boosting
(the approaching jet is brighter than the receding counterjet, assuming
the jet material flows with nearly relativistic velocities). Alternatively,
the counterjet can be partially or fully destroyed
by the ISM ram pressure, or the outflows in the opposite
directions may be intrinsically
different.
As described in \S\,2.2.1, the surface brightness is distributed
nonuniformly along the A-tail, with some ``blobs'' seen at different
positions in the images of 2004 and 2007, and a ``gap'' between the
pulsar and the beginning of the A-tail. This means that there are
regions of the enhanced magnetic field and/or higher density along the A-tail,
which might be
caused by
discrete ejections from the magnetosphere, or they could be
manifestations of some instabilities (e.g., the sausage instability,
as discussed by Pavlov et al.\ 2003 for the outer jet of the Vela PWN)
or internal shocks in the jet flow.
Particularly interesting is
the brightest blob C seen at the apparent end of the A-tail
in the image of 2007 (see Fig.\ 2).
Although a background K star could contribute to the blob C emission
(see \S\,2.2.1), our analysis suggests that the star's contribution is
not dominant and blob C could be associated with the jet's
termination shock. To understand the nature
of the blobs, it would be important to study their evolution
in a series
of deep observations, which, in particular, would help
estimate the flow speed in the jet.
Using the observed diameter of the alleged jet and the estimate for the
energy injection rate,
P+06 estimate
the jet's magnetic field: $B_{\rm jet}
\sim 100\,
\mu{\rm G}$. For such a magnetic field the expected jet length is
$l_{\rm jet}\sim v_{\rm jet}\tau_{\rm syn}\sim 0.6\, (v_{\rm jet}/0.5c)\,(B_{\rm jet}/100\,\mu{\rm G})^{-3/2}$ pc, where $v_{\rm jet}$ is the bulk flow velocity in
the jet, and $\tau_{\rm syn}$ is the synchrotron cooling time.
The jet length
estimated
from the initial bright portion of the axial tail,
$l_{\rm jet}\sim 0.06\, d_{250}/\sin i$ pc, is much smaller than this
value unless $v_{\rm jet}$ is much smaller than $0.5 c$ and/or $\sin i$ is
small, which seems unlikely. To explain this contradiction, P+06 speculate
that
the jet becomes uncollimated or
destroyed well before it radiates its entire internal energy.
To check such speculations and test the pulsar jet interpretation,
deeper observations are required.
\subsubsection{
The axial tail is a shocked pulsar wind?}
A tail-like structure similar to the observed A-tail could form
behind the supersonically moving pulsar due to the collimation of the
shocked PW by the ram pressure (B+05; Romanova et al.\ 2005).
For instance,
if we assume that
the outer tails and the possible
arc ahead of the pulsar delineate the CD surface (see \S\,3.1.1),
then the A-tail might be the shocked PW
immediately outside (and perhaps behind) the bullet-like TS.
P+06 have
shown that this interpretation
is not quantitatively consistent with the available simulations of
bowshock-tail PWNe, but those simulations do not take into account the
intrinsic anisotropy of the PW.
In addition, it would be difficult to explain the presence of the blobs
and the variability of the A-tail in the framework of this interpretation.
Therefore, we consider this interpretation unlikely.
If the outer tails are bent polar outflows (\S\,3.1.2), then
the ram-pressure confined shocked PW would be the only
possible explanation for the A-tail. A more detailed interpretation
of the A-tail would depend on the PW model. For instance, if the
PW were intrinsically isotropic, then the A-tail might
be interpreted as originating
from the shocked PW ``sheath" immediately outside the TS,
and the observed
width of the tail would imply the distances $R_{\rm TS,h} \approx 3''$
and $R_{\rm CD,h} \approx 4''$
of the TS and CD heads from the pulsar. Therefore,
we would expect a bright arc (brighter than any part of the axial tail)
$\approx (3''$--$4'') \sin i$ ahead of the pulsar.
No such a bright arc is seen in the images, but this
does not necessarily rule out
the TS origin of the A-tail because the TS head could be closer to
the pulsar and hidden within the pulsar image if the PW is anisotropic
(P+06).
In this interpretation, however, we have to assume that no emission
is seen from the CD surface region, which looks somewhat unnatural.
In the bent polar outflow interpretation of the outer tails,
one could also assume that
the A-tail tail is associated with the
CD-confined cylindrical region behind the (unresolved) TS.
In this case, for an isotropic PW,
we would expect a bright arc
$\approx 1''\sin i$ ahead of the pulsar,
which can easily be hidden within the pulsar image.
In the framework of this interpretation, the non-uniformity and
variability of the A-tail could be explained by shear instabilities
at the CD surface (cf.\ \S\,3.1.1), which could also decelerate the
flow, so that the blobs' velocity would be lower than that in the jet
interpretation of the A-tail.
We should note, however, that in such interpretations the polar outflows are
more luminous than the ram-pressure confined tail (perhaps an equatorial
outflow), which has not been observed
for any other pulsar.
\subsubsection{
The axial tail is a Doppler-boosted shell projection?}
As we have mentioned above,
the image of
a shell formed by material
outflowing with relativistic speeds may be strongly affected by
Doppler boosting, which brightens those parts
of the shell where the angle $\theta$ between the bulk flow velocity and the
line of sight is the smallest.
For instance,
a conical shell, in which the material flows from the
cone vertex at the pulsar position,
would look like a straight strip\footnote{
A similar model has been discussed by Radhakrishnan \& Deshpande (2001)
who interpret the ``inner jets'' of the Vela PWN as a projection of the
rotating beams of relativistic particles emitted along the magnetic axes.}
corresponding to the minimum $\theta$.
If the
material flows from the head of a paraboloid-like shell (e.g., the
CD surface), the observer would see a shorter strip,
detached from the paraboloid head in general case.
In principle, one could imagine that
the A-tail is such a projection of the shell formed by the
shocked PW that flows out with relativistic velocities between the
TS and CD, while the outer tails are bent polar outflows (jets).
In this interpretation, the true transverse radius of the shell would be
larger than the observed width of the A-tail.
The blobs in the A-tail might be some local instabilities
in the relativistic flow, which would likely move with relativistic
bulk-flow velocities. Therefore, it would be important to examine the
blob motion in future observations.
\section{Summary}
The new {\sl Chandra} and {\sl XMM-Newton} observations of the Geminga PWN
have confirmed that it has three tail-like components,
unlike any other detected PWN.
The new observations have allowed us to image the tails at larger distances from
the pulsar and establish their patchy structure. Comparing the new and previous
{\sl Chandra} observations, we have found indications of PWN variability,
especially in the axial tail and the emission ahead of the pulsar.
In particular, we found up to three
blobs in the axial tail, at different positions in 2004 and 2007.
Similar to other X-ray PWNe, the Geminga PWN
is due to
synchrotron radiation of shocked PW comprised of relativistic particles.
Based on the new
and old observations,
we have proposed several competing interpretations of the PWN structure.
Very likely, the outer tails delineate
a limb-brightened
boundary of a shell-like region of interaction of the shocked PW and shocked
ISM, while the axial tail is a pulsar
jet along the spin axis aligned with the pulsar's trajectory.
Such an interpretation implies a nonrelativistic speed of the bulk outflow
along the shell, possibly decelerated by the shear instability and mass loading.
Alternatively,
the outer tailis could be
polar outflows from the pulsar magnetosphere (e.g.,
pulsar jets along the spin axis), bent by the ISM ram pressure,
in which case the axial tail could be a shocked PW (e.g., an equatorial
outflow) collimated by the ISM ram pressure exerted on the supersonically
moving PWN.
To discriminate between various interpretation of the observed PWN,
a series of carefully designed
{\sl Chandra}\ observations is required. In particular, such observations should
allow one
to measure the speeds of the bulk flows in the tails, which would distinguish
fast jets from
ram-pressure-confined pulsar winds slowed down by the
interaction with the ambient ISM.
Also, such observations should be deep enough
to establish the true morphology
of the emission in the immediate vicinity of the pulsar.
For instance, if a deeper observation convincingly shows that there is an arc ahead
of the pulsar connecting the two outer tails, then the bending axial outflows
scenario will be ruled out. If, however, we see
two straight tails originating from the pulsar in a direction
inclined to the pulsar's velocity direction, then the tails can be
interpreted as bent jets.
In addition, the detailed modeling of anisotropic
magnetic PW from a high-speed pulsar will also be
extremely useful to properly interpret the observational data.
\acknowledgments
We thank Andrew Melatos for useful discussions of the PWN modeling.
Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration through {\sl Chandra} Award Number GO7-8053A issued
by the {\sl Chandra} X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the National
Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060. The work by
GGP was also partially supported by NASA grant NNX09AC84G.
|
\section{Introduction}
There have been published numerous papers on relativistic equilibrium
thermodynamics of extended bodies (bodies with finite volumes) in
a flat spacetime. Most of papers focused on a equilibrium of a body
with translational motion, i.e., each element of the body has the
same velocity. There has been a heated controversy on the relativistic
temperature with the translational motion (see, e.g.,\cite{yuen70AmJPh}
and references therein) in 1960s, and papers are still published to
this date (e.g.,\cite{landsberg-matsas04PhyA,aresdeparga05JPhA,tadas08arXiv,requardt08}).
The equilibrium temperature of an extended body in translational motion
is uniform within the body, in other words, local temperature at each
point is the same. In contrast, there can be equilibrium states in
which the local temperature is not uniform. Equilibrium with varying
local temperature was first examined by Tolman and Ehrenfest\cite{tolman-ehrenfest1930PhRv}
in the context of general relativity. With some assumptions they concluded
the local temperature should be inversely proportional to the square
root of the temporal component of the metric tensor. This result can
be derived from more general approach\cite{dixson78,Israel-Stewart1979AnPhy},
which shows equilibrium can take place only when the local inverse
temperature four vector satisfies the Killing equation.
This result in general relativity is of course applicable to flat
spacetimes. The local inverse temperature four vector depends on the
local velocities, and consequently the condition of equilibrium determines
the velocity distribution by the Killing equation. There are three
types of basic Killing vectors in a flat spacetime, each of which
corresponds to translational motion, spatial rotation, and constant
linear acceleration. Correspondingly there are three types of equilibrium
in a flat spacetime. The case of translational motion is trivial:
the uniform temperature.
In the case of spatial rotation, the equilibrium state is determined
by the well known effect which is often expressed as {}``the rim
of a rotating wheel is hotter than the axis.'' This effect can be
interpreted as the result of centrifugal force acting on the energy.
The energy is equivalent to the mass in relativity and subject to
the centrifugal force, resulting higher energy density on the outer
side of a wheel. The same effect takes place in the case of constant
acceleration, resulting non-uniform local temperatures in the direction
of acceleration. \bigskip{}
The equilibrium with spacial rotation or constant acceleration is
a well known fact, however, past literature focused on its microscopic
aspect. In other words, the distribution of the local temperatures
has been mainly investigated, and little attention has been paid for
the global thermodynamical properties of extended bodies.
The basic strategy of thermodynamics is based on the fact that the
macroscopic properties of a body in equilibrium can be well represented
by a small number of thermodynamical parameters, such as temperature,
pressure, etc. It is trivial in non-relativistic thermodynamics that
the temperature can be expressed with one single value, since the
local temperatures are all equal in equilibrium. In contrast, there
can be equilibrium with non-uniform local temperatures as discussed
above, and it is not well known how to represent its global temperature
so far.
The purpose of the present paper is to generalize the concept of global
temperature, or global inverse temperature more precisely, to be applicable
to the relativistic equilibrium with non-uniform local temperature.
Even when the local temperature varies, the condition of equilibrium
is a stringent constraint, which can determine thermodynamical state
uniquely by a small number of parameters, namely the generalized inverse
temperature.
The second law of thermodynamics will be extended to accommodate four
dimensional rotation (spatial rotation and constant acceleration)
with the generalized inverse temperature. This second law can tell
how the energy-momentum or angular momentum are transferred between
extended bodies thermodynamically. Further, by introducing the generalized
inverse temperature we can obtain a clear insight on the relativistic
thermal equilibrium. We can tell the similarity and difference of
the equilibrium states in translational motion, spatial rotation, and
constant acceleration.\bigskip{}
Non-relativistic thermodynamics is basically the theory of energetics.
The temperature is defined based on the conservation of the energy.
When we generalize it to relativity, energy must be treated as one
component of the energy momentum which is expressed by a contravariant
vector (1-vector). Consequently the inverse temperature becomes a
covariant four vector (1-form); this formulation was first proposed
by van Kampen \cite{kampen68PhRv} and later refined by Israel \cite{israel76AnPhy}.
The energy-momentum is a conserved quantity resulting from the translational
symmetry. There can be another conserved quantity, four dimensional
angular momentum namely, in a Minkowski spacetime resulting from the
rotational symmetry. As we will see in the present paper, there exists
another inverse temperature corresponding to the angular momentum.
In general, rotation can have six independent directions in a four
dimensional space. Consequently the four dimensional angular momentum
is a contravariant bivector (2-vector), with six components, and the
corresponding inverse temperature becomes a covariant bivector (2-form)
with six components.
After deriving general expression for the inverse temperature, two
specific cases of four dimensional rotation will be examined in the
present paper. In a three dimensional space, any successive two rotations
can be combined into one rotation. This is not true for a four dimensional
space because there can be two independent rotations. For example,
a rotation in the $x_{0}x_{1}$ plane is independent of the rotation
in the $x_{2}x_{3}$ plane and the two cannot be combined into one
single rotation. In the present paper we treat the motion of a single
rotation; this is not general, but can clarify the essential thermodynamical
properties of four dimensional rotational motion with simplicity.
We examine two basic single rotations in a Minkowski spacetime: spatial
rotation and constant acceleration. With respect to the constant acceleration,
we further focus on the Rindler motion, which is one limited case
but important in applications.
\section{Temperature and Velocity in Equilibrium}
Let us suppose an extended body with a three volume $\Sigma$ is in
the equilibrium state, and examine its thermodynamical properties.
The local inverse temperature $\bar{\xi}(\bar{x})$ at each point
within the body is defined as\begin{equation}
\xi_{\mu}(\bar{x})=\frac{u_{\mu}(\bar{x})}{T(\bar{x})}\,,\label{eq:invtemp}\end{equation}
where $T(\bar{x})$ and $\bar{u}(\bar{x})$ are the local proper temperature
and the four velocity of the matter at a point $\bar{x}$ \cite{dixson78,Israel-Stewart1979AnPhy};
we denote a vector or a tensor as a whole by a bar, e.g., $\bar{\xi}$,
and its each component by a subscript or a superscript, e.g., $\xi_{\mu}$
in the present paper (precisely speaking, the position $\bar{x}$
may not be a vector, however, this expression does not cause confusion
in a flat spacetime). We use natural units $\hbar=c=G=k_{B}=1$ throughout
this paper unless otherwise stated.
When the body is in equilibrium, $\bar{\xi}$ satisfies the following
Killing equation \cite{dixson78,Israel-Stewart1979AnPhy}:\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}-\nabla_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}=0\,.\label{eq:killing}\end{equation}
The general solution to the above equation in a flat spacetime is
given as (see Appendix)
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\mu}=\beta_{\mu}+\lambda_{\mu\nu}(x^{\nu}-x_{0}^{\nu})\,,\label{eq:killing2}\end{equation}
where $\bar{\beta}$ is a constant vector, $\bar{x}_{0}$ is a certain
fixed point that corresponds to the center of four dimensional rotation,
and $\bar{\lambda}$ is a anti-symmetric tensor that satisfies $\lambda_{\mu\nu}=-\lambda_{\mu\nu}$
\cite{dixson78}. Both $\bar{\beta}$ and $\bar{\lambda}$ do not
depend on the position $\bar{x}$. The solution to (\ref{eq:killing})
has ambiguity in its amplitude since the Killing equation is linear;
the amplitude is determined so as to give the appropriate temperature
by (\ref{eq:invtemp}). When $\bar{\beta}$ , $\bar{\lambda}$ and
$\bar{x}_{0}$ are given, $T(\bar{x})$ and $\bar{u}(\bar{x})$ can
be calculated from (\ref{eq:invtemp}) as \begin{eqnarray}
T(\bar{x}) & = & |\beta_{\mu}+\lambda_{\mu\nu}(x^{\nu}-x_{0}^{\nu})|\,,\nonumber \\
u_{\mu}(\bar{x}) & = & T^{-1}(x)\,[\beta_{\mu}+\lambda_{\mu\nu}(x^{\nu}-x_{0}^{\nu})]\,.\label{eq:motion}\end{eqnarray}
Now that we obtain the equilibrium state, let us examine its thermodynamical
properties. Suppose there is an adiabatic energy-momentum supply to
the body, and the local energy momentum density increases by $\Delta T_{\rho}^{\mu}(\bar{x})$;
this is not uniform within the body in general. The local change of
the entropy four vector at a point $\bar{x}$ is given as $\Delta s_{\rho}=\xi_{\mu}\Delta T_{\rho}^{\mu}$
(see, e.g.,\cite{israel76AnPhy,maartens1996arXiv}), thus we can
write the total entropy change in the three volume $\Sigma$ as \begin{eqnarray}
\Delta S & = & \frac{1}{T_{0}}\int_{\Sigma}[\beta_{\mu}+\lambda_{\mu\nu}(x^{\nu}-x_{0}^{\nu})]\Delta T_{\rho}^{\mu}\, d\Sigma^{\rho}\nonumber \\
\, & = & \beta_{\mu}\Delta G^{\mu}+\lambda_{\mu\nu}\Delta M^{\mu\nu}\;.\label{eq:number5}\end{eqnarray}
In the above expression $\Delta\bar{G}$ and $\Delta\bar{M}$ are
the changes in energy-momentum and four dimensional angular momentum
defined by\begin{equation}
\Delta G^{\mu}=\int_{\Sigma}\Delta T_{\rho}^{\mu}\, d\Sigma^{\rho}\,,\;\;\;\Delta M^{\mu\nu}=\int_{\Sigma}(x^{\nu}-x_{0}^{\nu})\Delta T_{\rho}^{\mu}\, d\Sigma^{\rho}\,.\label{eq:momentum}\end{equation}
Precisely speaking, both $\Delta\bar{G}$ and $\Delta\bar{M}$ are
frame dependent when the body is not isolated\cite{tadas06PhLA}.
However, the dependence is canceled out when we calculate the entropy
and thus we do not pay attention to this point in the following.
Most of papers on relativistic thermodynamics of extended bodies assume
the case with $\bar{\lambda}=0$, i.e., for the translational motion
without rotation or acceleration. In this case van Kampen\cite{kampen68PhRv}
and Israel\cite{israel76AnPhy} suggested the concept of temperature
should be extended by defining a four vector $\beta_{\mu}$ as a inverse
temperature.
When $\bar{\lambda}\ne0$, we find the parameter $\bar{\lambda}$
in (\ref{eq:number5}) plays the same role to $\Delta\bar{M}$ as
$\bar{\beta}$ does to $\Delta\bar{G}$. Therefore, $\bar{\lambda}$
can be regarded as a thermodynamical parameter like the inverse temperature
four vector $\bar{\beta}$. Since $\bar{\lambda}$ is a bivector (2-form)
with six independent components, the inverse temperature has ten independent
components in total: four of $\beta_{\mu}$ and six of $\lambda_{\mu\nu}$.
This number corresponds to the number of independent Killing vector
fields in a Minkowski spacetime, or equivalently, the number of conserved
quantities resulting from the symmetry of spacetime.
The ten components of inverse temperature is the generalization of
the inverse temperature four vector; we can treat not only energy-momentum
but also four dimensional angular momentum with them. In the following
the combination of $(\bar{\beta},\bar{\lambda})$ is simply referred
as {}``inverse temperate''.
This inverse temperature has very basic function of the {}``temperature''
in thermodynamics, i.e., it determines how the irreversible exchange
of energy-momentum and angular momentum takes place spontaneously
as an thermodynamical effect. Suppose two isolated bodies each of
which is in equilibrium with inverse temperatures $\bar{(\beta}_{\textnormal{I}},\bar{\lambda}_{\textnormal{I}})$
and $\bar{(\beta}_{\textnormal{II}},\bar{\lambda}_{\textnormal{II}})$.
Then the relativistic second law may be stated in the following: the
thermal exchange of energy-momentum or angular momentum takes place
spontaneously only when the entropy increases, i.e., \begin{equation}
\Delta S=(\beta_{\textnormal{I}\mu}-\beta_{\textnormal{II}\mu})\Delta G^{\mu}+(\lambda_{\textnormal{I}\mu\nu}-\lambda_{\textnormal{II}\mu\nu})\Delta M^{\mu\nu}>0\,,\end{equation}
where $\Delta\bar{G}$ and $\Delta\bar{M}$ are the energy-momentum
and angular momentum transferred from the body II to body I. The two
bodies can be in total equilibrium only when all ten components of
the inverse temperatures are equal, which means the motions of the
two bodies belong to the same Killing vector field.
\section{Rotation and Acceleration}
The motion expressed in (\ref{eq:motion}) is a superposition of translational
motion and four dimensional rotation, and in general four dimensional
rotation can be divided into two categories: single rotation and double
rotation. In the following we concentrate on the single rotation for
simplicity. In the case of the Minkowski spacetime, the single rotation
can be further divided into two categories: spatial rotation and constant
acceleration. These two have similar mathematical structures, however,
their physical properties are considerably different.
The direction of a single rotation can be specified by a two dimensional
plane in which the rotation takes place. In a three dimensional space,
specifying a two dimensional plane is equivalent to specifying an
axis orthogonal to the plane. This does not work in a space with the
dimension higher than four because the orthogonal direction to a plane
is not unique, therefore, we need to specify the direction by a two
dimensional plane.
Two dimensional planes in a Minkowski spacetime are categorized into
two groups in general. One consists of the planes spanned by two spacelike
vectors, and planes in the other group are spanned by one timelike
and one spacelike vectors; the former defines the spatial rotation
and the latter defines the constant acceleration. We will examine
these two in the following.
\subsection{Spatial Rotation}
For spatial rotation, we can choose the $xy$ plane as the plane of
rotation without loss of generality, then we have $\lambda_{xy}\ne0$,
$\lambda_{ti}=\lambda_{yz}=\lambda_{zx}=0$ in (\ref{eq:killing2}).
We still have two degrees of freedom in the choice of axis directions
and can set $\beta_{y}=\beta_{z}=0$ with them. Then the killing vector
$\bar{\xi}$ in (\ref{eq:killing2}) can be written as \begin{equation}
\bar{\xi}=(\beta_{t},\beta_{x}+\lambda_{xy}(y-y_{0}),-\lambda_{xy}(x-x_{0}),0)\,.\label{eq:killing3}\end{equation}
The above expression can be simplified further by choosing the origin
as $x_{0}=0$ and $y_{0}=\beta_{x}/\lambda_{xy}$, which gives $\bar{\xi}=(\beta_{t},\lambda_{xy}y,-\lambda_{xy}x,0)$.
Then (\ref{eq:motion}) is reduced to \begin{equation}
\bar{u}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\Omega^{2}r^{2}}}\,(1,\Omega y,-\Omega x,0,0)\,,\label{eq:rotation}\end{equation}
where $\Omega=\lambda_{xy}/\beta_{t}$ is the angular velocity and
$r=\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}$ is the three dimensional distance from the
rotating axis. As well known, the motion must restricted within the
light cylinder, i.e., $r<\Omega^{-1}$ to keep the causality.
Then the inverse temperature is written as\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{\mu} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
T_{0}^{-1} & (\mu=t)\\
0 & (\textnormal{otherwise})\end{array}\right.\nonumber \\
\lambda_{\mu\nu} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\Omega T_{0}^{-1} & (\mu,\nu=x,y)\\
-\Omega T_{0}^{-1} & (\mu,\nu=y,x)\\
0 & \textnormal{(otherwise})\end{array}\right.\label{eq:invtemp1}\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{0}=T(\bar{x}_{0})$ is the temperature at the axis. The
local temperature becomes $T=T_{0}/\sqrt{1-\Omega r^{2}}$.
We understand from the above expression that the thermodynamical sate
of a rotating body is essentially determined by two parameters $\Omega$
and $T_{0}$, and the ten components of the inverse temperature are
derived from the Lorentz transform. The general expression of the
four velocity becomes\begin{equation}
\bar{u}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\Omega^{2}r^{2}}}\,[U_{\mu}+\Omega_{\mu\nu}(x^{\nu}-x_{0}^{'\nu})]\,,\end{equation}
where $U_{\mu}=\beta_{\mu}/(\beta_{\rho}\beta^{\rho})$, $\Omega_{\mu\nu}=\lambda_{\mu\nu}/(\beta_{\rho}\beta^{\rho})$,
and $r$ is the three dimensional distance from the rotating axis.
The vector $\bar{U}$ represents the four velocity of the rotation
center, and it is perpendicular to the rotation plane, i.e., $U^{\mu}\Omega_{\mu\nu}q^{\nu}=0$
for any four vector $\bar{q}$. Note that the origin $x_{0}'$ is
not identical to $x_{0}$ in (\ref{eq:killing2}) because of the shift
$\beta_{x}/\lambda_{xy}$ to obtain (\ref{eq:rotation}).
\subsection{Constant Acceleration}
Constant acceleration is characterized by the rotating plane spanned
by one timelike and one spacelike vector, and we can choose the coordinate
such that the latter becomes the $tx$ plane, resulting $\lambda_{tx}\ne0$,
$\lambda_{ty}=\lambda_{tz}=\lambda_{ij}=0$. Further we can simplify
the expression with $\beta_{t}=\beta_{x}=0$ by choice of the origin
and $\beta_{z}=0$ by choice of the axis direction in the same way
as in the above subsection.
Then the four velocity becomes\begin{equation}
\bar{u}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Omega^{2}\rho^{2}-1}}\,(\Omega x,\Omega t,1,0)\,,\label{eq:accel}\end{equation}
where $\rho^{2}=x^{2}-t^{2}$ and $\Omega=\lambda_{tx}/\beta_{y}$.
The motion must be in the region of $|\Omega\rho-1|>1$ to keep the
causality. The inverse temperature becomes\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{\mu} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
T_{0}^{-1} & (\mu=y)\\
0 & (\textnormal{otherwise})\end{array}\right.\nonumber \\
\lambda_{\mu\nu} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\Omega T_{0}^{-1} & (\mu,\nu=t,x)\\
-\Omega T_{0}^{-1} & (\mu,\nu=x,t)\\
0 & \textnormal{(otherwise})\end{array}\right.\label{eq:invtemp2}\end{eqnarray}
The above expressions are similar to (\ref{eq:rotation}): here the
spatial coordinate $y$ takes the place of the temporal coordinate
$t$ in (\ref{eq:rotation}). One difference to be noted is that a
case with $\beta_{y}=0$ ($T_{0},\Omega\rightarrow\infty$ with finite
$\Omega T_{0}^{-1}$) is allowed here. The four vector $\bar{u}$
must be time like, therefore, $\beta_{t}$ must be nonzero in the
spatial rotation. The four velocity of the acceleration, in contrast,
can be timelike even when $\beta_{y}=0$.
The motion of constant acceleration is usually investigated assuming
$\beta_{y}=0$ in the past literature. In this case (\ref{eq:accel})
becomes the well known Rindler motion:\begin{equation}
\bar{u}=\frac{1}{\rho}\,(x,t,0,0)\,,\end{equation}
It should be noted that the parameter $\Omega$ vanishes in the above
expression. This means the equilibrium velocity distribution of the
constant acceleration is uniquely determined in general without tuning
parameters. The acceleration at each trajectory is given as $a=1/\rho$,
in other words, the magnitude of the acceleration is determined by
the distance from the origin.
In this case the local temperature is inversely proportional to $\rho$
i.e., $T(\rho)\propto1/\rho$, therefore it diverges at the origin.
This means the definition of the global inverse temperature based
on $T_{0}$, which was done in (\ref{eq:invtemp1}) or (\ref{eq:invtemp2}),
is inappropriate. The inverse temperature in this case may be written
using a new parameter $\Lambda=\Omega T_{0}^{-1}$as\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_{\mu} & = & 0\nonumber \\
\lambda_{\mu\nu} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\Lambda & (\mu,\nu=t,x)\\
-\Lambda & (\mu,\nu=x,t)\\
0 & \textnormal{(otherwise})\end{array}\right.\label{eq:rindtemp}\end{eqnarray}
Consequently the thermal property of the system is derived from only
one parameter $\Lambda$, in contrast to the two independent parameters
$\Omega$ and $T_{0}$ for the spatial rotation.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
Theory of relativistic thermodynamics is generalized to accommodate
four dimensional rotation in the present paper. The equilibrium state
of an extended body (body with finite volume) has been mainly investigated
in the past literature assuming the translational motion, i.e., the
velocity of each element vanishes in the comoving frame. There can
be other types of motion, spatial rotation and constant acceleration
namely, with which an equilibrium state is possible. These types of
motion can be regarded as four dimensional rotation, and equilibrium
is possible because of the rotational symmetry of the Minkowski spacetime.
From the non-relativistic theory of statistical mechanics we understand
the conventional temperature is the result of energy conservation
law. For relativistic translational motion, momentum also obeys its
conservation law and should be treated in the same way as energy.
This approach was adopted by van Kampen \cite{kampen68PhRv} and
Israel\cite{israel76AnPhy}, who proposed to treat the inverse temperature
as a four vector. The four components of the vector come from the
conservation laws of energy and three components of momentum. When
we generalize their theory to accommodate four dimensional rotation,
four dimensional angular momentum must be treated in the same way
as the energy-momentum because it is also a conserved quantity.
Consequently there arises another kind of inverse temperature for
the angular momentum; this inverse temperature becomes covariant bivector
(2-form) since the angular momentum is contravariant bivector (2-vector).
Then the thermodynamical behavior of the body is completely determined
by two inverse temperatures with ten components in total.
In the present paper the above formulation is applied to the motion
of single rotation, There are two types of single rotation in the
Minkowski spacetime; one is spatial rotation and the other is constant
acceleration. The result shows that the ten components are derived
from the two parameters, the global temperature $T_{0}$ and the angular
velocity $\Omega$ namely, by the Lorentz transform.
In the case of spatial rotation, local temperature at each point of
the body is uniquely determined by these two parameters, in agreement
with the past literature: the rim of a rotating disk has higher temperature
than the center. Constant acceleration has the similar properties
in general. However, the case of Rindler motion, which is one special
case but especially important in applications, has a singular property.
The ten components of the inverse temperature is derived from only
one parameter $\Lambda=\Omega/T_{0}$, since we can eliminate the
inverse temperature of energy-momentum ($\bar{\beta}=0$).
We make a brief comment on the relation of the present result to thermodynamics
of quantum vacua before closing this section. It is believed that
an observer with relativistic constant acceleration (Rindler motion)
finds a quantum vacuum thermalized with a certain temperature (see,
e.g., \cite{birrel-davies84}). This effect, which is called Unruh
effect, seem to contradict the result obtained in the present paper,
because the temperature of the Unruh effect cannot be derived from
our formulation. However, it should be noted that the Unruh effect
is a pure quantum effect; our result is within the framework of classical
thermodynamics which is valid when the quantum effect is negligible.
The local temperature of the Unruh effect is estimated as $T_{\textnormal{unruh}}=\hbar a/2\pi c$,
where $a$ is the acceleration of the Rindler observer \cite{birrel-davies84};
here we explicitly denote the speed of light by $c$. The effect is
negligible when $T_{\textnormal{unruh}}\ll T$ where $T$ the local
temperature in (\ref{eq:invtemp}). We can express this condition
in terms of the parameter $\Lambda$ in (\ref{eq:rindtemp}). The
global inverse temperature of the Unruh effect is derived from $\Lambda_{\textnormal{unruh}}=\hbar/2\pi$;
note that $\Lambda$ has the unit of $\hbar^{-1}$ because it is generalization
of inverse temperature that corresponds to four dimensional angular
momentum. Then the condition for the Unruh effect to be negligible
may be written as $\hbar\ll2\pi c/\Lambda$. This condition is satisfied
unless the temperature is extremely small because of the large factor
$c$, which means our result here can applicable for a wide variety
of relativistic phenomena hopefully.
{
\newcounter{section}\newcounter{subsection} |
\section{Introduction}
In classical mechanics it is known that adding a total derivative to the action does not affect the classical equations of motion. The action from
which General Relativity can be obtained is the Einstein-Hilbert action. In 4 dimensions there exist 3 terms which can be be added to this action
such that the equations of motion are unaffected, the Gauss-Bonnet term \cite{gb}, the Pontryagin term \cite{cp} and the Holst term
\cite{holst},\cite{sa}. While the first two can be related to topological charges of the manifold, it was not clear till recently why the Holst term
does not modify the equations of motion. The Holst term however plays an important role in General Relativity because it has been showed that the
Einstein-Hilbert plus Holst action is the underlying action from which General relativity can be cast into a gauge theory form in terms of Ashtekar
variables \cite{ashtekar}.
It has been shown recently \cite{shyam},\cite{mercuri} that the Holst term is actually related to a total derivative known as the Nieh-Yan term
\cite{niehyan} and has a topological interpretation. It has also been shown that, in the absence of matter, the canonical transformations generated by
the Holst term and the Nieh-Yan term are the same. Hence the equations of motion are not affected by the addition of the Holst term even though it is not
a total derivative. In recent works the Barbero-Immirzi parameter is considered as a field related to the
$\theta$ parameter in QCD and the canonical formulation of fermionic theories have been constructed \cite{mercuri}. Most of these works have been done
in the connection formulation. This is because the Holst term had been first introduced in the context of connection variables. Moreover based on
these variables there exists a background independent nonperturbative candidate theory of quantum gravity namely Loop Quantization Gravity(LQG) \cite{loop}.
In this paper we clarify the relation between Holst and Nieh-Yan terms in terms of metric variables in the presence and absence of torsion. One
interesting feature of the Nieh-Yan term is that, in contrast to the Gauss-Bonnet and the Pontryagin term, this is non trivial only in the presence
of torsion. A significant body of work exists in literature in General Relativity with torsion. Einstein-Sciama-Kibble theory is a theory of general
relativity with torsion (see \cite{hehl} and references therein). Torsion also appears in the String Theory \cite{string} as the field strength of
the Kalb-Ramond field. In the light of the developments mentioned above, there may be further exploration on the role of torsion in theories which
may not necessarily be based on connection variables or quantized in the Loopy way. A clarification in terms of metric variables will help in further
analysis of the known results in classical theories with torsion as well as facilitate a comparison of results coming from metric and connection theories,
both classically and quantum mechanically . In that spirit, in this paper we show explicitly how the Holst term affects the equations of motion in the
presence of matter and therefore should not be considered a canonical transformation. We also discuss a case where the total derivative term plays a role
in the cosmological context. We also show that General Relativity no longer retains the holographic nature \cite{paddypr} when torsion is present.
The paper is organized as follows.
In section II we recall the definitions of torsion and the curvature tensors in the presence of torsion. We then derive the relationship between
Holst and Nieh-Yan terms in metric variables. In particular we show that the Holst term is zero in the absence of torsion. This part of the paper is
of a pedagogical nature intended to explain the recent developments in metric variables and to clarify some of the misconceptions regarding the nature
of the Holst term.
In section III we consider the equations of motion coming from the Einstein-Hilbert action along with the Holst term and show that the
General Relativity result that torsion cannot exist without some matter distribution with spin may be violated with the addition of the Holst term.
In section IV we look at the Nieh-Yan term in the presence of a boundary. We calculate the topological charge due to torsion coming from this term
in the case of a perfect fluid with torsion with the outside spacetime being Schwarzschild. We show that the total derivative contributes a non zero
torsion charge as long as the shell does not from a horizon.
In section V we show that the Einstein-Hilbert action does not retain its holographic structure \cite{paddyayan} in the presence of torsion even in
the case of ordinary General relativity and the addition of the Nieh-Yan term does not help in restoring holography.
We conclude in section VI with a brief summary and future directions of work.
\section{Torsion and the Holst Term}
\subsection{Torsion}
In this section we shall first briefly recall how the concept of torsion is incorporated in General Relativity. We shall take the spacetime manifold
to be ${\bf U}_4$ \cite{hehl}, i.e. a 4 dimensional metric spacetime with non zero torsion.
Lowercase Latin letters ($a,b,\dots$) will refer to spacetime indices while uppercase Latin letters ($I,J,\dots$) will refer to internal indices.
Let $\nabla$ be the derivative operator compatible with the metric i.e. $\nabla_a g_{ab} = 0$. Then for any function $f$
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg(\nabla_a \nabla_b - \nabla_b \nabla_a\bigg)f &=& - \bigg(\Gamma_{~ab}^c - \Gamma_{~ba}^c \bigg) \nabla_c f \nonumber\\
&\equiv& - T_{~ab}^c \nabla_c f \label{metrictorsiondef}
\end{eqnarray}
where in the first line we have used $(\partial_a \partial_b = \partial_b \partial_a)$. The quantity $ T_{~ab}^c $ is known as the Torsion
tensor. It can be set to zero by demanding
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bigg(\nabla_a \nabla_b - \nabla_b \nabla_a\bigg)f = 0 \label{metrictorfree}\\
&& \mbox {i.e.} ~ ~ ~\Gamma_{~ab}^c = \Gamma_{~ba}^c \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{metrictorsiondef}) can be used to calculate the commutator of two vector fields ${\bf v}$ and ${\bf w}$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ {\bf v}, {\bf w} \right] (f) = \bigg( v^a \left( \nabla_a w^b \right) - w^a \left( \nabla_a v^b \right) \bigg)
- v^a w^b T_{~ab}^c \nabla_c f \label{veccom}
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, if we choose the vector fields to be basis vectors in a coordinate basis i.e. ${\bf v} = \partial/\partial x^a :={\bf x}$ and
${\bf w} = \partial/\partial x^b :={\bf y}$ then from eqn. (\ref{veccom}) it is clear that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ {\bf x}, {\bf y} \right] (f) = 0 \label{veccomcod}
\end{eqnarray}
even in the presence of torsion because partial derivatives always commute.
As an aside we can compare this with the notion of torsion using tetrads. Using the above equations we can find the commutation relations between
a tetrad fields ($e^a_I$) which can be thought of as basis vector fields. They are usually taken to form an orthogonal basis.
\begin{eqnarray}
e^a_I~ e_{a J} = \eta_{IJ} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that a coordinate basis is an orthogonal basis only for flat spacetimes in Cartesian coordinates.
Using eqn. (\ref{veccom}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
(e_K)_a\left[e_I,e_J\right]^a = (e_K)_a \bigg( (e_I)^b \nabla_b (e_J)^a - (e_J)^b \nabla_b (e_I)^a\bigg) - (e_K)_c (e_I)^a (e_J)^b T_{~ab}^c
\end{eqnarray}
Defining connection 1-forms $\omega_{a IJ} = (e_I)^b \nabla_a (e_J)_b \Rightarrow \omega_{KIJ} = (e_K)^a (e_I)^b\nabla_a (e_J)_b$ we can rewrite
the above equation as
\begin{eqnarray}
(e_K)_a\left[e_I,e_J\right]^a = \bigg( \omega_{KIJ} - \omega_{KJI} \bigg) - T_{KIJ} \label{tetradtor}
\end{eqnarray}
So torsion free condition is obtained by demanding
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[e_I,e_J\right]^a = \bigg( \omega_{KIJ} - \omega_{KJI} \bigg) (e^K)^a \label{tetradtorfree}
\end{eqnarray}
In a coordinate basis the right hand side of the above equations are zero irrespective of the presence of torsion.
\subsection{Curvature Tensors in presence of Torsion}
It can be shown \cite{fabbri} that if we demand that all connections are metric, then without loss of generality we can assume that the torsion tensor
is antisymmetric in all three indices. This is the case we shall mainly be interested in. Assuming that we can obtain the expressions of the curvature
tensors which are modified from the standard expressions owing to the presence of torsion.
Writing the Riemann Christoffel symbols as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{~ab}^c = \hat\Gamma_{~ab}^c + \gamma_{~ab}^c \label{rechs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat\Gamma_{~ab}^c$ is symmetric and $ \gamma_{~ab}^c$ is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. Then from eqn
(\ref{metrictorsiondef}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{~ab}^c ~ &=& ~2 \gamma_{~ab}^c \label{gammatorsion}
\end{eqnarray}
Further, assuming totally antisymmetric torsion, the Riemann tensor can then be written as \cite{fabbri}:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{a b c d} = \hat R_{a b c d} - \frac{1}{2}\bigg(\nabla_{c} T_{ a c d} - \nabla_{d} T_{ a b c }\bigg) +
\frac{1}{4}\bigg( T_{a e c} T^{e}_{~b d} - T_{a e d} T^{e}_{~ b c} \bigg) \label{riemann}
\end{eqnarray}
where the hatted quantities are the corresponding tensors in the absence of torsion. The Ricci tensor is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{a b} = \hat R_{a b} +\frac{1}{2} \nabla_e T^{e}_{a b} - \frac{1}{4} T^{e}_{~ f b} T^{f}_{~ b e} \label{ricciT}
\end{eqnarray}
while the Ricci scalar is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R = \hat R -\frac{1}{4} T_{a e d} T^{a e d} \label{ricci}
\end{eqnarray}
{\bf Note}
In literature \cite{hehl,fabbri}, torsion is usually incorporated through the {\em contorsion} tensor which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a_{~ b c} := T^a_{~ b c} + T^{~ ~a}_{b c} + T^{~ ~a}_{ c b} \label{contorsion}
\end{eqnarray}
This reduces to the torsion tensor when torsion is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. Since in this paper we will be dealing with totally
antisymmetric (or at least antisymmetric in the two lower indices) torsion, we will express our results in terms of the torsion tensor.
\subsection{Holst Term}
Having obtained the curvature scalars in the presence of torsion we can begin analysis of the Holst term. In terms of the tetrads and the curvature
tensors the Holst term can be written as \cite{holst}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_H = \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x~ e e^{a}_I e^{b}_J \star(R^{IJ}_{ab}) \label{holst}
\end{eqnarray}
where $e=\sqrt{-g}~$ and $\alpha$ is related to the Barbero-Immirzi parameter \cite{shyam}. Since our objective is to work in terms of metric
variables we can rewrite eqn. (\ref{holst}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
S_H &=& \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~e e^a_I e^b_J \epsilon^{IJKL} R_{a b KL} \nonumber\\
&=& \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~e e^{a}_I e^{b}_J e^{c}_K e^{d}_L \epsilon^{IJKL} R_{abcd}\nonumber\\
&=& \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~ \epsilon^{abcd} ~ R_{abcd} \label{metricholst}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \epsilon^{abcd} = \sqrt{-g}~ \eta^{abcd}$ with $\eta^{abcd}$ being the Levi-Ci-Vita symbol.
Note that in the absence of torsion this term vanishes from cyclic identity of the Riemann tensor. So unlike the Euler and the Pontryagin terms this
term is non trivial only when torsion is present. In the presence of torsion we have to use eqn (\ref{riemann}) as the definition of Riemann tensor in
eqn (\ref{metricholst}).
The first term coming from eqn (\ref{riemann}) is the Riemann tensor without torsion which again becomes zero from cyclic identity. The other two terms are
non zero. In particular the second group of terms give:
\begin{eqnarray}
-\partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
while the third group gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d}
\end{eqnarray}
Putting these together we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg) = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d} - \epsilon^{a b c d} R_{a b c d}
\label{nyh}
\end{eqnarray}
The term on the R.H.S. is known as the Nieh-Yan term and is equal to a total derivative. We can see that the Holst term we started with is related to a
total derivative along with a term quadratic in torsion. In the absence of torsion, the quadratic torsion term becomes
zero and the addition of the Holst term is equivalent to the addition of a total derivative. Therefore the equations of motion are not affected even
when we add to the action, a term which is not a total derivative. In \cite{shyam} torsion was set to zero by strongly imposing a pair of second class
constraints. Because it is not a total derivative the naive addition of the Holst term will change the classical equations of motion in the presence
of torsion as we will see in the next section.
\section{Holst Term and Equations of Motion}
In this section we will look at the equations of motion coming from an action which has the Holst term added to the Einstein Hilbert action. The metric
$g_{ab}$ and torsion $T^a_{~ b c}$ are the two independent basic variables. We take the gravitation part of our action to be
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{grav} &=& S_{EH} + 2 \alpha S_{H} \nonumber \\
&=& \int \mbox{d}^4 ~x ~ \sqrt{-g} R ~ ~ + ~ ~ 2 \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~ \epsilon^{abcd} ~ R_{abcd} \label{fullaction1}
\end{eqnarray}
The variation of the Holst term is then equivalent to the variation of $\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d}$ because the other term
is a total derivative. Therefore we can take our action to be
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{grav} = \int \mbox{d}^4 ~x ~ \sqrt{-g} R ~ ~ + ~ ~
\alpha\int \mbox{d}^4 x ~\epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d}\label{fullaction2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the second term is not trivially zero from symmetry properties.
The variation of $T_{~ab}^c$ using eqn (\ref{gammatorsion}):
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{~ab}^c ~ = ~2 \gamma_{~ab}^c ~ ~ ~
\Rightarrow ~ ~ ~ (\delta T_{~ab}^c) = 2 (\delta \gamma_{~ab}^c)
\end{eqnarray}
And
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{cab} = g_{cd} T_{~ab}^d ~ ~ ~
\Rightarrow ~ ~ ~ (\delta T_{cab} ) = 2 (\delta g_{cd}) \gamma_{~ab}^d + 2 g_{cd} (\delta \gamma_{~ab}^d)
\end{eqnarray}
Using these we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta S_H) &=& \eta^{a b c d} \left(\delta ~ \sqrt{-g} ~ T^{e} _{a c} T_{e b d}\right) \nonumber\\
&=& 4 \eta^{a b c d} \sqrt{-g}~\bigg[ -\frac{3}{2} \gamma_{ac}^{~ ~e} \gamma_{ebd} ~ g_{ij} ~(\delta g^{ij})
+ 2 \gamma_{ebd} (\delta \gamma_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg] \nonumber\\
&=& 2\eta^{a b c d} \sqrt{-g}~\bigg[ -\frac{3}{4} T_{ac}^{~ ~e} T_{ebd} ~ g_{ij} ~(\delta g^{ij})
+ T_{ebd} (\delta T_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg]
\end{eqnarray}
The variation of the Einstein-Hilbert is well known \cite{hehl}
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta S_{EH}) &=& \sqrt{-g}~ \bigg( \hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) (\delta g^{ab}) \nonumber\\
&+& \sqrt{-g}\Bigg\{ 2 \gamma_a^{~ c e}\gamma_{ebc} (\delta g^{ab})
- \frac{3}{2} \gamma_{a c}^{~ ~ e}\gamma_e^{~ a c} ~ g_{ij} (\delta g^{ij}) + 2 \gamma_e^{~ a c} (\delta \gamma_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg\} \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{-g}~ \bigg( \hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) (\delta g^{ab}) \nonumber\\
&+& \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{2}\Bigg\{ T_a^{~ c e} T_{ebc} (\delta g^{ab})
- \frac{3}{4} T_{a c}^{~ ~ e} T_e^{~ a c} ~ g_{ij} (\delta g^{ij}) + T_e^{~ a c} (\delta T_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg\}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the variation of the full action can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta S_{grav}) &=& (\delta S_{EH}) + 2\alpha(\delta S_{H}) \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{-g}~\bigg(\hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) (\delta g^{ab})
+ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{2} \Bigg( T_a^{~ c e} T_{ebc}(\delta g^{ab}) \nonumber\\
&& -\frac{3}{4}\bigg[ T_{a c}^{~ ~ e} T_e^{~ a c} +4\alpha \eta^{a b c d} T_{ac}^{~ ~e} T_{ebd} \bigg] g_{ij} (\delta g^{ij})
+ \bigg[T_e^{~ a c} + 4 \alpha \eta^{a b c d} T_{ebd}\bigg] (\delta T_{ac}^{~~e}) \Bigg) \label{actionvariation}
\end{eqnarray}
We are interested in the case when matter is present. In the presence of a matter distribution with the total action given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S = \int \mbox{d}^4 ~x ~ \left( \frac{1}{\kappa} S_{grav} + S_{matter} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kappa = 16 \pi G$. The {\em energy-momentum} tensor and a {\em spin energy} tensor is usually defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{ab} &=& \frac{1}{ \sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_M}{\delta g_{ab}} \label{emdef} \\
S_{a}^{~ b c} &=& \frac{1}{ \sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_M}{\delta T^a_{~ b c}} \label{spindef}
\end{eqnarray}
Using these definitions and eqn (\ref{actionvariation}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa T_{ab} &=& \bigg(\hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) + \frac{1}{2} T_a^{~ c e} T_{ebc}
-\frac{3}{8}\bigg( T_{f c}^{~ ~ e} T_e^{~ f c} + 4\alpha \eta^{f b c d} T_{fc}^{~ ~e} T_{ebd} \bigg) g_{ab} \label{tab} \\
\kappa S_{e}^{~ a c} &=& \frac{1}{2} \bigg(T_e^{~ a c} + 4 \alpha \eta^{a b c d} T_{ebd}\bigg) \label{sabc}
\end{eqnarray}
If the Holst term is not there $\alpha=0$ a couple of points can be noted from the above equations:\\
a) In the absence of spin $S_{e}^{~ a c}$ in the matter distribution $T_{e}^{~ a c}=0$ from eqn (\ref{sabc}). Thus there can be no torsion
without spin and we get back standard Einstein's equations with the standard definition for $T_{ab}$. This also ensures that torsion cannot propagate
from a region of non zero spin distribution to a vacuum region.\\
b) If spin is not zero we can solve eqn (\ref{sabc}) to obtain $T_{e}^{~ a c} = 2\kappa S_e^{~ a c}$ which can then be substituted
into eqn (\ref{tab}) to obtain a modified energy momentum tensor $\tilde T_{ab}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa \tilde T_{ab} &=& \bigg(\hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& T_{ab} + \kappa\bigg( 2 S_a^{~ c e} S_{b e c} +\frac{3}{2} S_{fce} S^{fce} \bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
However in the presence of the Holst term, solving eqn (\ref{sabc}) is no longer trivial. After some algebra it can be shown that
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{e a c} = \frac{1}{4(1+64 \alpha^2)} \bigg(S_{e a c} -2 \alpha S_e^{~ b d} \eta_{b a d c}\bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
This is the expression which now has to be substituted into eqn (\ref{tab}) to obtain a modified energy momentum tensor. The expression of
the modified energy momentum tensor will be different in the presence of the Holst term. This also shows why the Barbero-Immirzi parameter shows up in
the classical equations of motion when matter is included \cite{rovelli}. In fact it is no longer clear that torsion cannot exist
without spin. The modified energy momentum tensor is different in the presence of the Holst term and depending on the matter action, the
Holst term needs to be modified if we want to ensure that the modified energy momentum tensor remains unchanged. This modification has to be done on
a case by case basis and is therefore not universal.
These show that if we consider theories of gravitation with matter, where the independent variables in the gravitational action are the metric and
torsion, a theory based on $S_{EH}$ and one based on $S_{EH} + S_{H}$ are not equivalent even classically. Of course, since the Holst term is not a
total derivative there is no reason for this to happen. The term we can add to the action without affecting the classical equations of motion is
actually the Nieh-Yan term.
\section{Nieh-Yan Term and Topological charge}
We know that the Gauss-Bonnet term and the Pontryagin term can be added to the Einstein Hilbert action in four dimensions without affecting the
equations of motion. On integration these give a number characteristic to the manifold. The Gauss-Bonnet term gives the Euler characteristic while
the Pontryagin term gives the Pontryagin class of the manifold over which the integral is taken. In this section we shall try to see what the
Nieh-Yan term gives when we consider a physical situation in a manifold with a boundary.
An obvious example of a spacetime with boundary is a Black Hole. One widely studied case of the formation of a Black Hole in the presence of torsion
is the case of a collapsing Weyssenhoff fluid sphere \cite{torsionfluid}.
Weyssenhoff fluid is a perfect fluid with spin whose spin tensor is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S^i_{~ j k} &=& u^i s_{jk} \\
\mbox{with} ~ ~ u^k s_{jk} &=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
where $u^i$ is the 4-velocity of the fluid and $s_{jk}$ is the intrinsic angular momentum.
The energy momentum tensor of the fluid respecting the conservation laws of spin and energy momentum is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{jk} &=& h_j u_k - P g_{jk} \\
\mbox{where} ~ ~ h_j &=& (\rho + P) u_j - u^i \nabla_k ( u^k s_{ij} )
\end{eqnarray}
where $P$ and $\rho$ are the pressure and density of the fluid. If the metric is spherically symmetric and the intrinsic angular momentum is aligned
in the $r$ direction the only non zero components of $s_{ij}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
s_{ij} ~=~K~=~ -s_{ji} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
If the fluid is assumed to be static $u^i = \delta^i_0$. Then the only non zero components of the spin tensor are
\begin{eqnarray}
S^0_{~ 2 3} ~ = ~ K ~ = ~ - S^0_{~ 3 2 }
\end{eqnarray}
It has been shown \cite{prasanna} that it is possible to construct a spherically symmetric Weyssenhoff fluid distribution with the outside vacuum
spacetime metric given by the Schwarzschild metric consistent with the boundary conditions \cite{boundary}. The boundary conditions are basically
equivalent to the statement that the {\em effective pressure} $P'$ on the surface is zero, where the effective pressure is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P' = P - \frac{\kappa}{8} K^2
\end{eqnarray}
The physical situation corresponds to a fluid sphere of spinning matter while the spacetime outside the sphere is vacuum and without
torsion. Note that the fluid is assumed to have intrinsic spin which is different from the case a rotating fluid sphere. Since the outside spacetime
is vacuum from eqn (\ref{sabc}) (with $\alpha=0$) we can see that there is no torsion.
Let the fluid sphere be of radius $r=a$. Then from Birkhoff's theorem, for $r>a$ the metric is the standard Schwarzschild metric
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d} s^2 = -\left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right)\mbox{d}t^2 + \left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}\mbox{d}r^2 +r^2 \mbox{d} \theta^2
+r^2 \sin^2 \theta \mbox{d} \phi^2 \label{outmetric}
\end{eqnarray}
while the metric inside the sphere is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d} s^2 = &&-\left(\frac{3}{2}\left[1-\frac{2M}{a}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} - \frac{1}{2}\left[1 -\frac{2M r^2}{a^3}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)
\mbox{d}t^2 \label{inmetric}\\
&& ~ ~ + \left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}\mbox{d}r^2 + r^2 \mbox{d} \theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2 \theta \mbox{d} \phi^2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The inside and the outside metrics match on the surface $r=a$. However the fluid sphere is not of uniform density. Also from the metric inside we can
see that the singularity at $r=0$ can only occur if $M/a = \frac{4}{9}$.
From the equations of motion (\ref{sabc}) which are unaffected by the addition of a total derivative, we can determine the nonzero
torsion components inside the sphere
\begin{eqnarray}
T^0_{~ 2 3} ~ = ~2 \kappa K ~ = ~ - T^0_{~ 3 2 }
\end{eqnarray}
Let us consider the Nieh-Yan action inside the shell:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{NY} = \alpha \int_{\mbox{in}} \mbox{d}^4 x ~ \partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg) \label{ny}
\end{eqnarray}
Evaluating this on the surface of the fluid sphere, $r=a$ hypersurface:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{NY} &=& - 2 \alpha \int \mbox{d} t ~ \mbox{d} r ~ \mbox{d} \theta ~\mbox{d} \phi \partial_r\bigg(\sqrt{-g} ~ g_{00} T^0_{~ 2 3}\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& - 4 \kappa \alpha \int_{r=a} \mbox{d} t ~ \mbox{d} \theta ~\mbox{d} \phi \bigg(\sqrt{-g}~ g_{00} K \bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& - 4 \kappa \alpha \int_{r=a} \mbox{d} t ~ \mbox{d} \theta ~\mbox{d} \phi r^2 \sin^2 \theta \left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right) K
\end{eqnarray}
This can be easily evaluated by looking at the Euclidean case. Note that the topology of the Euclidean black hole is
${\mathbb R}^2 \times S^2$ while the topology of the boundary is $S^1 \times S^2$. The proper length along $S^1$ is given by $\beta$ the inverse of the
temperature at the boundary. Using the technique of Euclidean continuation without the presence of a horizon from \cite{frolov} we can calculate that
$\beta$ at the boundary $r=a$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta = 8 \pi M \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{a} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, at $r=a$
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{NY} = -128 \pi^2 \alpha \kappa M a^2 K \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{a} \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly this vanishes only when $a=2M$ i.e. when the collapsing fluid forms a horizon but is non-zero when the horizon is not yet formed. The surface
term therefore contributes a {\em torsion charge} in a manifold with a boundary, in this case the surface of the sphere. However it does not contribute to
the entropy of the Black Hole. Note that we are interested in the region outside the sphere with no torsion with the boundary given by the surface of
the sphere. The equations of motion in the interior of the sphere are used to determine the value of torsion on the boundary.
The reason why the contribution of the total derivative term does not remain constant in this case is because the basic variable in our equations of
motion $T^a_{~bc}$ while in the Nieh-Yan term torsion occurs as $T_{abc}$ which involves the metric. One interesting case where we do get a constant is
if there is a singularity at $r=0$, the ratio between $M$ and $a$ is a constant number and we get a constant contribution from the total derivative on
the boundary.
Interestingly the contribution of the Nieh-Yan term is thus non zero when there is a boundary but vanishes when the boundary is a causal boundary i.e.
a horizon. This leads on to the question whether the Einstein's equation retain their holographic property in the presence of torsion.
\section{Torsion and Holography}
To discuss the question posed at the end of the last section let us briefly recall the concept of holography in gravitational action.
One interesting feature of the Einstein Hilbert action is that can be split into a bulk part and a total derivative \cite{paddyayan}. That is
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sqrt{-g} R = \sqrt{-g} L_{quad} -\partial_c P^c ~~~~~~~~ \mbox{where} \label{ehlqpc} \\
&& L_{quad} = g^{ab}\bigg(\Gamma^i_{~ja} \Gamma^j_{~ib} - \Gamma^i_{~ab} \Gamma^j_{~ij}\bigg) \label{lquad} \\
&& P^c = \sqrt{-g} \bigg( g^{ck} \Gamma^m_{~km} - g^{ik} \Gamma^c_{~ik} \bigg) \label{pc}
\end{eqnarray}
The equations of motion of $L_{quad}$ are equivalent to the equations of motion of the $L_{EH}$. In other words, if we start with a theory based
on $L_{quad}$ we will end with the same equations of motion as coming from General Relativity. The two terms are related by what is known as
{\em holography} \cite{paddypr}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{-g} \partial_c P^c = - \partial_a \left( g_{ij}
\frac{\partial \sqrt{-g} L_{quad}}{\partial \left(\partial _a g_{ij} \right)}\right) \label{holo}
\end{eqnarray}
These results have been obtained when there is no torsion. In the presence of torsion recall the definition of Riemann-Christoffel symbols from
eqn (\ref{rechs}).
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{~ab}^c = \hat\Gamma_{~ab}^c + \frac{1}{2} T_{~ab}^c \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let us split the various terms in eqn (\ref{holo}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{quad} &=& \hat L_{quad} + \tilde L_{quad} \\
P^c &=& \hat P^c + \tilde P^c
\end{eqnarray}
where the hatted quantities come from the symmetric part of the connection and the tilde terms depend on torsion. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde L_{quad} &=& \frac{1}{4} g^{ab} \bigg(T^i_{~ja} T^j_{~ib} - T^i_{~ab} T^j_{~ij}\bigg) \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{4} g^{ab} T^i_{~ja} T^j_{~ib} \nonumber\\
&=& - \frac{1}{4} T^{ijb} T_{ijb} \label{lquadtor}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde P^c = \sqrt{-g} \bigg( g^{ck} T^m_{~km} - g^{ik} T^c_{~ik} \bigg) ~=~ 0 \label{pctor}
\end{eqnarray}
In both the cases we have used the fact that we are interested in totally antisymmetric torsion. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \bigg(\sqrt{-g} \hat L_{quad} -\partial_c \hat P^c\bigg) + \bigg(\sqrt{-g} \tilde L_{quad} -\partial_c \tilde P^c \bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{-g} \left( \hat R - \frac{1}{4} T^{ijb} T_{ijb} \right) \\
&=& \sqrt{-g} R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{ from eqn (\ref{ricci})}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the decomposition of $L_{EH}$ in the form given in eqn (\ref{ehlqpc}) goes through in the presence of torsion. Note that the extra piece due to
torsion in the Ricci scalar comes from $L_{quad}$ while the surface term has no extra contribution. Since there are no derivatives of torsion in the
action the corresponding holographic equation for torsion is trivial. In the holographic formulation, it is the surface term which leads to Black
Hole entropy and the inclusion of torsion does not change the surface term indicating that the entropy of a Black Hole is independent of the type of
matter which has collapsed to form it. In the previous section we had seen that the inclusion of the Nieh-Yan term did not affect Black Hole entropy
(at least in the case we studied).
Let us try to see how the Nieh-Yan surface term differs from a `holographic' surface term. The total derivative can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{NY} = \partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg)
= \sqrt{-g} ~\eta ^{a b c d} \partial_a ( T_{b c d}) + \eta ^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \partial_a (\sqrt{-g})
\end{eqnarray}
Now consider the torsion dependent parts of this term and the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{grav}^{tor} = - \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{4} T^{abc} T_{abc} + \alpha \sqrt{-g}~ \eta ^{a b c d} \partial_a ( T_{b c d}) +
\alpha \eta ^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \partial_a (\sqrt{-g})
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this Lagrangian also has a term quadratic in the field variables and a surface term. We can define
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{abcd} = \frac{\partial L_{grav}^{tor}}{\partial(\partial_a ( T_{b c d}))} = \alpha \sqrt{-g} \eta ^{a b c d}
\end{eqnarray}
which allows us to rewrite the Nieh-Yan term as
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha L_{NY} = \partial_a \bigg(\Pi^{abcd} T_{b c d} \bigg) = \partial_a
\left(\frac{\partial L_{grav}^{tor}}{\partial(\partial_a ( T_{b c d}))} T_{b c d} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
Now the bulk term dependent on torsion is $ - \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{4} T^{abc} T_{abc}$. For this, a term similar to the holographic term for the metric
degrees of freedom will look like
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_a \left( \frac{T_{ijk}}{4} \frac{\partial \left(\sqrt{-g}T^{abc} T_{abc}\right) }{\partial \left(\partial _a T_{ijk} \right)}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
which is not similar to the Nieh-Yan term. The action is therefore not holographic for torsion even with the addition of the Nieh-Yan term.
We see that although we started with metric and torsion as the two independent variables, the action is holographic in the sense of eqn (\ref{holo})
in metric but not in torsion.
\section{Discussion}
We have explored some features of the Nieh-Yan term from the perspective of metric variables in this paper. The first significant distinction of this
term is that, unlike the two other topological invariants in 4 dimensions, this becomes zero in the absence of torsion. Therefore the effect of the
Nieh-Yan term can only be studied on ${\bf U}_4$ manifolds. On a ${\bf U}_4$ manifold the Nieh-Yan term is related to the Holst term and a term
quadratic in torsion. It is shown that simply adding the Holst term then affects the classical equations of motion. Significantly it keeps the
possibility of torsion existing without spin open, unlike in General Relativity. It might be interesting to find whether any such solutions exist but
such solutions, if they exist will be solutions of an action which is not related to Einstein-Hilbert action by any canonical transformations.
We then studied one particular case where the Nieh-Yan term is non zero on a boundary of a spacetime. However the {\em topological charge} vanishes when
the boundary is a horizon. If there exists other examples of solutions of Einstein-Cartan theory with a boundary, it will be interesting to study
whether this effect is generic or a special feature of the this particular solution.
From the point of view of holography, it is clear that metric and torsion have to be considered on different footings even with the inclusion of an
explicit boundary term which depends only on torsion. It emphasizes that the holographic nature of Einstein's equations is a special and distinctive
feature of metric theories and does not hold on arbitrary extensions of the theory. However, notably the holography in metric continues to hold even
in the presence of torsion although the total action is not holographic.
In general, a topological term added to the action may show up in the quantum theory. In some particular cases (eg. QCD with massive fermions) a
topological term is characterizes a nonperturbative vacuum structure of the theory with a non zero tunnelling probability between various ground
states. To see such an effect in quantum gravity, coming from the Nieh-Yan term we will have to first study some the path integral formulation which
incorporates torsion along with the metric. If such a formulation is possible it may be possible to explore whether the Barbero-Immirzi
parameter plays any role in labelling the ground states in a quantum theory of gravity.
{\bf Acknowledgements:}
I would like to thank T. Padmanabhan for suggesting the problem and for the discussions, his comments and his careful reading of the manuscript.
I would also like to thank Ghanashyam Date for reading the manuscript and his queries and comments.
Thanks are also due to Dawood Kothawala, Alok Laddha and Sandipan Sengupta for discussions.
\section{Introduction}
In classical mechanics it is known that adding a total derivative to the action does not affect the classical equations of motion. The action from
which General Relativity can be obtained is the Einstein-Hilbert action. In 4 dimensions there exist 3 terms which can be be added to this action
such that the equations of motion are unaffected, the Gauss-Bonnet term \cite{gb}, the Pontryagin term \cite{cp} and the Holst term
\cite{holst},\cite{sa}. While the first two can be related to topological charges of the manifold, it was not clear till recently why the Holst term
does not modify the equations of motion. The Holst term however plays an important role in General Relativity because it has been showed that the
Einstein-Hilbert plus Holst action is the underlying action from which General relativity can be cast into a gauge theory form in terms of Ashtekar
variables \cite{ashtekar}.
It has been shown recently \cite{shyam},\cite{mercuri} that the Holst term is actually related to a total derivative known as the Nieh-Yan term
\cite{niehyan} and has a topological interpretation. It has also been shown that, in the absence of matter, the canonical transformations generated by
the Holst term and the Nieh-Yan term are the same. Hence the equations of motion are not affected by the addition of the Holst term even though it is not
a total derivative. In recent works the Barbero-Immirzi parameter is considered as a field related to the
$\theta$ parameter in QCD and the canonical formulation of fermionic theories have been constructed \cite{mercuri}. Most of these works have been done
in the connection formulation. This is because the Holst term had been first introduced in the context of connection variables. Moreover based on
these variables there exists a background independent nonperturbative candidate theory of quantum gravity namely Loop Quantization Gravity(LQG) \cite{loop}.
In this paper we clarify the relation between Holst and Nieh-Yan terms in terms of metric variables in the presence and absence of torsion. One
interesting feature of the Nieh-Yan term is that, in contrast to the Gauss-Bonnet and the Pontryagin term, this is non trivial only in the presence
of torsion. A significant body of work exists in literature in General Relativity with torsion. Einstein-Sciama-Kibble theory is a theory of general
relativity with torsion (see \cite{hehl} and references therein). Torsion also appears in the String Theory \cite{string} as the field strength of
the Kalb-Ramond field. In the light of the developments mentioned above, there may be further exploration on the role of torsion in theories which
may not necessarily be based on connection variables or quantized in the Loopy way. A clarification in terms of metric variables will help in further
analysis of the known results in classical theories with torsion as well as facilitate a comparison of results coming from metric and connection theories,
both classically and quantum mechanically . In that spirit, in this paper we show explicitly how the Holst term affects the equations of motion in the
presence of matter and therefore should not be considered a canonical transformation. We also discuss a case where the total derivative term plays a role
in the cosmological context. We also show that General Relativity no longer retains the holographic nature \cite{paddypr} when torsion is present.
The paper is organized as follows.
In section II we recall the definitions of torsion and the curvature tensors in the presence of torsion. We then derive the relationship between
Holst and Nieh-Yan terms in metric variables. In particular we show that the Holst term is zero in the absence of torsion. This part of the paper is
of a pedagogical nature intended to explain the recent developments in metric variables and to clarify some of the misconceptions regarding the nature
of the Holst term.
In section III we consider the equations of motion coming from the Einstein-Hilbert action along with the Holst term and show that the
General Relativity result that torsion cannot exist without some matter distribution with spin may be violated with the addition of the Holst term.
In section IV we look at the Nieh-Yan term in the presence of a boundary. We calculate the topological charge due to torsion coming from this term
in the case of a perfect fluid with torsion with the outside spacetime being Schwarzschild. We show that the total derivative contributes a non zero
torsion charge as long as the shell does not from a horizon.
In section V we show that the Einstein-Hilbert action does not retain its holographic structure \cite{paddyayan} in the presence of torsion even in
the case of ordinary General relativity and the addition of the Nieh-Yan term does not help in restoring holography.
We conclude in section VI with a brief summary and future directions of work.
\section{Torsion and the Holst Term}
\subsection{Torsion}
In this section we shall first briefly recall how the concept of torsion is incorporated in General Relativity. We shall take the spacetime manifold
to be ${\bf U}_4$ \cite{hehl}, i.e. a 4 dimensional metric spacetime with non zero torsion.
Lowercase Latin letters ($a,b,\dots$) will refer to spacetime indices while uppercase Latin letters ($I,J,\dots$) will refer to internal indices.
Let $\nabla$ be the derivative operator compatible with the metric i.e. $\nabla_a g_{ab} = 0$. Then for any function $f$
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg(\nabla_a \nabla_b - \nabla_b \nabla_a\bigg)f &=& - \bigg(\Gamma_{~ab}^c - \Gamma_{~ba}^c \bigg) \nabla_c f \nonumber\\
&\equiv& - T_{~ab}^c \nabla_c f \label{metrictorsiondef}
\end{eqnarray}
where in the first line we have used $(\partial_a \partial_b = \partial_b \partial_a)$. The quantity $ T_{~ab}^c $ is known as the Torsion
tensor. It can be set to zero by demanding
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bigg(\nabla_a \nabla_b - \nabla_b \nabla_a\bigg)f = 0 \label{metrictorfree}\\
&& \mbox {i.e.} ~ ~ ~\Gamma_{~ab}^c = \Gamma_{~ba}^c \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{metrictorsiondef}) can be used to calculate the commutator of two vector fields ${\bf v}$ and ${\bf w}$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ {\bf v}, {\bf w} \right] (f) = \bigg( v^a \left( \nabla_a w^b \right) - w^a \left( \nabla_a v^b \right) \bigg)
- v^a w^b T_{~ab}^c \nabla_c f \label{veccom}
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, if we choose the vector fields to be basis vectors in a coordinate basis i.e. ${\bf v} = \partial/\partial x^a :={\bf x}$ and
${\bf w} = \partial/\partial x^b :={\bf y}$ then from eqn. (\ref{veccom}) it is clear that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[ {\bf x}, {\bf y} \right] (f) = 0 \label{veccomcod}
\end{eqnarray}
even in the presence of torsion because partial derivatives always commute.
As an aside we can compare this with the notion of torsion using tetrads. Using the above equations we can find the commutation relations between
a tetrad fields ($e^a_I$) which can be thought of as basis vector fields. They are usually taken to form an orthogonal basis.
\begin{eqnarray}
e^a_I~ e_{a J} = \eta_{IJ} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that a coordinate basis is an orthogonal basis only for flat spacetimes in Cartesian coordinates.
Using eqn. (\ref{veccom}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
(e_K)_a\left[e_I,e_J\right]^a = (e_K)_a \bigg( (e_I)^b \nabla_b (e_J)^a - (e_J)^b \nabla_b (e_I)^a\bigg) - (e_K)_c (e_I)^a (e_J)^b T_{~ab}^c
\end{eqnarray}
Defining connection 1-forms $\omega_{a IJ} = (e_I)^b \nabla_a (e_J)_b \Rightarrow \omega_{KIJ} = (e_K)^a (e_I)^b\nabla_a (e_J)_b$ we can rewrite
the above equation as
\begin{eqnarray}
(e_K)_a\left[e_I,e_J\right]^a = \bigg( \omega_{KIJ} - \omega_{KJI} \bigg) - T_{KIJ} \label{tetradtor}
\end{eqnarray}
So torsion free condition is obtained by demanding
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[e_I,e_J\right]^a = \bigg( \omega_{KIJ} - \omega_{KJI} \bigg) (e^K)^a \label{tetradtorfree}
\end{eqnarray}
In a coordinate basis the right hand side of the above equations are zero irrespective of the presence of torsion.
\subsection{Curvature Tensors in presence of Torsion}
It can be shown \cite{fabbri} that if we demand that all connections are metric, then without loss of generality we can assume that the torsion tensor
is antisymmetric in all three indices. This is the case we shall mainly be interested in. Assuming that we can obtain the expressions of the curvature
tensors which are modified from the standard expressions owing to the presence of torsion.
Writing the Riemann Christoffel symbols as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{~ab}^c = \hat\Gamma_{~ab}^c + \gamma_{~ab}^c \label{rechs}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat\Gamma_{~ab}^c$ is symmetric and $ \gamma_{~ab}^c$ is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. Then from eqn
(\ref{metrictorsiondef}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{~ab}^c ~ &=& ~2 \gamma_{~ab}^c \label{gammatorsion}
\end{eqnarray}
Further, assuming totally antisymmetric torsion, the Riemann tensor can then be written as \cite{Eisenhart,fabbri}:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{a b c d} = \hat R_{a b c d} - \frac{1}{2}\bigg(\nabla_{c} T_{ a b d} - \nabla_{d} T_{ a b c }\bigg) +
\frac{1}{4}\bigg( T_{a e c} T^{e}_{~b d} - T_{a e d} T^{e}_{~ b c} \bigg) \label{riemann}
\end{eqnarray}
where the hatted quantities are the corresponding tensors in the absence of torsion. The Ricci tensor is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{a b} = \hat R_{a b} +\frac{1}{2} \nabla_e T^{e}_{~ a b} - \frac{1}{4} T^{e}_{~ f b} T^{f}_{~ b e} \label{ricciT}
\end{eqnarray}
while the Ricci scalar is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R = \hat R -\frac{1}{4} T_{a e d} T^{a e d} \label{ricci}
\end{eqnarray}
{\bf Note}
In literature \cite{hehl,fabbri}, torsion is usually incorporated through the {\em contorsion} tensor which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K^a_{~ b c} := T^a_{~ b c} + T^{~ ~a}_{b c} + T^{~ ~a}_{ c b} \label{contorsion}
\end{eqnarray}
This reduces to the torsion tensor when torsion is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. Since in this paper we will be dealing with totally
antisymmetric (or at least antisymmetric in the two lower indices) torsion, we will express our results in terms of the torsion tensor.
\subsection{Holst Term}
Having obtained the curvature scalars in the presence of torsion we can begin analysis of the Holst term. In terms of the tetrads and the curvature
tensors the Holst term can be written as \cite{holst}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_H &=& \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~e e^a_I e^b_J \epsilon^{IJKL} R_{a b KL} \label{holst}
\end{eqnarray}
where $e=\sqrt{-g}~$ and $\alpha$ is related to the Barbero-Immirzi parameter \cite{shyam}. Since our objective is to work in terms of metric
variables we can rewrite eqn. (\ref{holst}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
&=& \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~e e^{a}_I e^{b}_J e^{c}_K e^{d}_L \epsilon^{IJKL} R_{abcd}\nonumber\\
&=& \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~ \epsilon^{abcd} ~ R_{abcd} \label{metricholst}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \epsilon^{abcd} = \sqrt{-g}~ \eta^{abcd}$ with $\eta^{abcd}$ being the Levi-Civita symbol.
Note that in the absence of torsion this term vanishes from cyclic identity of the Riemann tensor. So unlike the Euler and the Pontryagin terms this
term is non trivial only when torsion is present. In the presence of torsion we have to use eqn (\ref{riemann}) as the definition of Riemann tensor in
eqn (\ref{metricholst}).
The first term coming from eqn (\ref{riemann}) is the Riemann tensor without torsion which again becomes zero from cyclic identity. The other two terms are
non zero. In particular the second group of terms give:
\begin{eqnarray}
-\partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
while the third group gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore using eqn (\ref{riemann}) as the definition for $R_{abcd}$ and contracting it with $\epsilon^{abcd}$ we arrive at the following equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg) = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d} - \epsilon^{a b c d} R_{a b c d}
\label{nyh}
\end{eqnarray}
The term on the R.H.S. is known as the Nieh-Yan term and is equal to a total derivative. We can see that the Holst term we started with is related to a
total derivative along with a term quadratic in torsion. In the absence of torsion, the quadratic torsion term becomes
zero and the addition of the Holst term is equivalent to the addition of a total derivative. Therefore the equations of motion are not affected even
when we add to the action, a term which is not a total derivative. In \cite{shyam} torsion was set to zero by strongly imposing a pair of second class
constraints. Because it is not a total derivative the naive addition of the Holst term will change the classical equations of motion in the presence
of torsion as we will see in the next section.
\section{Holst Term and Equations of Motion}
In this section we will look at the equations of motion coming from an action which has the Holst term added to the Einstein Hilbert action. The metric
$g_{ab}$ and torsion $T^a_{~ b c}$ are the two independent basic variables. We take the gravitation part of our action to be
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{grav} &=& S_{EH} + 2 \alpha S_{H} \nonumber \\
&=& \int \mbox{d}^4 ~x ~ \sqrt{-g} R ~ ~ + ~ ~ 2 \alpha \int \mbox{d}^4 x ~ \epsilon^{abcd} ~ R_{abcd} \label{fullaction1}
\end{eqnarray}
The variation of the Holst term is then equivalent to the variation of $\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d}$ because the other term
is a total derivative. Therefore we can take our action to be
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{grav} = \int \mbox{d}^4 ~x ~ \sqrt{-g} R ~ ~ + ~ ~
\alpha\int \mbox{d}^4 x ~\epsilon^{a b c d} T^{e} _{~ a c} T_{e b d}\label{fullaction2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the second term is not trivially zero from symmetry properties.
The variation of $T_{~ab}^c$ using eqn (\ref{gammatorsion}):
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{~ab}^c ~ = ~2 \gamma_{~ab}^c ~ ~ ~
\Rightarrow ~ ~ ~ (\delta T_{~ab}^c) = 2 (\delta \gamma_{~ab}^c)
\end{eqnarray}
And
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{cab} = g_{cd} T_{~ab}^d ~ ~ ~
\Rightarrow ~ ~ ~ (\delta T_{cab} ) = 2 (\delta g_{cd}) \gamma_{~ab}^d + 2 g_{cd} (\delta \gamma_{~ab}^d)
\end{eqnarray}
Using these we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta S_H) &=& \eta^{a b c d} \left(\delta ~ \sqrt{-g} ~ T^{e} _{a c} T_{e b d}\right) \nonumber\\
&=& 4 \eta^{a b c d} \sqrt{-g}~\bigg[ -\frac{3}{2} \gamma_{ac}^{~ ~e} \gamma_{ebd} ~ g_{ij} ~(\delta g^{ij})
+ 2 \gamma_{ebd} (\delta \gamma_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg] \nonumber\\
&=& 2\eta^{a b c d} \sqrt{-g}~\bigg[ -\frac{3}{4} T_{ac}^{~ ~e} T_{ebd} ~ g_{ij} ~(\delta g^{ij})
+ T_{ebd} (\delta T_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg]
\end{eqnarray}
The variation of the Einstein-Hilbert is well known \cite{hehl}
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta S_{EH}) &=& \sqrt{-g}~ \bigg( \hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) (\delta g^{ab}) \nonumber\\
&+& \sqrt{-g}\Bigg\{ 2 \gamma_a^{~ c e}\gamma_{ebc} (\delta g^{ab})
- \frac{3}{2} \gamma_{a c}^{~ ~ e}\gamma_e^{~ a c} ~ g_{ij} (\delta g^{ij}) + 2 \gamma_e^{~ a c} (\delta \gamma_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg\} \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{-g}~ \bigg( \hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) (\delta g^{ab}) \nonumber\\
&+& \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{2}\Bigg\{ T_a^{~ c e} T_{ebc} (\delta g^{ab})
- \frac{3}{4} T_{a c}^{~ ~ e} T_e^{~ a c} ~ g_{ij} (\delta g^{ij}) + T_e^{~ a c} (\delta T_{ac}^{~~e}) \bigg\}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the variation of the full action can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
(\delta S_{grav}) &=& (\delta S_{EH}) + 2\alpha(\delta S_{H}) \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{-g}~\bigg(\hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) (\delta g^{ab})
+ \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{2} \Bigg( T_a^{~ c e} T_{ebc}(\delta g^{ab}) \nonumber\\
&& -\frac{3}{4}\bigg[ T_{a c}^{~ ~ e} T_e^{~ a c} +4\alpha \eta^{a b c d} T_{ac}^{~ ~e} T_{ebd} \bigg] g_{ij} (\delta g^{ij})
+ \bigg[T_e^{~ a c} + 4 \alpha \eta^{a b c d} T_{ebd}\bigg] (\delta T_{ac}^{~~e}) \Bigg) \label{actionvariation}
\end{eqnarray}
We are interested in the case when matter is present. In the presence of a matter distribution with the total action given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S = \int \mbox{d}^4 ~x ~ \left( \frac{1}{\kappa} S_{grav} + S_{matter} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kappa = 16 \pi G$. The {\em energy-momentum} tensor and a {\em spin energy} tensor is usually defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{ab} &=& \frac{1}{ \sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_{matter}}{\delta g_{ab}} \label{emdef} \\
S_{a}^{~ b c} &=& \frac{1}{ \sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S_{matter}}{\delta T^a_{~ b c}} \label{spindef}
\end{eqnarray}
Using these definitions and eqn (\ref{actionvariation}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa T_{ab} &=& \bigg(\hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) + \frac{1}{2} T_a^{~ c e} T_{ebc}
-\frac{3}{8}\bigg( T_{f c}^{~ ~ e} T_e^{~ f c} + 4\alpha \eta^{f b c d} T_{fc}^{~ ~e} T_{ebd} \bigg) g_{ab} \label{tab} \\
\kappa S_{e}^{~ a c} &=& \frac{1}{2} \bigg(T_e^{~ a c} + 4 \alpha \eta^{a b c d} T_{ebd}\bigg) \label{sabc}
\end{eqnarray}
If the Holst term is not there $\alpha=0$ a couple of points can be noted from the above equations:\\
a) In the absence of spin $S_{e}^{~ a c}$ in the matter distribution $T_{e}^{~ a c}=0$ from eqn (\ref{sabc}). Thus there can be no torsion
without spin and we get back standard Einstein's equations with the standard definition for $T_{ab}$. This also ensures that torsion cannot propagate
from a region of non zero spin distribution to a vacuum region.\\
b) If spin is not zero we can solve eqn (\ref{sabc}) to obtain $T_{e}^{~ a c} = 2\kappa S_e^{~ a c}$ which can then be substituted
into eqn (\ref{tab}) to obtain a modified energy momentum tensor $\tilde T_{ab}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa \tilde T_{ab} &=& \bigg(\hat R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}\hat R g_{ab}\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& T_{ab} + \kappa\bigg( 2 S_a^{~ c e} S_{b e c} +\frac{3}{2} S_{fce} S^{fce} \bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
However in the presence of the Holst term, solving eqn (\ref{sabc}) is no longer trivial. After some algebra it can be shown that
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{e a c} = \frac{1}{4(1+64 \alpha^2)} \bigg(S_{e a c} -2 \alpha S_e^{~ b d} \eta_{b a d c}\bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
This is the expression which now has to be substituted into eqn (\ref{tab}) to obtain a modified energy momentum tensor. The expression of
the modified energy momentum tensor will be different in the presence of the Holst term. This also shows why the Barbero-Immirzi parameter shows up in
the classical equations of motion when matter is included \cite{rovelli}. In fact it is no longer clear that torsion cannot exist
without spin. The modified energy momentum tensor is different in the presence of the Holst term and depending on the matter action, the
Holst term needs to be modified if we want to ensure that the modified energy momentum tensor remains unchanged. This modification has to be done on
a case by case basis and is therefore not universal.
These show that if we consider theories of gravitation with matter, where the independent variables in the gravitational action are the metric and
torsion, a theory based on $S_{EH}$ and one based on $S_{EH} + S_{H}$ are not equivalent even classically. Of course, since the Holst term is not a
total derivative there is no reason for this to happen. The term we can add to the action without affecting the classical equations of motion is
actually the Nieh-Yan term.
\section{Nieh-Yan Term and Topological charge}
We know that the Gauss-Bonnet term and the Pontryagin term can be added to the Einstein Hilbert action in four dimensions without affecting the
equations of motion. On integration these give a number characteristic to the manifold. The Gauss-Bonnet term gives the Euler characteristic while
the Pontryagin term gives the Pontryagin class of the manifold over which the integral is taken. In this section we shall try to see what the
Nieh-Yan term gives when we consider a physical situation in a manifold with a boundary.
An obvious example of a spacetime with boundary is a Black Hole. One widely studied case of the formation of a Black Hole in the presence of torsion
is the case of a collapsing Weyssenhoff fluid sphere \cite{torsionfluid}.
Weyssenhoff fluid is a perfect fluid with spin whose spin tensor is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S^i_{~ j k} &=& u^i s_{jk} \\
\mbox{with} ~ ~ u^k s_{jk} &=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
where $u^i$ is the 4-velocity of the fluid and $s_{jk}$ is the intrinsic angular momentum.
The energy momentum tensor of the fluid respecting the conservation laws of spin and energy momentum is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{jk} &=& h_j u_k - P g_{jk} \\
\mbox{where} ~ ~ h_j &=& (\rho + P) u_j - u^i \nabla_k ( u^k s_{ij} )
\end{eqnarray}
where $P$ and $\rho$ are the pressure and density of the fluid. If the metric is spherically symmetric and the intrinsic angular momentum is aligned
in the $r$ direction the only non zero components of $s_{ij}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
s_{ij} ~=~K~=~ -s_{ji} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
If the fluid is assumed to be static $u^i = \delta^i_0$. Then the only non zero components of the spin tensor are
\begin{eqnarray}
S^0_{~ 2 3} ~ = ~ K ~ = ~ - S^0_{~ 3 2 }
\end{eqnarray}
It has been shown \cite{prasanna} that it is possible to construct a spherically symmetric Weyssenhoff fluid distribution with the outside vacuum
spacetime metric given by the Schwarzschild metric consistent with the boundary conditions \cite{boundary}. The boundary conditions are basically
equivalent to the statement that the {\em effective pressure} $P'$ on the surface is zero, where the effective pressure is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P' = P - \frac{\kappa}{8} K^2
\end{eqnarray}
The physical situation corresponds to a fluid sphere of spinning matter while the spacetime outside the sphere is vacuum and without
torsion. Note that the fluid is assumed to have intrinsic spin which is different from the case a rotating fluid sphere. Since the outside spacetime
is vacuum from eqn (\ref{sabc}) (with $\alpha=0$) we can see that there is no torsion.
Let the fluid sphere be of radius $r=a$. Then from Birkhoff's theorem, for $r>a$ the metric is the standard Schwarzschild metric
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d} s^2 = -\left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right)\mbox{d}t^2 + \left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}\mbox{d}r^2 +r^2 \mbox{d} \theta^2
+r^2 \sin^2 \theta \mbox{d} \phi^2 \label{outmetric}
\end{eqnarray}
while the metric inside the sphere is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d} s^2 = &&-\left(\frac{3}{2}\left[1-\frac{2M}{a}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} - \frac{1}{2}\left[1 -\frac{2M r^2}{a^3}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)
\mbox{d}t^2 \label{inmetric}\\
&& ~ ~ + \left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}\mbox{d}r^2 + r^2 \mbox{d} \theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2 \theta \mbox{d} \phi^2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The inside and the outside metrics match on the surface $r=a$. However the fluid sphere is not of uniform density. Also from the metric inside we can
see that the singularity at $r=0$ can only occur if $M/a = \frac{4}{9}$.
From the equations of motion (\ref{sabc}) which are unaffected by the addition of a total derivative, we can determine the nonzero
torsion components inside the sphere
\begin{eqnarray}
T^0_{~ 2 3} ~ = ~2 \kappa K ~ = ~ - T^0_{~ 3 2 }
\end{eqnarray}
Let us consider the Nieh-Yan action inside the shell:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{NY} = \alpha \int_{\mbox{in}} \mbox{d}^4 x ~ \partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg) \label{ny}
\end{eqnarray}
Evaluating this on the surface of the fluid sphere, $r=a$ hypersurface:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{NY} &=& - 2 \alpha \int \mbox{d} t ~ \mbox{d} r ~ \mbox{d} \theta ~\mbox{d} \phi \partial_r\bigg(\sqrt{-g} ~ g_{00} T^0_{~ 2 3}\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& - 4 \kappa \alpha \int_{r=a} \mbox{d} t ~ \mbox{d} \theta ~\mbox{d} \phi \bigg(\sqrt{-g}~ g_{00} K \bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& - 4 \kappa \alpha \int_{r=a} \mbox{d} t ~ \mbox{d} \theta ~\mbox{d} \phi r^2 \sin^2 \theta \left(1 -\frac{2M}{r}\right) K
\end{eqnarray}
This can be easily evaluated by looking at the Euclidean case. Note that the topology of the Euclidean Black Hole is
${\mathbb R}^2 \times S^2$ while the topology of the boundary is $S^1 \times S^2$. The proper length along $S^1$ is given by $\beta$ the inverse of the
temperature at the boundary. Using the technique of Euclidean continuation without the presence of a horizon from \cite{frolov} we can calculate that
$\beta$ at the boundary $r=a$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta = 8 \pi M \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{a} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, at $r=a$
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{NY} = -128 \pi^2 \alpha \kappa M a^2 K \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{a} \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly this vanishes only when $a=2M$ i.e. when the collapsing fluid forms a horizon but is non-zero when the horizon is not yet formed. The surface
term therefore contributes a {\em torsion charge} in a manifold with a boundary, in this case the surface of the sphere. However it does not contribute to
the entropy of the Black Hole. Note that we are interested in the region outside the sphere with no torsion with the boundary given by the surface of
the sphere. The equations of motion in the interior of the sphere are used to determine the value of torsion on the boundary.
The reason why the contribution of the total derivative term does not remain constant in this case is because the basic variable in our equations of
motion $T^a_{~bc}$ while in the Nieh-Yan term torsion occurs as $T_{abc}$ which involves the metric. One interesting case where we do get a constant is
if there is a singularity at $r=0$, the ratio between $M$ and $a$ is a constant number and we get a constant contribution from the total derivative on
the boundary.
Interestingly the contribution of the Nieh-Yan term is thus non zero when there is a boundary but vanishes when the boundary is a causal boundary i.e.
a horizon. This leads on to the question whether the Einstein's equation retain their holographic property in the presence of torsion.
\section{Torsion and Holography}
To discuss the question posed at the end of the last section let us briefly recall the concept of holography in gravitational action.
One interesting feature of the Einstein Hilbert action is that can be split into a bulk part and a total derivative \cite{paddyayan}. That is
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sqrt{-g} R = \sqrt{-g} L_{quad} -\partial_c P^c ~~~~~~~~ \mbox{where} \label{ehlqpc} \\
&& L_{quad} = g^{ab}\bigg(\Gamma^i_{~ja} \Gamma^j_{~ib} - \Gamma^i_{~ab} \Gamma^j_{~ij}\bigg) \label{lquad} \\
&& P^c = \sqrt{-g} \bigg( g^{ck} \Gamma^m_{~km} - g^{ik} \Gamma^c_{~ik} \bigg) \label{pc}
\end{eqnarray}
The equations of motion of $L_{quad}$ are equivalent to the equations of motion of the $L_{EH}$. In other words, if we start with a theory based
on $L_{quad}$ we will end with the same equations of motion as coming from General Relativity. The two terms are related by what is known as
{\em holography} \cite{paddypr}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{-g} \partial_c P^c = - \partial_a \left( g_{ij}
\frac{\partial \sqrt{-g} L_{quad}}{\partial \left(\partial _a g_{ij} \right)}\right) \label{holo}
\end{eqnarray}
These results have been obtained when there is no torsion. In the presence of torsion recall the definition of Riemann-Christoffel symbols from
eqn (\ref{rechs}).
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{~ab}^c = \hat\Gamma_{~ab}^c + \frac{1}{2} T_{~ab}^c \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let us split the various terms in eqn (\ref{holo}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{quad} &=& \hat L_{quad} + \tilde L_{quad} \\
P^c &=& \hat P^c + \tilde P^c
\end{eqnarray}
where the hatted quantities come from the symmetric part of the connection and the tilde terms depend on torsion. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde L_{quad} &=& \frac{1}{4} g^{ab} \bigg(T^i_{~ja} T^j_{~ib} - T^i_{~ab} T^j_{~ij}\bigg) \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{4} g^{ab} T^i_{~ja} T^j_{~ib} \nonumber\\
&=& - \frac{1}{4} T^{ijb} T_{ijb} \label{lquadtor}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde P^c = \sqrt{-g} \bigg( g^{ck} T^m_{~km} - g^{ik} T^c_{~ik} \bigg) ~=~ 0 \label{pctor}
\end{eqnarray}
In both the cases we have used the fact that we are interested in totally antisymmetric torsion. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \bigg(\sqrt{-g} \hat L_{quad} -\partial_c \hat P^c\bigg) + \bigg(\sqrt{-g} \tilde L_{quad} -\partial_c \tilde P^c \bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{-g} \left( \hat R - \frac{1}{4} T^{ijb} T_{ijb} \right) \\
&=& \sqrt{-g} R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{ from eqn (\ref{ricci})}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the decomposition of $L_{EH}$ in the form given in eqn (\ref{ehlqpc}) goes through in the presence of torsion. Note that the extra piece due to
torsion in the Ricci scalar comes from $L_{quad}$ while the surface term has no extra contribution. Since there are no derivatives of torsion in the
action the corresponding holographic equation for torsion is trivial. In the holographic formulation, it is the surface term which leads to Black
Hole entropy and the inclusion of torsion does not change the surface term indicating that the entropy of a Black Hole is independent of the type of
matter which has collapsed to form it. In the previous section we had seen that the inclusion of the Nieh-Yan term did not affect Black Hole entropy
(at least in the case we studied).
Let us try to see how the Nieh-Yan surface term differs from a `holographic' surface term. The total derivative can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{NY} = \partial_a\bigg(\epsilon^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \bigg)
= \sqrt{-g} ~\eta ^{a b c d} \partial_a ( T_{b c d}) + \eta ^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \partial_a (\sqrt{-g})
\end{eqnarray}
Now consider the torsion dependent parts of this term and the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{grav}^{tor} = - \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{4} T^{abc} T_{abc} + \alpha \sqrt{-g}~ \eta ^{a b c d} \partial_a ( T_{b c d}) +
\alpha \eta ^{a b c d} T_{b c d} \partial_a (\sqrt{-g})
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this Lagrangian also has a term quadratic in the field variables and a surface term. We can define
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{abcd} = \frac{\partial L_{grav}^{tor}}{\partial(\partial_a ( T_{b c d}))} = \alpha \sqrt{-g} \eta ^{a b c d}
\end{eqnarray}
which allows us to rewrite the Nieh-Yan term as
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha L_{NY} = \partial_a \bigg(\Pi^{abcd} T_{b c d} \bigg) = \partial_a
\left(\frac{\partial L_{grav}^{tor}}{\partial(\partial_a ( T_{b c d}))} T_{b c d} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
Now the bulk term dependent on torsion is $ - \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{4} T^{abc} T_{abc}$. For this, a term similar to the holographic term for the metric
degrees of freedom will look like
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_a \left( \frac{T_{ijk}}{4} \frac{\partial \left(\sqrt{-g}T^{abc} T_{abc}\right) }{\partial \left(\partial _a T_{ijk} \right)}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
which is not similar to the Nieh-Yan term. The action is therefore not holographic for torsion even with the addition of the Nieh-Yan term.
We see that although we started with metric and torsion as the two independent variables, the action is holographic in the sense of eqn (\ref{holo})
in metric but not in torsion.
\section{Discussion}
We have explored some features of the Nieh-Yan term from the perspective of metric variables in this paper. The first significant distinction of this
term is that, unlike the two other topological invariants in 4 dimensions, this becomes zero in the absence of torsion. Therefore the effect of the
Nieh-Yan term can only be studied on ${\bf U}_4$ manifolds. On a ${\bf U}_4$ manifold the Nieh-Yan term is related to the Holst term and a term
quadratic in torsion. It is shown that simply adding the Holst term then affects the classical equations of motion. Significantly it keeps the
possibility of torsion existing without spin open, unlike in General Relativity. It might be interesting to find whether any such solutions exist but
such solutions, if they exist will be solutions of an action which is not related to Einstein-Hilbert action by any canonical transformations.
We then studied one particular case where the Nieh-Yan term is non zero on a boundary of a spacetime. However the {\em topological charge} vanishes when
the boundary is a horizon. If there exists other examples of solutions of Einstein-Cartan theory with a boundary, it will be interesting to study
whether this effect is generic or a special feature of the this particular solution. Interestingly, the addition of Gauss-Bonnet invariant to the
Einstein-Hilbert action was considered in the context of local AdS asymptotic geometry \cite{zanelli}. It was shown that although the surface term does
not modify the bulk field equations, it changes the conserved currents and, therefore, the definition of conserved charges of the theory. In our
calculation we have used results which respect the conservation laws of matter and spin coming from General Relativity with torsion. Whether
something similar happens on the addition of Nieh-Yan term needs to be further investigated.
From the point of view of holography, it is clear that metric and torsion have to be considered on different footings even with the inclusion of an
explicit boundary term which depends only on torsion. It emphasizes that the holographic nature of Einstein's equations is a special and distinctive
feature of metric theories and does not hold on arbitrary extensions of the theory. However, notably the holography in metric continues to hold even
in the presence of torsion although the total action is not holographic.
In general, a topological term added to the action may show up in the quantum theory. For example in \cite{olea} it was shown that the addition of
topological invariants of the Euler class is equivalent to holographic renormalization procedure in AdS/CFT. In some particular cases (eg. QCD with
massive fermions) a topological term is characterizes a nonperturbative vacuum structure of the theory with a non zero tunnelling probability between
various ground states. To see such an effect in quantum gravity, coming from the Nieh-Yan term we will have to first study some the path integral
formulation which incorporates torsion along with the metric. If such a formulation is possible it may be possible to explore whether the Barbero-Immirzi
parameter plays any role in labelling the ground states in a quantum theory of gravity.
{\bf Acknowledgements:}
I would like to thank T. Padmanabhan for suggesting the problem and for the discussions, his comments and his careful reading of the manuscript.
I would also like to thank Ghanashyam Date for reading the manuscript and his queries and comments.
Thanks are also due to Dawood Kothawala, Alok Laddha and Sandipan Sengupta for discussions.
|
\section{introduction}
This paper is concerned with the quiver realization of
finite-dimensional cocommutative Hopf algebras. As is well-known,
any such algebra can be viewed as the group algebra of a finite
algebraic $k$-group $\mathcal{G}$. Considerable attention has been
received by these algebraic groups.
Quivers are oriented diagrams consisting of vertices and arrows
\cite{ARS}. Due to the well-known theorem of Gabriel given in the
early 1970s, these combinatorial stuffs make the abstract elementary
algebras and their representations visible. This point of view has
since then played a central role and is generally accepted as the
starting point in the modern representation theory of associative
algebras. Naturally there is a strong desire to apply this handy
quiver tool to other algebraic structures. Such idea for Hopf
algebras appeared explicitly in \cite{Cil,Cil1,CR,GS} and was showed
to be very effective in dealing with the structures of
finite-dimensional pointed (or dually, basic) Hopf algebras when the
characteristic of the base field is 0 \cite{CR,CHYZ,GL,L,HL,FP}.
Comparing to the characteristic 0 case, there is hardly any work
dealing with the positive characteristic case by using quiver
methods, see however a recent work of Cibils, Lauve and Witherspoon
\cite{clw}. One main difficulty in the positive characteristic case
is that general pointed Hopf algebras are not generated by
group-likes and skew-primitive elements. While in the characteristic
0 case, the well-known Andruskiewitsch-Schneider Conjecture
\cite{AS3} claims that all finite-dimensional pointed Hopf algebras
are indeed generated by their group-likes and skew-primitive
elements.
This paper can be considered as our first try to apply quiver
methods to the category of pointed Hopf algebras over an
algebraically closed field $k$ with characteristic $p>0$, especially
to finite-dimensional cocommutative Hopf algebras over $k$ or
equivalently to the category of finite algebraic $k$-groups. One can
show that the connected component of a finite-dimensional
cocommutative Hopf algebra can be embedded into the path coalgebra
of a multi-loop quiver (see Corollary 2.2). So as the first step,
one can analyze the minimal case, that is, Hopf structures over the
path coalgebra of the one-loop quiver. This is exactly what we do in
this paper. The main result of the paper is the following theorem
(see Theorem 5.1).
\begin{theorem} Let $n\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$, any commutative Hopf structure $H$ over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ is
isomorphic to a $L(n,d)$ for some $d$.
\end{theorem}
See Section 5 for the definition of $L(n,d)$. As a direct
consequence of this theorem, all commutative infinitesimal groups
$\mathcal{G}$ with dim$_{k}$Lie$(\mathcal{G})=1$ are determined.
The paper is organized as follows. All needed knowledge about path
coalgebras is summarized in Section 2. Moreover, the uniserial
property of the Hopf structures over $k\circlearrowleft$ is also
established in this section. For later use, all endomorphisms of the
path coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft$ are given in Section 3. As a key
step, we need to grasp all possible Hopf structures over
$k\circlearrowleft_{p}$ at first and this task is finished in
Section 4. In addition, we also show that the property of a Hopf
structure over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ is almost determined by
that of its restriction to $k\circlearrowleft_{p}$. Combining the
work of Farnsteiner-R\"ohrle-Voigt on unipotent group of complexity
1 \cite{FRV}, the proof of Theorem 1.1 is given in Section 5 at
last.
Throughout the paper we will be working over an algebraically closed
field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$. We freely use the results,
notations, and conventions of \cite{Mon}.
\section{Path coalgebras}
\subsection{} Given a quiver $Q=(Q_{0},Q_{1})$ with $Q_{0}$ the set of
vertices and $Q_{1}$ the set of arrows, denote by $kQ$ the
$k$-space with basis the set of all paths in $Q$. Over $kQ$, there is a natural coalgebra structure defined as follows.
For
$\alpha \in Q_{1}$, let $s(\alpha)$ and $t(\alpha)$ denote
respectively the starting and ending vertex of $\alpha$.
Then comultiplication $\Delta$ is given by
$$\Delta(p)=\alpha_{l}\cdots \alpha_{1}
\otimes s(\alpha_{1})+\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\alpha_{l}\cdots \alpha_{i+1}
\otimes\alpha_{i}\cdots \alpha_{1}+ t(\alpha_{l})\otimes \alpha_{l}\cdots \alpha_{1}$$
for each path $p=\alpha_{l}\cdots \alpha_{1}$ with each $\alpha_{i}\in
Q_{1}$; and the counit $\varepsilon$ is defined to be $\varepsilon(p)=0$ for $l\geq 1$ and $1$ if $l=0$
($l=0$ means $p$ is a vertex). This is a coradically graded pointed
coalgebra and we also denote it by $kQ$. Like the path algebras
case, the path coalgebras serve as the cofree pointed coalgebras. In
fact, Chin and Montgomery showed the following result \cite{CM}:
\begin{lemma} Let $C$ be a pointed cocalgebra, then there
exists a unique quiver $Q(C)$ such that $C$ can be embedded into the
path coalgebra $kQ(C)$ as a large sub coalgebra.\end{lemma}
This unique quiver $Q(C)$ is called the \emph{dual Gabriel quiver}
of $C.$ Here ``large" means that $C$ contains all group-like
elements $Q(C)_{0}$ and all skew-primitive elements of $kQ(C)$. Note
that the skew-primitive elements are indeed corresponding to paths
of length 1, i.e., arrows. Now the following conclusion is clear.
\begin{corollary}
Let $C$ be an irreducible cocommutative pointed coalgebra, then its
dual Gabriel quiver $Q(C)$ has only one vertex.
\end{corollary}
A natural question is when there is a Hopf structure on a path
coalgebra. We will see not every quiver can serve as the dual
Gabriel quiver of a pointed Hopf algebra and those do are called
\emph{Hopf quivers} by Cibils and Rosso \cite{CR}. Recall that a
\emph{ramification data} $r$ of a group $G$ is a positive central
element of the group ring of $G$: let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of
conjugacy classes, $r =\Sigma _{C\in \;\mathcal{C}} r_{C}C$ is a
formal sum with non-negative integer coefficients.
\begin{definition} Let $G$ be a group and $r$ a
ramification data. The corresponding Hopf quiver $Q(G,r)$ has set of
vertices the elements of $G$ and has $r_{C}$ arrows from $x$ to $cx$
for each $x \in G$ and $c\in C$.
\end{definition}
One of the main results in \cite{CR} states that there is a graded
Hopf algebra structure on the path coalgebra $kQ$ if and only if $Q$
is a Hopf quiver. In this case, $kQ_{0}$ is a group algebra and
$kQ_{1}$ is a $kQ_{0}$-Hopf bimodule. Moreover, the product rule of
paths can be displayed as follows.
Let $p$ be a path of length $l$. An $n$-thin split of it is a
sequence $(p_1, \ \cdots, \ p_n)$ of vertices and arrows such that
the concatenation $p_n \cdots p_1$ is exactly $p.$ These $n$-thin
splits are in one-to-one correspondence with the $n$-sequences of
$(n-l)$ 0's and $l$ 1's. Denote the set of such sequences by
$D_l^n.$ Clearly $|D_l^n|={n \choose l}.$ For $d=(d_1, \ \cdots, \
d_n) \in D_l^n,$ the corresponding $n$-thin split is written as
$dp=((dp)_1, \ \cdots, \ (dp)_n),$ in which $(dp)_i$ is a vertex if
$d_i=0$ and an arrow if $d_i=1.$
Let $\alpha=a_m \cdots a_1$ and $\beta=b_n \cdots b_1$ be paths of
lengths $m$ and $n$ respectively. Let $d \in D_m^{m+n}$ and $\bar{d}
\in D_n^{m+n}$ the complement sequence which is obtained from $d$ by
replacing each 0 by 1 and each 1 by 0. Define an element
in $kQ_{m+n},$
$$(\alpha \cdot \beta)_d=[(d\alpha)_{m+n}.(\bar{d}\beta)_{m+n}] \cdots
[(d\alpha)_1.(\bar{d}\beta)_1],$$ where
$[(d\alpha)_i.(\bar{d}\beta)_i]$ is understood as the action of
$kQ_0$-Hopf bimodule on $kQ_1$ and these terms in different brackets
are put together by cotensor product, or equivalently concatenation.
In these notations, the formula of the product of $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ is given as follows (see pages 245-246 in \cite{CR}):
\begin{equation}
\alpha \cdot \beta=\sum_{d \in D_m^{m+n}}(\alpha \cdot \beta)_d \ .
\end{equation}
\subsection{} In this paper, we only consider the very simple Hopf quiver,
a loop $\circlearrowleft$. By setting $G:=e$ and $r:=e$, one can see
that a loop is just the Hopf quiver $Q(G,r)$. For any natural number
$n$, denote the unique path of length $n$ by $\alpha_{n}$. Since the
group $G$ is trivial now, the Hopf bimodule action is trivial too.
Thus the product rule over $k\circlearrowleft$ is very simple. That
is,
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{n} \cdot \alpha_{m}=\left (
\begin{array}{cc} m+n \\n
\end{array}\right)\alpha_{m+n}.
\end{equation}
This is indeed the familiar Hopf algebra $(k[x])^{\circ}$, the
finite dual of $k[x]$. Sometimes, we denote this Hopf structure
still by $k\circlearrowleft$ and one can discriminate the exact
meaning by context. Note that this is a graded Hopf algebra with
length grading.
For a quiver $Q$, define $kQ_{d}:=\oplus_{i=0}^{d-1}kQ(i)$ where
$Q(i)$ is the set of all paths of length $i$ in $Q$. Clearly, for
any $i\geq0$, $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}}$ is a sub Hopf algebra of
$k\circlearrowleft$.
\begin{lemma} Let $H$ be a
finite-dimensional sub Hopf algebra of $k\circlearrowleft$, then
$H\cong k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}}$ for some $i\geq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is follows directly from the known fact that
$k[x]/(x^{p^{i}})$ are all Hopf quotients of $k[x]$.
\end{proof}
Van Oystaeyen and Zhang proved the dual Gabriel Theorem for
coradically graded pointed Hopf algebras (Theorem 4.5 in \cite{FP}):
\begin{lemma} Let $H$ be a coradically graded pointed Hopf algebra, then its dual Gabriel quiver $Q(H)$ is a
Hopf quiver and there is a Hopf embedding
$$H\hookrightarrow kQ(H).$$
\end{lemma}
Now let $C\subset k\circlearrowleft$ be a finite-dimensional large
sub coalgebra of $k\circlearrowleft$ and assume there is a Hopf
structure $H(C)$ on $C$.
\begin{proposition}
With notations and the assumption as above, there is a natural
number $i$ such that as a coalgebra, $$C\cong
k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}}.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} At first, we know that $H(C)$ is a pointed Hopf
algebra. Denote its coradical filtration by $\{ H(C)_n
\}_{n=0}^{\infty}.$ Define \[\operatorname{gr}(H(C))=H(C)_0 \oplus
H(C)_1/H(C)_0 \oplus H(C)_2/H(C)_1 \oplus \cdots \cdots \] as the
corresponding coradically graded version. Then
$\operatorname{gr}(H(C))$ inherits from $H(C)$ a coradically graded
Hopf algebra structure (see e.g. \cite{Mon}). By Lemma 2.5,
$\operatorname{gr}(H(C))$ is a sub Hopf algebra of $k\circlearrowleft$. Thus Lemma
2.4 implies what we want.
\end{proof}
Thus, our next aim is to give all possible Hopf structures (not
necessarily coradically graded) over the coalgebra
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}}$.
For any rational number $a$, denote by $[a]$ the biggest integer
which is not bigger than $a$.
\begin{lemma} For any positive integers $m,n$, $\left (
\begin{array}{cc} m+n \\n
\end{array}\right)=0$ if and only if
$$\sum_{i\geq 1}[\frac{m+n}{p^{i}}]> \sum_{i\geq 1}[\frac{m}{p^{i}}]+ \sum_{i\geq 1}[\frac{n}{p^{i}}].$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Clear.
\end{proof}
We call a Hopf algebra is
\emph{uniserial} if the set of its sub Hopf algebras forms a totally
ordered set under the containing relation.
\textbf{Convention. } Let $C$ and $D$ be two coalgebras and assume that $C$ is a sub coalgebra of $D$.
If there is a Hopf structure $H(D)$ over
$D$, then we use the notion $H(C)$ to denote the restriction, if
applicable, of the structure of $H(D)$ to $C$.
\begin{proposition} Let $n$ be a positive natural number and assume
that there is a Hopf structure $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ over
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$. Then $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is
a uniserial Hopf algebra with the composition series
$$k\subset H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{1}})\subset \cdots\subset H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})\subset
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})\subset \cdots\subset
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} By Proposition 2.6, it is enough to show that
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})$ for $i\leq n$ are sub Hopf algebras.
Thus, it is enough to show that they are closed under the
multiplication. But this is the direct consequence of the product
rule (2.1) and Lemma 2.7.
\end{proof}
\section{endomorphisms of $k\circlearrowleft$}
For later use, we characterize all the possible endomorphisms of the
path coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft$ in this section.
\begin{theorem}
\emph{(i)} Let $f:\;k\circlearrowleft\rightarrow k\circlearrowleft$
be a coalgebra map, then there are $\{\lambda_{i}\in k|i\in
\mathbb{N}^{+}\}$ such that
$$f(\alpha_{n})=\sum_{r=1}^{n}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots n_{r}=n}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}$$
for any $n$.
\emph{(ii)} All coalgebra endomorphisms of $k\circlearrowleft$ are
precisely given in this way.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} (i) Let's find such $\lambda_{i}'$s. Since $f$ is a
coalgebra map, $f(1)$ is a group-like element and $f(\alpha_{1})$ is
a primitive element. Thus $f(1)=1$ and there is a $\lambda_{1}\in k$
such that $f(\alpha_{1})=\lambda_{1}\alpha_{1}$ since $k\alpha_{1}$
are all primitive elements. Suppose we have found
$\{\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{n}\}$ and let's find $\lambda_{n+1}$.
By $f$ is a coalgebra map,
$$\Delta(f(\alpha_{n+1})-\sum_{r=2}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r})\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&=&f(\alpha_{n+1})\otimes 1+ 1\otimes
f(\alpha_{n+1})+\sum_{i=1}^{n}f(\alpha_{i})\otimes
f(\alpha_{n+1-i})-\\
&\;&\sum_{r=2}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\sum_{s+t=r}\alpha_{s}\otimes \alpha_{t})\\
&=&f(\alpha_{n+1})\otimes 1+ 1\otimes
f(\alpha_{n+1})+\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\sum_{s=1}^{i}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{s}=i}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{s}})\alpha_{s}\\
&\;&\otimes \sum_{t=1}^{n+1-i}(\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots
m_{t}=n+1-i}\lambda_{m_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{m_{t}})\alpha_{t})-\\
&\;&\sum_{r=2}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\sum_{s+t=r}\alpha_{s}\otimes
\alpha_{t}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Replace $\lambda_{m_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{m_{t}}$ by
$\lambda_{n_{s+1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{s+t}}$ and set $r=s+t$, one can
find that
$$ \sum_{i=1}^{n}(\sum_{s=1}^{i}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{s}=i}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{s}})\alpha_{s}\otimes
\sum_{t=1}^{n+1-i}(\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots
m_{t}=n+1-i}\lambda_{m_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{m_{t}})\alpha_{t})$$
$$=\sum_{r=2}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\sum_{s+t=r,s\neq
0\neq t}\alpha_{s}\otimes
\alpha_{t}).\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(\star)$$
Thus let $y:=f(\alpha_{n+1})-\sum_{r=2}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}$, then
$\Delta(y)=y\otimes 1+1\otimes y$. Thus
$f(\alpha_{n+1})-\sum_{r=2}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}$ is a
primitive element and so there is a $\lambda_{n+1}$ such that
$y=\lambda_{n+1}\alpha_{1}$. Equivalently,
$$f(\alpha_{n+1})=\sum_{r=1}^{n+1}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots n_{r}=n+1}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}.$$
(ii) By (i), it is enough to show that for any $\{\lambda_{i}\in
k|i\in \mathbb{N}^{+}\}$ and the linear map $f$ defined by
$f(\alpha_{n})=\sum_{r=1}^{n}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}$ is indeed a
coalgebra map. In fact,
\begin{eqnarray*} (f\otimes f)\Delta(\alpha_{n})&=&f(\alpha_{n})\otimes 1+ 1\otimes
f(\alpha_{n})+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}f(\alpha_{i})\otimes f(\alpha_{n-i})\\
&=&f(\alpha_{n})\otimes 1+ 1\otimes
f(\alpha_{n})+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(\sum_{s=1}^{i}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{s}=i}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{s}})\alpha_{s}\\
&\;&\otimes \sum_{t=1}^{n-i}(\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots
m_{t}=n-i}\lambda_{m_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{m_{t}})\alpha_{t}).
\end{eqnarray*}
While
\begin{eqnarray*} \Delta(f(\alpha_{n}))&=&\Delta(\sum_{r=1}^{n}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r})\\
&=&\sum_{r=1}^{n}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\sum_{s+t=r}(\alpha_{s}\otimes
\alpha_{t})\\
&=&f(\alpha_{n})\otimes 1+1\otimes f(\alpha_{n})+
\sum_{r=2}^{n}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\\
&\;\;\;\;&\times \sum_{s+t=r,s\neq 0\neq t}(\alpha_{s}\otimes
\alpha_{t}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then equation $(\star)$ implies that
$\Delta(f(\alpha_{n}))=(f\otimes f)\Delta(\alpha_{n})$.
\end{proof}
By the proof, we know that if $f:\;k\circlearrowleft\rightarrow
k\circlearrowleft$ is a coalgebra map, then
$f(\alpha_{1})=\lambda_{1}\alpha_{1}$ for some $\lambda_{1}\in k$.
The next result is to provide a criterion to determine when $f$ is
indeed an automorphism.
\begin{proposition} With notions as the above, $f$ is an
automorphism if and only if $\lambda_{1}\neq 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} By Theorem 3.1, $f(k\circlearrowleft_{n})\subseteq
k\circlearrowleft_{n}$ for any $n\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$ and thus
$f|_{k\circlearrowleft_{n}}$ is a coalgebra endomorphism of
$k\circlearrowleft_{n}$. By $\lambda_{1}\neq 0$,
$f|_{k\circlearrowleft_{2}}$ is injective and so
$f|_{k\circlearrowleft_{n}}$ is injective by Heynaman-Radford's
result \cite{HR}. Since dim$_{k}k\circlearrowleft_{n}<\infty$,
$f|_{k\circlearrowleft_{n}}$ is bijective. This indeed implies that
$f$ is an automorphism of $k\circlearrowleft$. The converse is
obvious since one always has $f(\alpha_{1})=\lambda_{1}\alpha_{1}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} For any natural numbers $m>n>0$ and assume that $f$ is an automorphism
of the coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft_{n}$, then $f$ can be extended
to be automorphisms of the coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft$ and
$k\circlearrowleft_{m}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By the proof of Theorem 3.1, there are
$\{\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{n-1}\}$ such that
$$f(\alpha_{i})=\sum_{r=1}^{i}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots
n_{r}=n}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}$$ for $1\leq
i\leq n-1$. By setting $\lambda_{j}=0$ for all $j\geq n$ and by
Theorem 3.1, if we define a map $F:\;k\circlearrowleft\rightarrow
k\circlearrowleft$ through
$$F(\alpha_{l})=\sum_{r=1}^{l}(\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots n_{r}=l}\lambda_{n_{1}}\cdots\lambda_{n_{r}})\alpha_{r}$$
for any natural number $l$, then $F$ is a coalgebra endomorphism of
$k\circlearrowleft$. Clearly, $F|_{k\circlearrowleft_{n}}=f$. Owning
to Proposition 3.2, $F$ is an automorphism. Theorem 3.1 deduces that
$F({k\circlearrowleft_{m}})\subseteq k\circlearrowleft_{m}$ and thus
$F|_{k\circlearrowleft_{m}}$ is the extension of $f$ to
$k\circlearrowleft_{m}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Hopf structures on $k\circlearrowleft_{p}$}
The following result seems well-known and we write its proof out for
completeness.
\begin{lemma} Let $H$ be a Hopf structure over
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{1}}$, then as a Hopf algebra $H$ is
isomorphic to either $(k\mathbb{Z}_{p})^{\ast}$, dual of the group
algebra $k\mathbb{Z}_{p}$, or $k[x]/(x^{p})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} At first, it is not hard to see that $H$ is generated
by $\alpha_{p^{0}}=\alpha_{1}$. Consider the element
$\alpha_{1}^{p}$. For it, we have
$$\Delta(\alpha_{1}^{p})=\Delta(\alpha_{1})^{p}=(1\otimes \alpha_{1}+ \alpha_{1}\otimes 1)^{p}=1\otimes \alpha_{1}^{p}
+\alpha_{1}^{p}\otimes 1. $$ Thus $\alpha_{1}^{p}$ is a primitive
element. Since the space spanned by $\alpha_{1}$ are all primitive
elements in the coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{1}}$, there is a
$\lambda\in k$ such that
$$\alpha_{1}^{p}=\lambda \alpha_{1}.$$
If $\lambda=0$, then $H\cong k[x]/(x^{p})$. If $\lambda\neq 0$, take
$\lambda'$ to be a solution of the equation $\lambda x^{p}-x=0$.
Then
$$(\lambda'\alpha_{1})^{p}=\lambda\lambda'^{p}\alpha_{1}^{p}=\lambda'\alpha_{1}.$$
In one word, if $\lambda\neq 0$, we can always assume that
$\lambda=1$ and thus $H\cong (k\mathbb{Z}_{p})^{\ast}$.
\end{proof}
We find that the property of $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is
largely determined by that of $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{1}})$.
\begin{proposition} Let $n$ be a positive integer and assume
that there is a commutative Hopf structure
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$. If
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{1}})\cong (k\mathbb{Z}_{p})^{\ast}$, then
$$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong (k\mathbb{Z}_{p^{n}})^{\ast}.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \textbf{Claim. } \emph{Up to a Hopf isomorphism, $\alpha_{l}^{p}=\alpha_{l}$ for $0<l<p^{n}$. }
We prove this fact by using induction on $l$. If $l=1$, this is just
assumption. Assume that $\alpha_{l}^{p}=\alpha_{l}$ for $l\leq m-1$,
let's prove that $\alpha_{m}^{p}=\alpha_{{m}}.$ By the definition of
path coalgebra and the assumption of commutativity, we always have
\begin{eqnarray*}\Delta(\alpha_{{m}}^{p})&=&(1\otimes \alpha_{{m}}+\alpha_{{m}}\otimes 1+\sum_{0<l<{m}}\alpha_{l}\otimes
\alpha_{{m}-l})^{p}\\
&=&1\otimes \alpha_{{m}}^{p}+\alpha_{{m}}^{p}\otimes
1+\sum_{0<l<{m}}\alpha_{l}^{p}\otimes \alpha_{{m}-l}^{p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The inductive assumption implies that $\alpha_{l}^{p}=\alpha_{l}$
for $l<{m}$. Thus
$$\Delta(\alpha_{{m}}^{p})=1\otimes \alpha_{{m}}^{p}+\alpha_{{m}}^{p}\otimes
1+\sum_{0<l<{m}}\alpha_{l}\otimes \alpha_{{m}-l}$$ and so
$$\Delta(\alpha_{{m}}^{p}-\alpha_{{m}})=(\alpha_{{m}}^{p}-\alpha_{{m}})\otimes 1+1\otimes (\alpha_{{m}}^{p}-\alpha_{{m}}).$$
Therefore, there is $\lambda\in k$ such that
$\alpha_{{m}}^{p}-\alpha_{{m}}=\lambda\alpha_{1}$. If $\lambda=0$,
done. If $\lambda\neq 0$, take $\xi$ to be a solution of the
equation $x^{p}-x+\lambda=0$ and let
$\alpha_{{m}}':=\alpha_{{m}}+\xi\alpha_{1}$. Clearly, the map
$$f:\;k\circlearrowleft_{m+1}\rightarrow k\circlearrowleft_{m+1},\;\;\alpha_{i}\mapsto \alpha_{i}\;\;\textrm{for}\;i\neq
m;\;\;\alpha_{m}\mapsto\alpha_{m}'
$$ is an automorphism of $k\circlearrowleft_{m+1}$. Corollary 3.3 implies $f$ can be extended
to be an automorphism of $k \circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$. Since this
automorphism is equivalent to choose a new basis of
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$, $f$ is an automorphism of Hopf algebras
of $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$. Now
$$(\alpha_{p^{m}}')^{p}=(\alpha_{p^{m}}+\xi\alpha_{1})^{p}=\alpha_{p^{m}}+\lambda\alpha_{1}+\xi^{p}\alpha_{1}
=\alpha_{p^{m}}+\xi\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{p^{m}}'.$$ The claim is
proved.
Construct the element
$$t:=\prod_{0<l<p^{n}}(1-\alpha_{l}^{p-1}).$$
Thus the claim implies for any $0<m<p^{n}$,
$$\alpha_{m}t=0=\varepsilon(\alpha_{m})t.$$ This means that $t\in
\int_{H}$, the set of integrals. Since $\varepsilon(t)=1\neq 0$,
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is a simisimple Hopf algebra (Theorem
2.2.1 in \cite{Mon}). Thus $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong
(kG)^{\ast}$ for some finite abelian group. Since
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is cogenerated by $\alpha_{1}$, $kG$
is generated by one element. Thus $G\cong \mathbb{Z}_{p^{n}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} We would like to thank Professor A. Masuoka for
pointing out to us that the above proposition can be deduced from
Chapter IV, Section 3, 3.4 of \cite{DG} or Theorem 0.1 in
\cite{Mas}.
\end{remark}
Recall an affine algebraic group $\mathcal{G}$ is \emph{finite} if
its coordinate ring $\mathcal{O(G)}$ is a finite-dimensional Hopf
algebra. A finite algebraic group $\mathcal{G}$ is called
\emph{infinitesimal} if $\mathcal{O(G)}$ is a local algebra. And, we
call a finite algebraic group $\mathcal{G}$ \emph{unipotent} if its
distribution algebra $\mathcal{H(G)}:=(\mathcal{O(G)})^{\ast}$ is a
local algebra. There is an equivalence between the category of
finite algebraic groups and the category of finite-dimensional
cocommutative Hopf algebras. Explicitly, sending finite algebraic
group $\mathcal{G}$ to $\mathcal{H(G)}$ gives us the equivalence.
For more knowledge about affine algebraic groups, see \cite{DG,Wat}.
Now assume that there is a commutative Hopf structure
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$,
then there is a finite algebraic group $\mathcal{G}_{p^{n}}$ such
that
$$\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{G}_{p^{n}})=H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}).$$
\begin{proposition} Keep the above notations. If $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p})\cong
k[x]/(x^{p})$, then $\mathcal{G}_{p^{n}}$ is an infinitesimal
unipotent group.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Owning to the fact that $(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})^{\ast}\cong
k[x]/(x^{p^{n}})$ as algebras, $\mathcal{G}_{p^{n}}$ is
infinitesimal. So in order to show $\mathcal{G}_{p^{n}}$ is
unipotent, it is enough to show that $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$
is a local algebra.
By Proposition 2.8, $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is uniserial with
the composition series $$k\subset
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{1}})\subset \cdots\subset
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})\subset
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})\subset \cdots\subset
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}).$$ Lemma 4.1 implies that either
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})/H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})^{+}H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p})^{\ast}$ or $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})
/H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})^{+}H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})$
$\cong k[x]/(x^{p})$ for any $1\leq i\leq n$. Here for a Hopf
algebra $H$, $H^{+}$ stands for the kernel of $\varepsilon:
\;H\rightarrow k$. To show $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is local,
it is enough to show
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})/H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})^{+}H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})\cong
k[x]/(x^{p})$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$ (In fact, if so then all
non-trivial paths will be nilpotent).
Otherwise, there is an $i$ such that
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})/H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})^{+}H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p})^{\ast}$. Take such $i$ as small as possible. By
assumption, $i\geq 2$. Thus
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})/H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})^{+}H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i}})\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p})^{\ast}$ implies that $$\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p}\equiv
\alpha_{p^{i-1}}\;\;\textrm{mod}\;k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}}.$$ And
thus $\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i}}\equiv
\alpha_{p^{i-1}}\;\;\textrm{mod}\;k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}}.$
Therefore there is an element $a\in k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}}$
such that $\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}}=\alpha_{p^{i-1}}+a$. Since $i$
is as small as possible, $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}})$ is local
and all non-trivial paths in $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}}$ are
nilpotent. More precisely, let $\alpha$ be a non-trivial path living
in $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}}$, then $\alpha^{p^{i-1}}=0$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*} \Delta(\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}})&=&(1\otimes \alpha_{p^{i-1}}+\alpha_{p^{i-1}}\otimes 1
+\sum_{0<l<p^{i-1}}\alpha_{l}\otimes \alpha_{p^{i-1}-l})^{p^{i-1}}\\
&=&1\otimes
\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}}+\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}}\otimes
1+\sum_{0<l<p^{i-1}}\alpha_{l}^{p^{i-1}}\otimes
\alpha_{p^{i-1}-l}^{p^{i-1}}\\
&=& 1\otimes
\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}}+\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}}\otimes 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
This implies that $\alpha_{p^{i-1}}^{p^{i-1}}=\alpha_{p^{i-1}}+a$ is
a primitive element and so there is a $\lambda\in k$ such that
$\alpha_{p^{i-1}}+a=\lambda\alpha_{1}$. Therefore,
$\alpha_{p^{i-1}}\in k\circlearrowleft_{p^{i-1}}$ which is
impossible.
\end{proof}
Combining Lemma 4.1, Propositions 4.2, 4.4 and 2.8, we get
\begin{corollary} Let $n$ be a positive integer and assume
that there is a commutative Hopf structure
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$.
Then either $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p^{n}})^{\ast}$ or $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is
the distribution algebra of a uniserial infinitesimal unipotent
commutative $k$-group.
\end{corollary}
\section{Classification and application}
Fix a positive integer $n$ and consider the coalgebra
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$. Assume that there is a Hopf structure on
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$. Since its coradically graded version
is generated by $\{\alpha_{p^{i}}|1\leq i\leq n-1\}$, it is also
generated by $\{\alpha_{p^{i}}|1\leq i\leq n-1\}$. So in order to
give the Hopf structure, it is enough to characterize the
relations between $\{\alpha_{p^{i}}|1\leq i\leq n-1\}$.
For any $0\leq d\leq n$, the Hopf algebra $L(n,d)$ (it is indeed a Hopf algebra by the following theorem) is defined to
be the Hopf algebra over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ with
relations:
\begin{equation} \alpha_{p^{i}}\alpha_{p^{j}}=\alpha_{p^{j}}\alpha_{p^{i}},\;\;\textrm{for}\;0\leq i,j\leq
n-1;\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \alpha_{p^{i}}^{p}=0,\;\;\textrm{for}\;i< d;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \alpha_{p^{i}}^{p}=\alpha_{p^{i-d}},\;\;\textrm{for}\;i\geq
d.
\end{equation}
The main result of this section is the following.
\begin{theorem} $L(n,d)$ is a Hopf algebra and any commutative
Hopf structure $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ is isomorphic
to an $L(n,d)$ for some $d$.
\end{theorem}
One of the main ingredients of the proof is the classification
result given in \cite{FRV}. Let's recall it. By
$\mathcal{W}:\;\mathbb{M}_{k}\rightarrow \mathbb{M}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ we
denote the affine commutative group scheme of \emph{Witt vectors}.
For any positive natural number $m$ let
$\mathcal{W}_{m}:\;\mathbb{M}_{k}\rightarrow
\mathbb{M}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the affine commutative group scheme of
\emph{Witt vectors of length $m$}. Denote the \emph{Frobenius map}
and \emph{Verschiebung} of $\mathcal{W}_{m}$ by $\mathcal{F}$ and
$\mathcal{V}$ respectively. For any finite commutative algebraic
group $\mathcal{G}$, its \emph{Cartier dual} is denoted by
$\mathcal{D(G)}$. For details, see \cite{DG}. An infinitesimal
unipotent commutative group $\mathcal{U}$ is called
$\mathcal{V}$-\emph{uniserial} if Coker$\mathcal{V}\cong
\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(k[x]/(x^{p}))$. Likewise, a unipotent infinitesimal group
$\mathcal{U}$ is called $\mathcal{F}$-\emph{uniserial} if
Ker$\mathcal{F}\cong\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(k[x]/(x^{p}))$. Note that
$\mathcal{G}$ is $\mathcal{V}$-uniserial or $\mathcal{F}$-uniserial
is equivalent to its distribution algebra $\mathcal{H(G)}$ is
uniserial (see Lemma 2.5 in \cite{FRV}).
Let $d,j,n\in \mathbb{N}$ and for $n\geq 1,\;d\geq 1$, we denote by
$\mathcal{U}_{n,d}$ the kernel of the endomorphism
$\mathcal{V}^{d}-\mathcal{F}:\; \mathcal{W}_{m}\rightarrow
\mathcal{W}_{m}$ with $m=n(d+1)$. Denote by $\mathcal{U}_{n,d}^{j}$
the intersection of $\mathcal{U}_{n,d}$ with the kernel of the
endomorphism
$\mathcal{V}^{(n-1)(d+1)+j}:\;\mathcal{W}_{m}\rightarrow
\mathcal{W}_{m}$ for $1\leq j\leq d$. The following is the main
result of \cite{FRV} (Theorem 1.2 in \cite{FRV}).
\begin{lemma} The following gives a complete list of representatives of
isomorphism classes of non-trivial uniserial infinitesimal unipotent
commutative $k$-groups:
\emph{(i) }$(\mathcal{W}_{d})_{1}$; $\;\;$\emph{(ii)}
$\mathcal{U}_{n,d}$; $\;\;$ \emph{(iii)} $\mathcal{U}_{n,d}^{j}$;
\emph{(iv)} $\mathcal{D}((\mathcal{W}_{d})_{1})$; $\;\;$\emph{(v)}
$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{U}_{n,d})$; $\;\;$ \emph{(vi)}
$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{U}_{n,d}^{j})$.
Moreover, the groups labeled (i)-(iii) are $\mathcal{V}$-uniserial
and those in (iv)-(vi) are $\mathcal{F}$-uniserial.
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof of the Theorem 5.1. } At first, since $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$
is commutative, there is a $k$-group $\mathcal{G}$ such that
$\mathcal{G}=\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))$. So the Frobenius map $\mathcal{F}$
and Verschiebung $\mathcal{V}$ can be defined for
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ too. Let's see what they are.
In order to explain our understanding, there is no harm to assume that both $\mathcal{F}$ and
$\mathcal{V}$ are Hopf endomorphisms of $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ for simplicity
since the path coalgebra can clearly be defined over $\mathbb{Z}$.
By the definition of Frobenius map, we know that
$$\mathcal{F}:\;H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\rightarrow H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}),\;\;
\alpha_{p^{i}}\mapsto \alpha_{p^{i}}^{p},\;\;\textrm{for}\;0<i<n.$$
Note that $\mathcal{V}$ is just the dual map of Frobenius map of
$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{G})$. Since as an algebra we have $(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})^{\ast}\cong
k[x]/(x^{p^{n}})$, the Frobenius map for
$(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})^{\ast}$ is given by $x\mapsto x^{p}$.
Note also that $\{\alpha_{i}|0\leq i\leq p^{n}-1\}$ are the dual basis of $\{x^{i}|0\leq i\leq
p^{n}-1\}$. Thus $\mathcal{V}$ is given by
$$\mathcal{V}:\;H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\rightarrow H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}),\;\;
\alpha_{p^{i}}\mapsto \alpha_{p^{i-1}},\;\;\textrm{for}\;0<i<n.$$
Thus if $\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))$ is unipotent,
then it is a $\mathcal{V}$-uniserial group.
According to Corollary 4.5, either $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p^{n}})^{\ast}$ or $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is
the distribution algebra of a uniserial infinitesimal unipotent
commutative $k$-group. If $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p^{n}})^{\ast}$, then
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong L(n,0)$. Otherwise,
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ is a local algebra which implies that
$\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))$ is infinitesimal and thus
a unipotent group. By the discussion above,
$\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))$ is an infinitesimal
unipotent $\mathcal{V}$-uniserial group. By Lemma 5.2, we have
$\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))\cong (\mathcal{W}_{d})_{1}$
or $\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))\cong \mathcal{U}_{m,d}$
or $\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))\cong
\mathcal{U}_{m,d}^{j}$ for some $m,d,j$. The first case implies that
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong L(n,n)$. Let us analyze the last
two cases. Recall that the coordinate ring of $\mathcal{W}_{n}$ is
$k[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]$. If $(d+1)|n$ (that is, we consider the
second case), we have a Hopf epimorphism
$$\pi:\;k[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]\twoheadrightarrow H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$$
and the following commutative diagram
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\begin{picture}(100,50)(0,20)
\put(0,70){\makebox(0,0){$ \mathcal{O}(\mathcal{W}_{n})$}}
\put(20,70){\vector(1,0){50}} \put(100,70){\makebox(0,0){$
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$}} \put(50,75){\makebox(0,0){$ \pi$}}
\put(10,60){\vector(0,-1){50}}\put(90,60){\vector(0,-1){50}}
\put(-15,35){\makebox(0,0){$ \mathcal{V}^{d}-\mathcal{F}$}}
\put(115,35){\makebox(0,0){$ \mathcal{V}^{d}-\mathcal{F}$}}
\put(0,0){\makebox(0,0){$ \mathcal{O}(\mathcal{W}_{n})$}}
\put(20,0){\vector(1,0){50}} \put(100,0){\makebox(0,0){$
H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$}}\put(50,5){\makebox(0,0){$ \pi$}}
\end{picture}
\end{figure}
By $\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))\cong
\mathcal{U}_{\frac{n}{d+1},d}$,
dim$_{k}\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U}_{\frac{n}{d+1},d})=p^{n}$. Therefore
the above commutative diagram and the definitions of
$\mathcal{F},\mathcal{V}$ for $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ imply that
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$ satisfies equations (5.1)-(5.3)
automatically. By comparing the dimension, equations (5.1)-(5.3) are
all the relations for $H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})$. Thus
$H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}})\cong L(n,d)$ with $(d+1)|n$. For the
last case (that is, $\operatorname{Spec}_{k}(H(k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}))\cong
\mathcal{U}_{m,d}^{j}$), the analysis is almost the same as the
second case and the only point we need to say is that the condition
``intersection with kernel of the endomorphism
$\mathcal{V}^{(n-1)(d+1)+j}$", appearing in the definition of
$\mathcal{U}_{m,d}^{j}$, is equivalent to the condition $(d+1)\nmid
n$.
Of course, $L(n,d)$ are all Hopf algebras now. In fact, the above
discussions show that we have $$L(n,0)\cong
(k\mathbb{Z}_{p^{n}})^{\ast},\;\;L(n,n)\cong k[x]/(x^{p^{n}}),$$ and
$L(n,d)\cong \mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U}_{\frac{n}{d+1},d})$ in case
$(d+1)|n$. If $(d+1)\nmid n$, then $n=m(d+1)+j$ for some $m,j$ with
$0<j<d+1$. The above discussions indicate that $L(n,d)\cong
\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U}^{j}_{m+1,d})$. $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\square$
\begin{corollary} Up to Hopf
isomorphisms there are exactly $n+1$ classes of non-isomorphic
commutative Hopf structures on the coalgebra
$k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ for any natural number $n$.
\end{corollary}
As another direct consequence of this theorem, the commutative
infinitesimal groups with 1-dimensional Lie algebras can be
classified now.
\begin{corollary} Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a commutative infinitesimal
group. If dim$_{k}$Lie$(\mathcal{G})=1$, then $\mathcal{H(G)}\cong
L(n,d)$ for some $n,d$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By dim$_{k}$Lie$(\mathcal{G})=1$, the set of primitive
elements of $\mathcal{H(G)}$ is 1-dimensional. Note that
$\mathcal{H(G)}$ is always pointed, $\mathcal{H(G)}$ can be embedded
into the path coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft$ (Lemma 2.1). Thus there
is a natural number $n$ such that $\mathcal{H(G)}$ is a Hopf
structure over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$ by Proposition 2.6.
Thanks to Theorem 5.1, $\mathcal{H(G)}\cong L(n,d)$ for some $d$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \emph{(1)} It is known that if we take
$k:=\mathbb{F}_{p}$ then the multiplication of the Witt vector group
scheme indeed corresponds to the additive of the $p$-adic numbers.
Theorem 5.1 gives us some hint that sometimes it is possible to
explain the addition of the $p$-adic numbers through the
comultiplication of path coalgebras.
\emph{(2)} For any $L(n,d)$, there is still one thing which is not
clear to us. That is, we don't know how to give the expression of
each path through generators although we can give in some special
cases (see the example below).
\emph{(3)} Not all Hopf structures over $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{n}}$
for some $n\geq 2$ are always commutative. In fact, set $p=2$ and
consider the associative algebra $H$ generated by $x,y$ with
relations
$$xy-yx=x,\;\;x^{2}=y^{2}=0.$$
Define the comultiplication $\Delta$, counit $\varepsilon$ and the
antipode through $$\Delta(x)=1\otimes x+x\otimes
1,\;\;\Delta(y)=1\otimes y+y\otimes 1+x\otimes x,$$
$$\varepsilon(x)=\varepsilon(y)=0,\;\;S(x)=-x,\;\;S(y)=-y.$$
It is straightforward to show that $H$ is indeed a Hopf algebra over
the path coalgebra $k\circlearrowleft_{p^{2}}$. Clearly, it is not
commutative.
\end{remark}
\begin{example} \emph{For the Hopf algebra $L(2,1)$, one can see that up to a coalgebra automorphism}
$$\alpha_{sp+t}=\frac{1}{s!t!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{t},\;\;\emph{\textrm{for}}\;0\leq s\leq p-1,\;0\leq t\leq p-1.$$
\emph{In fact, we can prove this by using induction on the lengths
of pathes. If the length is 1, it is clear. Now assume it is true
for the pathes with lengths not more than $sp+t$. Now we consider
the case $sp+t+1$. To show this case, begin with an observation at
first. For any element $p$ in $k\circlearrowleft$, one always have}
$$\Delta(p)=\sum_{i=0}^{n} \alpha_{i}\otimes p_{(i)}$$
\emph{where $p_{(i)}$ are uniquely determined since
$1,\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\ldots$ is a basis of $k\circlearrowleft$.
For two elements $p,q$, the basic observation is, up to a coalgebra
automorphism,}
$$p=q\;\;\;\;\emph{\textrm{if and only if}} \;\;\;\;p_{(1)}=q_{(1)}.\;\;\;(\star)$$
\emph{Now we consider the case $sp+t+1$. If $0<t< p-1$, we just need
to show that
$\alpha_{sp+t+1}=\frac{1}{s!(t+1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{t+1}$.
By $(\star)$, it is enough to show that
$\alpha_{sp+t}=(\frac{1}{s!(t+1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{t+1})_{(1)}$.
Note that by assumption
$\frac{1}{s!(t+1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{t+1}=\frac{1}{t+1}\alpha_{sp+t}\alpha_{1}$
and direct computation shows that
$(\alpha_{sp+t}\alpha_{1})_{(1)}=(t+1)\alpha_{sp+t}$.}
\emph{If $t=0$, we need show that
$\alpha_{sp+1}=\frac{1}{s!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{sp}\alpha_{1}$
by assumption. Clearly, $(\alpha_{sp+1})_{(1)}=\alpha_{sp}$ and
$(\alpha_{sp}\alpha_{1})_{(1)}=\alpha_{(s-1)p+(p-1)}\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{sp}$.
Note that in $L(2,1)$, $\alpha_{1}^{p}=0$ and so
$\alpha_{(s-1)p+(p-1)}\alpha_{1}=0$. By $(\star)$ again,
$\alpha_{sp+1}=\frac{1}{s!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}$. }
\emph{If $t=p-1$, the equality that we need check is
$\alpha_{(s+1)p}=\frac{1}{(s+1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s+1}$. Also,
computations show that
$(\alpha_{p}^{s+1})_{(1)}=(s+1)\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{p-1}=(s+1)\frac{1}{(p-1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{p-1}$
and so
$(\frac{1}{(s+1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s+1})_{(1)}=\frac{1}{s!(p-1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{p-1}$.
Meanwhile,
$(\alpha_{(s+1)p})_{(1)}=\alpha_{sp+(p-1)}=\frac{1}{s!(p-1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s}\alpha_{1}^{p-1}$
by assumption. Using $(\star)$ again,
$\alpha_{(s+1)p}=\frac{1}{(s+1)!}\alpha_{p}^{s+1}$.}
\end{example}
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:} The research was supported by the
NSF of China (10601052, 10801069, 10971206). The second author is
supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under the
item ``JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers" and
Grand-in-Aid for Foreign JSPS Fellow. He thanks Professor A. Masuoka
for stimulating discussions. Some ideas was gotten during the second
and the third authors visited Chen Institute of Mathematics and they
thank Professor Cheng-Ming Bai for his warm-hearted helping. Part of
this work was done when the first and second authors visited the
University of Cologne under the financial support from DAAD. They
would also like to thank their host Professor Steffen K\"{o}nig for
his kind hospitality.
|
\section{Introduction}
Mastication is an in-mouth fragmentation process in which food is broken,
ground or crushed by the teeth to prepare for swallowing and digestion \cite{Bourne03}.
In general, a major problem of the oral process
observation analysis is lack of direct visualization of the process itself.
This fact indicates that by investigating the food status
before and after eating experimentally and numerically, we
can understand some of the principal features of mastication
processes and propose some phenomenological models \cite{LPAB02}.
As the first approximation, we propose that mastication is
a sequential fragmentation in the oral cavity between the teeth and food.
Fragmentation is a very complicated phenomenon, and it is difficult to
understand its dynamics.
One of methods used to understand the fragmentation process is
to investigate a fragment-size distribution.
The fragment-size distribution resulting from various types of fracture
has attracted the interest of physicists for many years.
We can give a few examples for the studies of the fragment-size distributions,
the studies of astelloids \cite{Klacka92}, glass rods \cite{IM92}, glass
plates \cite{KSH03}, egg-shells \cite{WKHK04} and so on.
In dental science, there has been a considerable study of the
fragment-size distribution \cite{OBBK84,BAMH93,PMW04,JMMDWP07}.
We also experimentally studied the fragment-size distribution
by masticating raw carrots, which are regarded as a brittle material \cite{KKSM06}.
We reported that a lognormal distribution well fits the entire region
for masticated fragments of raw carrots for several chewing
strokes.
The above result indicates that the fragmentation of raw carrots by human
mastication is characterized by the
effect of random multiplicative stochastic processes in statistics \cite{CS88}.
Solid foods which need mastication by the teeth to eat can be categorized into four
groups by means of bite-force curve observed in the first chew of humans \cite{KSA01}.
They are A) sponge-like foods (such as bread and sponge cake), B) gels (such as agar
jelly, cooked rice, and fish gel), C) wet crisp foods (such as raw carrot, apple and
cucumber), and D) dry crisp foods (such as cracker and cookie).
As raw carrot belonging in the group C was studied in our previous paper \cite{KKSM06},
we choose fish sausage from the gel group.
Generally, gels are viscoelastic unlike crisp foods.
The mechanical characteristics of viscoelastic gels were soft, easy to deform.
Therefore, the viscoelastic food are even chewable for the elderly \cite{SSM07}.
On the other hand, they are difficult to break off completely \cite{KHDS05, KNYYHS07},
though it is homogeneous and isotropic nature.
We have a little information for the fragmentation process of viscoelastic food.
The gel structure of fish sausage formed by fish protein molecular networks.
Among the four groups discussed above, saliva absorption effect during mastication may
be greater in sponge-like food which has porous structure ready to hold liquid, and
in dry-crisp food with high water absorption capacity.
However since gel type food and wet-crisp foods are rich in water, no significant saliva
absorption may occur.
In the model proposed by Hutchings and Lillford \cite{HL88}, mastication is the process
to break down the food structure and to lubricate the bolus surface ready to swallow.
Evidently, the former is the main effect required for fish sausage and raw carrot.
To discuss the differences in fragmentation by human mastication between those two groups
of food is valuable.
In this paper, we present an experimental study of the fragmentation of
fish sausage by human mastication.
So we examine data fittings by various distributions.
Finally, we discuss a plausible process of fragmentation of fish sausage
by mastication in accordance with physical viewpoints.
\section{Materials and Methods}
{\it Test food and subjects}.
We used fish sausage (Osakanano-sausage, Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Lid., JAPAN) as test
food in this study.
The test food was cut into a cylinder (diameter and height; $24$ mm and $15$ mm,
respectively) of about $7$ g.
Seven healthy subjects (4 males and 3 females, mean age 26.4 years) voluntarily
participated in this study.
They had natural dentition without severe malocclusion and periodontal disease.
Written informed consent was obtained from each subject after full explanation of
the experiment.\\
\\
{\it Collect of food fragments}.
First, each subject masticated the test food until swallowing as usual to count
the number of chewing cycles until swallowing.
Next, we calculated the individual number of chewing cycles until the halfway of
the mastication.
To collect the food bolus at the halfway of the mastication and just before
swallowing, subjects were asked to masticate the test food until individually
prescribed number of chewing cycles, and they spat the bolus into a beaker.
The collection of food bolus was performed two times per subject and each condition.
In order to expectorate entirely the subject rinsed their mouth with water.
The food fragments and water were carefully stirred in a beaker with a grass rod
and pass through a sieve with a mesh size of $0.5$ mm.
After fine fragments were washed through the sieve with running water, the fragments
on the sieve were spread evenly on the transparent acrylic board ($300$ mm $\times$ $300$ mm).
Then, we made a copy of this board using copy machine (DocuCentra-II, FUJI XEROX, JAPAN)
without cover and stored the copy on a personal computer at a suitable resolution
(about $0.13$ mm/pixel).\\
\\
{\it Statistics}.
The additional data from second trials was then assimilated and sorted
in terms of size from the largest one, i.e., cumulative number.
Then, we obtained the cumulative size distribution for each number of
chewing strokes and applied a suitable distribution to fit a curve
to the data in each case.
For fitting the curve, we performed a nonlinear least-square method using R
(version 2.4.1 for windows) \cite{R}.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig3_32.eps}
\label{fig:Fig1a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig3_16.eps}
\label{fig:Fig1b}}
\caption{
Log-log plots for the cumulative numberof masticated food
fragments of fish sausage after (a) 32 and (b) 16 chews.
The solid line indecates a lognormal distribution for (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 1161,
\bar{s} = 0.0375, \sigma = 0.859$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.08$, and
(b) $N_{\rm{T}} = 688, \bar{s} = 0.0559, \sigma = 0.965$ and
$N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.04$.
}
\label{fig:Fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig5_24.eps}
\label{fig:Fig2a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig5_12.eps}
\label{fig:Fig2b}}
\caption{
Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} except for the number of chewing
strokes, i.e., (a) 24 and (b) 12.
The fitting parameters are (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 620,
\bar{s} = 0.0535, \sigma = 1.10$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.02$, and
(b) $N_{\rm{T}} = 319, \bar{s} = 0.0837, \sigma = 1.13$ and
$N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.02$.
}
\label{fig:Fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig1_50_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig3a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig1_25_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig3b}}
\caption{
Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} except for the numner of chewing
strokes, i.e., (a) 50 and (b) 25.
The fitting parameters are (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 1162,
\bar{s} = 0.0341, \sigma = 0.754$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.11$, and (b)
$N_{\rm{T}} = 784, \bar{s} = 0.0369, \sigma = 1.11$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.15$.
The insets show semi-log plots for the tail part.
The fitting parameters are (a) $A = 0.732$, $B = 0.0497$ and
(b) $A = 0.474$, $B = 0.118$.
}
\label{fig:Fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig2_70_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig4a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig2_35_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig4b}}
\caption{
Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} except for the number of chewing
strokes, i.e., (a) 70 and (b) 35.
The fitting parameters are (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 1162,
\bar{s} = 0.0260, \sigma = 0.750$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.12$, and
(b) $N_{\rm{T}} = 873, \bar{s} = 0.0402, \sigma = 0.964$ and
$N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.16$.
The fitting parameters for the insets are (a) $A = 0.568$, $B = 0.0425$
and (b) $A = 0.531$, $B = 0.103$.
}
\label{fig:Fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig4_58_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig5a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig4_29_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig5b}}
\caption{
Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} except for the number of chewing
strokes, i.e., (a) 58 and (b) 29.
The fitting parameters are (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 1167,
\bar{s} = 0.0355, \sigma = 0.729$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.08$, and
(b) $N_{\rm{T}} = 611, \bar{s} = 0.0471, \sigma = 1.25$ and
$N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.15$.
The fitting parameters for the insets are (a) $A = 0.648$, $B = 0.0562$
and (b) $A = 0.643$, $B = 0.139$.
}
\label{fig:Fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig6_30.eps}
\label{fig:Fig6a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig6_15_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig6b}}
\caption{
Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} except for the number of chewing
strokes, i.e., (a) 30 and (b) 15.
The fitting parameters are (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 576,
\bar{s} = 0.0595, \sigma = 1.03$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.03$, and
(b) $N_{\rm{T}} = 371, \bar{s} = 0.0384, \sigma = 1.55$ and
$N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.30$.
The fitting parameters for the inset are (b) $A = 0.468$, $B = 0.248$.
}
\label{fig:Fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig7_20.eps}
\label{fig:Fig7a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics*[width=0.42\linewidth]{Fig7_10_rev1.eps}
\label{fig:Fig7b}}
\caption{
Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1} except for the number of chewing
strokes, i.e., (a) 20 and (b) 10.
The fitting parameters are (a) $N_{\rm{T}} = 722,
\bar{s} = 0.0468, \sigma = 1.06$ and $N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.15$, and
(b) $N_{\rm{T}} = 326, \bar{s} = 0.0444, \sigma = 1.34$ and
$N / N_{\rm{T}} = 1.34$.
The fitting parameters for the inset are (b) $A = 0.439$, $B = 0.236$.
}
\label{fig:Fig7}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:Fig1}-\ref{fig:Fig7} show the cumulative
number of food-fragments.
It should be noted that different figures correspond to different subjects, respectively.
These figures are classified roughly into two groups based on
fitting curves, namely, single lognormal distribution
(Figs. \ref{fig:Fig1}, \ref{fig:Fig2}, \ref{fig:Fig6a} and
\ref{fig:Fig7a}) and lognormal distribution with an exponential
tail (Figs. \ref{fig:Fig3}, \ref{fig:Fig4}, \ref{fig:Fig5},
\ref{fig:Fig6b} and \ref{fig:Fig7b}).
For example, as Fig. \ref{fig:Fig1a} shows, the fragment-size
distribution is nicely approximated by a single lognormal
distribution given as
\begin{equation}
n(s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}s} \exp[-\frac{(\log (s/\bar{s})^2)}{2\sigma^2}],
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ and $\bar{s}$ are the fitting parameters, respectively.
The cumulative form for the lognormal distribution is
\begin{equation}
N(s) = \frac{N_{\mathrm{T}}}{2}(1 - \mathrm{erf}(\frac{\log (s/\bar{s})}{\sqrt{2} \sigma})),
\label{eq:cum_lognormal}
\end{equation}
where $N_{T}$ is the total number of fragments and $\mathrm{erf}(x)$ is the
error function defined as
$\mathrm{erf}(x) \equiv (2/\sqrt{\pi})\int_{0}^{x}\exp(-y^2)dy$.
A similar result was reported in our previous study using raw carrot \cite{KKSM06}.
On the other hand, as shown in Figs. \ref{fig:Fig3}, the majority of distributions belong to
the small region approximated by the lognormal distribution.
However, the tail part of the distributions deviates upwards from the lognormal distribution.
Hence, we propose that the size segregation into small and large food fragment groups
occured due to physical or other properties of fish sausage.
The insets of Figs. \ref{fig:Fig3} show semi-log plots for the tail part
(same as Figs. \ref{fig:Fig4}, \ref{fig:Fig5}, \ref{fig:Fig6b}
and \ref{fig:Fig7b}).
Since the curves on the insets are plotted linearly, the large food fragments were
fitted to not a lognormal but an exponential distribution,
\begin{equation}
N(s) = A e^{-\frac{s}{B}},
\end{equation}
where $A$ and $B$ are the fitting parameters, respectively.
The physical origin of an exponential distribution of fragmentation is very simple.
If we assume that a fragment-size at each stage of sequential fragmentation is completely
random, then we obtain the exponential distribution as the fragment-size distribution
\cite{MS88}.
In the case of our mastication experiments, we think that a similar phenomenon like the above assumption
happens.
Using the above results, we propose a mechanism for the mastication process of fish sausages
(see Fig. \ref{fig:Fig8}).
In the first stage of mastication, a unit of fish sausage is broken into a small amount of
fragments.
Fish sausage is then divided into several more fragments without generating small fragments,
while raw carrot is divided into many fragments of varied sizes \cite{KKSM06}.
The difference of the fragmentation pattern between fish sausage and raw carrot is derived from
their physical properties that is fish sausage behaves more plastic than raw carrot in the mouth
If the generated fragments of fish sausage are larger than about $0.1$ cm$^2$, the fragments
are divided into several fragments again ({\it exponential} in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig8}).
If the generated fragments are smaller, the fragments are ground by the back teeth, and then many,
heterogeneous and smaller fragments are generated.
After several cycles, the fragments caused by the successive mastication process for fish sausage
will satisfy the two threshold hypothesis suggested by J. B. Hutchings and P. J. Lillford \cite{HL88}.
Here, the chewed food is assembled into a bolus by a complicated movement of the palate and
the tongue, then just before swallowing \cite{H04}.
According to this proposition, we will conjecture that a fragment-size distribution obtained by
grinding fish sausage leads to a lognormal distribution ({\it lognormal} in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig8}).
In fact, Epstein theoretically showed that the fragment-size distribution by grinding solid leads
to lognormal \cite{Epstein48}.
The proof of this conjecture is one of our future problems.
As mentioned above, we conclude that there are two different kinds of fragment-size distributions,
i.e., single lognormal distribution and lognormal distribution with exponential tail, because the
tail part of distribution drifted either downwards or upwards from a lognormal distribution fitted
to a small fragment group.
This fact indicates that there are differences, such as saliva production and so on, in the mastication
process for fish sausage among individuals, unlike for raw carrot \cite{KKSM06}.
In fact, individual subjects have shown different behaviour in managing food to terminal swallow \cite{H04}.
The second possibility is that the single lognormal distribution could be close to the lognormal
distribution with exponential tail in repeated experiments because we must discuss about the
{\it probability} density distribution.
This is also our second future problem.
\section{Conclusion}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig9.eps}
\caption{A flow chart of the mastication process for fish sausages.}
\label{fig:Fig8}
\end{figure}
In summary, we have studied the fragment-size distribution of masticated viscoelastic food (fish sausage).
We classified the obtained results from 7 humans into two groups, namely, the single lognormal group and
the lognormal distribution with exponential tail.
The former group shows a similar result as the one in our previous studies using raw carrot.
The latter group is the particular case of masticated fish sausage.
The fragment-size distribution for the latter group shows a double-size-group tendency, i.e.,
the majority of the distribution belongs to the {\it lognormal} distribution, while the tail behaves
as the {\it exponential} distribution.
In order to explain this tendency, we suggest a mastication model for fish sausage shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig8}.
However, the mastication model remains unfinished, and then we have a lot of further problems, such as
the size distribution by grinding fragmentation among others.
\begin{acknowledgments}
One of authors (N.K.) is grateful to M. Matsushita, M. Katori, J. Wakita and S. Andraus for many stimulating discussions.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\section{Introduction}
In \cite[\S 2]{MR2183279}, Etingof, Nikshych and Ostrik ask if every fusion category over the complex numbers can be defined over a cyclotomic field. More precisely, does every fusion category over $\mathbb C$ have a complete rational form over a cyclotomic field? (See Section \ref{sec:background} for definitions and examples of the key notions ``rational form" and ``complete rational form.")
Their question is motivated by the following results.
\begin{itemize}
\item The representation category of any finite group has a complete rational form over a cyclotomic field. (This is a classical result of Brauer's, see \cite[\S 12.3]{MR0450380}.)
\item The semisimplified representation category of any quantum group at a root of unity has a complete rational form over a cyclotomic field. (This follows from the usual construction of Weyl modules.)
\item The Frobenius-Perron dimension of any object in a fusion category is a cyclotomic integer \cite{MR2183279}.
\item The global dimension of a fusion category is a cyclotomic integer \cite{MR2183279}.
\item The entries of the $S$-matrix of a modular category lie in a cyclotomic field \cite{MR1266785, MR1120140}.
\end{itemize}
We answer this question in the negative.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:noncyclotomic}
The principal even part of the Haagerup subfactor and the principal even part of the extended Haagerup subfactor are fusion categories which do not have a complete rational form over any cyclotomic field.
\end{thm}
We hope that this result will eventually allow a more robust technique for establishing the ``exotic" nature of these fusion categories. No construction that preserves cyclotomicity can produce these fusion categories starting from groups or quantum groups. Alternately this result might suggest new techniques for constructing these fusion categories.
Let $\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1$ be the Haagerup \cite{MR1686551, 0902.1294} and extended Haagerup \cite{0909.4099} subfactors which are the unique subfactors with the following principal graph pairs.
\begin{align*}
\Gamma(\mathcal{H}_0) & = \left \{ \mathfig{0.25}{haagerup}, \mathfig{0.25}{dual-haagerup} \right \} \\
\Gamma(\mathcal{H}_1) & = \left \{ \mathfig{0.4}{EH}, \mathfig{0.4}{dual-EH} \right \}
\end{align*}
Given a subfactor $A \subset B$ there are two tensor categories $\mathcal{S}^p$ and $\mathcal{S}^d$ (consisting of certain $A$-$A$ bimodules and certain $B$-$B$ bimodules respectively) called the principal even part and dual even part. If the subfactor is finite depth then $\mathcal{S}^p$ and $\mathcal{S}^d$ are fusion categories over $\mathbb C$. We will be looking at the fusion categories $\mathcal{H}_\ell^p$ and $\mathcal{H}_\ell^d$ for $\ell \in \{0,1\}$.
Denote by $D_0 = \frac{5+\sqrt{13}}{2} \simeq 4.30278$ and $D_1 = \frac{8}{3}+\frac{2}{3} \operatorname{Re} \sqrt[3]{\frac{13}{2} \left(-5-3 i \sqrt{3}\right)} \simeq 4.3772$ the Jones indices of $\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1$. Fix
\begin{align*}
\lambda_0 & = i \sqrt{\frac{-1+\sqrt{13}}{6}} \simeq 0.658983 i \\
\intertext{and}
\lambda_1& = \sqrt{-\frac{1}{5}+2 \operatorname{Re} \sqrt[3]{\frac{117- 65 i \sqrt{3}}{2250}}} \simeq 0.648585 i.
\end{align*}
Let $\zeta_m$ denote the primitive $m$th root of unity $\exp(2\pi i/m)$. Note that
\begin{align*}
D_0 & = 2 -\zeta_{13}^{2} -\zeta_{13}^5 -\zeta_{13}^6 -\zeta_{13}^7-\zeta_{13}^8-\zeta_{13}^{11}\\
D_1 & = 3+ \zeta_{13}^2 + \zeta_{13}^3 + \zeta_{13}^{10} + \zeta_{13}^{11}
\end{align*}
so $D_\ell \in \mathbb Q(\zeta_{13})$ while $\lambda_\ell$ is not cyclotomic. In fact, $\mathbb Q(\lambda_\ell)$ is not Galois. The Galois group of the Galois closure of $\mathbb Q(\lambda_0)$ is the dihedral group of order $8$, and the Galois group of the Galois closure of $\mathbb Q(\lambda_1)$ is $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z \wr \mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z \cong \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z \times A_4$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:detailed}
The following statements hold for $\ell = 0,1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{pa:construct} The even parts $\mathcal{H}_\ell^p$ and $\mathcal{H}_\ell^d$ each have a (possibly incomplete) rational form over $\mathbb Q(D_\ell)$.
\item \label{pa:dualprojs} The dual even part $\mathcal{H}_\ell^d$ has a complete rational form over $k$ if and only if $D_\ell \in k$.
\item \label{pa:principalprojs} The principal even part $\mathcal{H}_\ell^p$ has a complete rational form over $k$ if and only if $\lambda_\ell \in k$.
\item \label{pa:center} The Drinfel'd center $Z(\mathcal{H}_0^p) \cong Z(\mathcal{H}_0^d)$ has a complete rational form over $k$ as a ribbon fusion category if and only if $\zeta_{39} \in k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{thm:noncyclotomic} follows immediately from part \ref{pa:principalprojs} of Theorem \ref{thm:detailed}. Part 4 is of interest because it means these results do not exclude the possibility that every braided fusion category is defined over a cyclotomic field. We prove part \ref{pa:construct} and the ``if" direction of parts \ref{pa:dualprojs} and \ref{pa:principalprojs} in Section \ref{sec:construction}. We prove the ``only if" direction of parts \ref{pa:dualprojs} and \ref{pa:principalprojs} in Section \ref{sec:noncyclotomic}. We prove part \ref{pa:center} in Section \ref{sec:center}.
The main technique in this paper is to show that, in the context of fusion categories associated to 3-supertransitive subfactors, the (correctly normalized) ``twisted moments" of any $\mathbb Q$-linear combination of projections gives an element of the base field of any complete rational form. These twisted moments can be computed using techniques from Jones's preprint \cite{quadratic}. In the construction of the Haagerup subfactor by Peters \cite{0902.1294}, the moments and twisted moments of the ``generator" are the only scalars needed to define the subfactor. The $\lambda_\ell$ above are $\mathbb Q(D_\ell)$ multiples of the third twisted moments of $\frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{1}_P-\boldsymbol{1}_Q\right)$ (where $P$ and $Q$ are the two simple objects immediately after the branch).
There is a third subfactor with index in the interval $(2, 3+\sqrt{3})$ called the Asaeda-Haagerup subfactor \cite{MR1686551}. Our techniques do not give an obstruction to cyclotomicity for either of the fusion categories coming from the Asaeda-Haagerup subfactor, because the analogous moments and twisted moments are cyclotomic. However, since there is not yet a construction of the Asaeda-Haagerup planar algebra following the Jones-Peters approach \cite{quadratic, 0902.1294, 0909.4099}, the lack of obstruction does not guarantee that the even parts of the Asaeda-Haagerup subfactor are cyclotomic.
The authors would like to thank Emily Peters for teaching us about the Haagerup planar algebra and Pavel Etingof for encouraging us to write this paper. We'd like to thank Victor Ostrik, Ben Webster, and Pasquale Zito for suggesting arguments which we used to improve Section \ref{sec:center}. (For Pasquale Zito's suggestions, see Math Overflow \url{http://mathoverflow.net/questions/17641/}.) In addition we would also like to thank Stephen Bigelow, Vaughan Jones, Dmitri Nikshych, and Dylan Thurston for helpful conversations. Scott Morrison was at the Miller Institute for Basic Research at UC Berkeley during this work, and Noah Snyder was supported by an NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship at Columbia University.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\input{text/background}
\section{The shaded planar algebras $\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1$}
\label{sec:construction}
\input{text/construction}
\section{Rational forms and twisted moments}
\label{sec:noncyclotomic}
\input{text/noncyclotomic}
\section{The Drinfel'd center}
\label{sec:center}
\input{text/center}
\section{Galois conjugates}
\label{sec:galois}
\input{text/galois}
\hfuzz5pt
\newcommand{}{}
\bibliographystyle{gtart}
\subsection{Fusion categories and fields of definition}
Let $k$ be a field. An object in an additive category is called simple if it has no non-trivial proper subobjects. An additive category is called semisimple if every object is a direct sum of simple objects (and in particular, every indecomposable object is simple). A category is called idempotent complete (or Karoubian or psuedoabelian) if every idempotent has an image (that is, a subobject which the idempotent factors through). It is easy to see that any idempotent complete additive semisimple category is abelian. A \emph{split semisimple category over $k$} is a semisimple category over $k$ such that every simple object $X$ is split simple, that is $\End{X} = k$. If $k$ is an algebraically closed field, then any semisimple category over $k$ is automatically split.
A \emph{fusion category over $k$} is a $k$-linear abelian semisimple rigid monoidal category with finitely many isomorphism classes of simple objects. A \emph{split fusion category over $k$} is a fusion category over $k$ which is split semisimple. (Warning, some authors require that all fusion categories be split.)
\begin{example}
Consider $\mathbb R[\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z]\text{-mod}$. This is a fusion category over $\mathbb R$ with two objects: the trivial module and the $2$-dimensional representation (where the generator acts by $120$-degree rotation). It is not split fusion because the endomorphism algebra of the $2$-dimensional representation is $\mathbb C$.
\end{example}
Suppose that $k<K$ is an inclusion of fields and that $\mathcal{C}_K$ is a semisimple abelian category over $K$ possibly with some fixed additional structures (e.g. it's a monoidal rigid category or a braided category). A \emph{rational form} of $\mathcal{C}$ over $k$ is a semisimple abelian category $\mathcal{C}_k$ over $k$ (again with the same structure) together with an equivalence between the idempotent completion of $\mathcal{C}_k \otimes_k K$ is and $\mathcal{C}_K$ (this equivalence should preserve the additional structure). A \emph{complete rational form} of $\mathcal{C}$ over $k$ is a rational form $\mathcal{C}_k$ such that $\mathcal{C}_k \otimes_k K \cong \mathcal{C}_K$, in other words, a complete rational form is a rational form such that $\mathcal{C}_k \otimes_k K$ is already idempotent complete.
There are several reasons for considering incomplete rational forms. First, many constructions do not preserve completeness. For example, the category of $G$-graded rational vector spaces is a complete rational form of the category of $G$-graded complex vector spaces, while the center of the former category is only an incomplete rational form of the center of the latter. Second, any fusion category is the category of representations of a weak Hopf algebra $A$ \cite{MR1976459, 0206113, 9904073, MR2522429} and if that weak Hopf algebra has an rational form $A_k$ then $A_k-\text{mod}$ is, in general, an incomplete rational form for $A-\text{mod}$. Third, the notion of incomplete rational form arises naturally in the context of planar algebras. Finally, it can be convenient to show that $\mathcal{C}_k$ is a complete rational form by first showing that it is a rational form (which is often easy for the above reasons) and then explicitly checking completeness.
Notice that if $\mathcal{C}_K$ is a split fusion category over $K$ and $\mathcal{C}_k$ is a rational form over $k < K$ then $\mathcal{C}_k$ is complete if and only if $\mathcal{C}_k$ is a split fusion category.
If $\mathcal{C}_K$ is a split fusion category then there is a more concrete description of having a complete rational form (pointed out to us by Victor Ostrik). A split fusion category $\mathcal{C}_K$ can be completely described by a collection of vector spaces $\Hom{}{V_a \otimes V_b}{V_c}$ over $K$, and associativity maps between the appropriate tensor products of these spaces. The fusion category $\mathcal{C}_K$ has a complete rational form over $k$ if and only if there exists a basis for each of these vector spaces such that all the associativity maps are given by matrices with entries in $k$.
\begin{example} \label{ex:graded}
$\mathcal{C}_\mathbb C = \mathbb C[\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z]\text{-mod}$ has a complete rational form over $\mathbb Q$. To see this notice that $\mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z$ is abelian, and hence $\mathbb C[\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z]\text{-mod}$ is equivalent to the category of $\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z$-graded complex vector spaces. We can take $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb Q$ to be the category of $\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z$-graded rational vector spaces.
\end{example}
\begin{example} \label{ex:incomplete}
Consider $G$ a finite group. Notice that all of the representations of a group $G$ are defined over a field $k$ if and only if $k[G]\text{-mod}$ is split. All representations of any finite group $G$ are defined over $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{n})$, where $n$ is the exponent of $G$. Therefore, $\mathbb C[G]\text{-mod}$ has a complete rational form over a cyclotomic field. On the other hand as Example \ref{ex:graded} shows, it is possible for $\mathbb C[G]\text{-mod}$ to be defined over a smaller field than the minimal field of definition for all its representations.
\end{example}
If $\mathcal{C}$ is a $k$-linear category, and $k < K$ is an inclusion of fields and the idempotent additive completion of $\mathcal{C} \otimes_k K$ is semisimple, then $\mathcal{C}$ is semisimple. This follows from the characterization of semisimplicity in terms of semisimplicity of the endomorphism algebras, given in the next Lemma, and the equivalence of semisimplicity of artinian rings with the absence of nilpotent ideals \cite[p. 203]{MR1009787}. The same is not true for split semisimplicity as $\mathbb R[\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z]\text{-mod}$ is not split semisimple while $\mathbb C[\mathbb Z/3 \mathbb Z]\text{-mod}$ is. The converse is also false at least when $k<K$ is inseparable \cite[Question 5.1]{MR1995781}.
\begin{lem}
A $k$-linear additive idempotent complete category $\mathcal{C}$ is semisimple if and only if the endomorphism algebra of every object is a semisimple algebra. The simple objects are exactly those objects whose endomorphism algebras are division rings.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Schur's lemma, if $\mathcal{C}$ is semisimple then the endomorphism algebra of an object is a sum of matrix algebras over division rings, which is a semisimple algebra.
In the other direction, suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ has all endomorphism algebras semisimple. Since the category is idempotent complete, one may use the projections in the endomorphism algebras to decompose any object into a direct sum of objects whose endomorphism algebras are division rings. If $X$ and $Y$ are non-isomorphic objects whose endomorphism algebras are division rings, the semisimplicity of $\End{X\oplus Y}$ shows that there are no nonzero maps between $X$ and $Y$. Hence all objects whose endomorphism algebras are division rings are simple and every object is semisimple.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Subfactors and category theory}
The main examples in this paper come from the theory of subfactors. A subfactor is an inclusion $A \subset B$ of von Neumann algebras with trivial centers. The applications of subfactor theory to tensor categories involve subfactors of finite index.
From such a subfactor $A \subset B$, we can construct a pair of $\mathbb C$-linear abelian semisimple rigid tensor categories (that is, categories that only fail to be fusion categories by possibly having infinitely many non-isomorphic simple objects). See \cite{MR1424954} for more details. These tensor categories are the subcategory of the category of $A\text{-}A$ bimodules tensor generated by ${}_A B_A$ and the subcategory of $B\text{-}B$ bimodules tensor generated by ${}_B B_A \otimes_A {}_A B_B$. These tensor categories are fusion if and only if the subfactor is finite depth.
It will not be important to this paper to understand subfactors or their bimodules. Although our main examples come from subfactors, these subfactors can be constructed via their planar algebras, and we can define the two associated tensor categories directly from the planar algebra.
\subsection{Shaded planar algebras}
One of the main tools for understanding monoidal categories (and more generally $2$-categories) is the diagram calculus (pioneered by Penrose \cite{MR0281657}, Joyal-Street \cite{MR1113284}, Reshetikhin-Turaev \cite{MR1036112}, etc.) of string diagrams. Planar algebras are a version of this diagram calculus which allows you to study monoidal categories from the point of view of a particular object, where you only consider strings labelled by that object.
In particular, given a subfactor the resulting string diagrams have regions which are checkerboard shaded (corresponding to $A$ and $B$) and unoriented unlabelled strings (depending on the shading this string represents either ${}_A B_B$ or ${}_B B_A$). The structure here is a called a ``shaded planar algebra."
We sketch the definition here. For further details, see \cite[\S 2]{MR1865703}, \cite[\S 0]{math.QA/9909027}, or \cite{MR1957084}.
\begin{defn}
A {\em (shaded) planar tangle}
has an outer disk,
a finite number of inner disks,
and a finite number of non-intersecting strings.
A string can be either a closed loop
or an edge with endpoints on boundary circles.
We require that
there be an even number of endpoints on each boundary circle,
and a checkerboard shading of
the regions in the complement of the interior disks.
We further require that there be a marked point on the boundary of each disk, and that the inner disks are ordered.
Two planar tangles are considered equal if they are isotopic (not necessarily rel boundary).
Here is an example of a planar tangle.
$$\inputtikz{SampleTangle}$$
Planar tangles can be composed by placing one planar tangle inside an interior disk of another,
lining up the marked points,
and connecting endpoints of strands.
The numbers of endpoints and the shadings must match up appropriately. This composition turns the collection of planar tangles into a colored operad.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
A {\em (shaded) planar algebra} over a field $k$ consists of
\begin{itemize}
\item A family of vector spaces $\{V_{(n,\pm,)}\}_{n\in \mathbb N}$ over $k$, called the positive and negative $n$-box spaces.
\item For each planar tangle, a multilinear map $V_{n_1, \pm_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes V_{n_j, \pm_j} \rightarrow V_{n_0, \pm_0}$ where $n_i$ is half the number of endpoints on the $i$th interior boundary circle, $n_0$ is half the number of endpoints on the outer boundary circle, and the signs $\pm$ are positive (respectively negative) when the marked point on the corresponding boundary circle is in an unshaded (respectively shaded) region.
\end{itemize}
For example, the planar tangle above gives a map $$V_{1,+} \otimes V_{2,+} \otimes V_{2,-} \rightarrow V_{3,+}.$$
The linear map associated to a `radial' tangle (with one inner disc, radial strings, and matching marked points) must be the identity.
We require that the action of planar tangles be compatible with composition of planar tangles. In other words, composition of planar tangles must correspond to the obvious composition of multilinear maps. \end{defn}
We will refer to an element of $V_{n,\pm}$ (and specifically $V_{n,+}$, unless otherwise stated) as an ``$n$-box.''
We make frequent use of three families of planar tangles
called multiplication, trace, and tensor product, which are shown in Figure \ref{fig:timestracetensor}.
``Multiplication'' gives an associative product
$V_{n,\pm} \otimes V_{n,\pm} \rightarrow V_{n,\pm}$.
``Trace'' gives a map $V_{n,\pm} \rightarrow V_{0,\pm}$.
``Tensor product'' gives an associative product
$V_{m,\pm} \otimes V_{n,\pm} \rightarrow V_{m+n,\pm}$ if $m$ is even,
or $V_{m,\pm} \otimes V_{n,\mp} \rightarrow V_{m+n,\pm}$ if $m$ is odd.
\begin{figure}[ht]
$$\inputtikz{multiplication} \quad , \quad \inputtikz{trace} \quad , \quad \inputtikz{tensor}$$
\caption
{The multiplication, trace, and tensor product tangles.}
\label{fig:timestracetensor}
\end{figure}
The (shaded or unshaded) empty diagrams can be thought of as elements of $V_{0,\pm}$, since the `empty tangle' induces a map from the empty tensor product $\mathbb C $ to the space $V_{0,\pm}$. If the space $V_{0,\pm}$ is one dimensional
then we can identify it with $\mathbb C$ by sending the empty diagram to one.
\begin{defn}
A planar algebra is called \emph{irreducible} if $\dim V_{0,\pm} = 1$ and $\dim V_{1,\pm} = 1$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}\label{defn:uncappable}
An $n$-box $S$ is {\em uncappable} if $\epsilon_i(S)=0$ for all $i=1,\cdots, 2n$ where
$$\epsilon_1 = \inputtikz{epsilon1} \, , \qquad
\epsilon_2 = \inputtikz{epsilon2} \, , \quad \ldots , \qquad
\epsilon_{2n}= \inputtikz{epsilon2k} \, . $$
We say $S$ is a {\em rotational eigenvector with eigenvalue $\omega$} if $\rho(S)= \omega S$ where
$$\rho=\inputtikz{rho} \, .$$
Note that $\omega$ must be a $n^{th}$ root of unity.
\end{defn}
Given a shaded planar algebra we can recover two tensor categories called its even parts. However to describe this we need to deal with an annoying technical point. Recall that the planar algebra only captures maps between tensor products of a fixed generating object. If every object of a semisimple tensor category appears as a summand of some tensor power of a fixed object, then the tensor category can be recovered from the full subcategory of these tensor powers by taking the idempotent completion.
\begin{defn}
The idempotent completion of a tensor category $\check{\mathcal{C}}$ is a tensor category $\mathcal{C}$ which contains $\check{\mathcal{C}}$ as a full sub-category. The objects of $\mathcal{C}$ are pairs $(o,p)$, where $o$ is an object of $\check{\mathcal{C}}$ and $p:o \to o$ is an idempotent in $\check{\mathcal{C}}$. We define $$\Hom{\mathcal{C}}{(o,p)}{(o',p')} = \setcl{ f \in \Hom{\check{\mathcal{C}}}{o}{o'} }{ f p = f = p' f}$$ and inherit composition and tensor product. (When we say $\check{\mathcal{C}}$ is a full sub-category of $\mathcal{C}$ we are implicitly identifying $o$ with $(o,\boldsymbol{1}_o)$.)
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
If $\mathcal{P}$ is a shaded planar algebra, let $\check{\mathcal{P}}^p$ be the category whose objects are even integers and whose morphisms are given by
$$\Hom{\check{\mathcal{P}}^p}{2m}{2n} = V_{m+n,+}.$$
Let $\mathcal{P}^p$, called the principal even part of $\mathcal{P}$ be the idempotent completion of the additive completion of $\check{\mathcal{P}}^p$.
Similarly define $\check{\mathcal{P}}^d$ whose objects are even integers and whose morphisms are given by
$$\Hom{\check{\mathcal{P}}^d}{2m}{2n} = V_{m+n,-},$$ and the dual even part $\mathcal{P}^d$ to be the idempotent completion of the additive completion of $\check{\mathcal{P}}^d$.
\end{defn}
A planar algebra is called \emph{unitary} if there is an antilinear adjoint operation $*$ on each $V_{n,\pm}$, compatible with the adjoint operation on planar tangles given by reflection such that the sesquilinear form $\langle x,y \rangle = \tr{x y^*}$ is positive definite. The even parts of a unitary planar algebra are semisimple because all the endomorphism algebras are finite dimensional $\mathbb C^*$ algebras which are necessarily semisimple. Often in order to construct a unitary planar algebra from a non-unitary planar algebra we quotient out by the radical of $\langle x,y \rangle = \tr{x y^*}$, which is called the ideal of negligible morphisms.
Suppose that $k<K$ is an inclusion of fields and suppose that $\mathcal{P}$ is a planar algebra over $K$. A \emph{rational form} of $\mathcal{P}$ over $k$ is a planar algebra $\mathcal{P}_k$ over $k$ such that $\mathcal{P}_k \otimes_k K$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{P}$. If $\mathcal{P}_k$ is a rational form for $\mathcal{P}$ then the corresponding fusion categories $\mathcal{P}_k^p$ and $\mathcal{P}_k^d$ are rational forms for $\mathcal{P}^p$ and $\mathcal{P}^d$. The rational form $\mathcal{P}_k^p$ is a complete rational form for $\mathcal{P}^p$ if every isomorphism class of projection in $V_{m+n,+}(\mathcal{P})$ has a representative coming from $V_{m+n,+}(\mathcal{P}^p)$ (and similarly for the dual even part).
\subsection{Principal graphs}
Given a unitary irreducible shaded planar algebra $\mathcal{P}$ the principal graphs are a pair of bipartite graphs which together encode the fusion rules for tensoring with the single strand.
The principal graph has even vertices corresponding to isomorphism classes of simple projections in $V_{\text{even},+}$ and odd vertices corresponding to the isomorphism classes of simple projections in $V_{\text{odd},+}$. An even vertex $V$ and an odd vertex $W$ are connected by $\dim \Hom{}{W \otimes X}{V}$ edges, where $X$ is the single strand. The dual principal graph has even vertices corresponding to isomorphism classes of simple projections in $V_{\text{even},-}$, odd vertices corresponding $V_{\text{odd},-}$, and edges given by the fusion with the single strand of the opposite shading.
A subfactor is called \emph{finite depth} if the principal graph is finite.
\subsection{The lopsided normalization}
\label{sec:lopsided}%
In an irreducible shaded planar algebra $\mathcal{P}$ over a field $k$, the shaded inside and shaded outside circles each evaluate to a scalar multiple of the empty diagram. These multiples are called the shaded and unshaded moduli. The product of the two moduli is called the index of $\mathcal{P}$.
If the two moduli are equal, we say the planar algebra is spherical. (In particular, because in this section we are assuming irreducibility, this condition implies the usual notion of a planar algebra being spherical.) If the shaded modulus is equal to one, we say the planar algebra is lopsided, and the unshaded modulus is the index.
Any irreducible shaded planar algebra $\mathcal{P}$ over $\mathbb C$ is part of a family $\left\{\mathcal{P}_x\right\}_{x \in \mathbb C}$ of planar algebras with $\mathcal{P}_1 = \mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{P}_x$ given by changing the action of the planar operad by a factor of $x^k$, where $k$ is the signed count of critical points in the strands which are shaded above and unshaded below (minima counting positively, maxima counting negatively). The index is constant across this family, but the shaded and unshaded moduli scale by $x$ and $x^{-1}$.
It may be that the planar algebra $\mathcal{P}_x$ has a rational form over a field $k$ for certain $x$, but not all $x$. In particular, given a planar algebra $\mathcal{C}$ over $k$ with unshaded modulus $x \in k$, then $\mathcal{C}_{x^{-1}}$ is a lopsided planar algebra over $k(x)=k$. On the other hand, given a lopsided planar algebra $\mathcal{C}$ over $k$ with index $D \in k$ the corresponding spherical planar algebra $\mathcal{C}_{\sqrt{D}}$ is in general only defined over $k(\sqrt{D})$. The fact that the field of definition may need to increase to ensure being spherical but does not need to increase to ensure being lopsided should encourage you to prefer lopsided planar algebras over spherical planar algebras. (It's also natural from a subfactor perspective: $B$ as an $A-B$ bimodule has left-dimension the index and right-dimension $1$.)
\newcommand{\trl}[1]{\operatorname{tr}_{L}\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\trr}[1]{\operatorname{tr}_{R}\left(#1\right)}
Any element $v \in \mathcal{P}_{n,\pm}$ has a left trace and a right trace, satisfying
\begin{align*}
\trl{v} & =
\begin{cases}
\trr{v} & \text{if $n$ is even} \\
\frac{d_{\mp}}{d_{\pm}} \trr{v} & \text{if $n$ is odd}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $d_+$ is the unshaded modulus and $d_-$ is the shaded modulus. When $\mathcal{P}$ is spherical, the left and right traces coincide. We will sometimes refer to the trace of an idempotent as its dimension, and if a side is not specified we always intend the right trace.
\begin{example}
The two strand Jones-Wenzl idempotents in lopsided Temperley-Lieb are
\begin{align*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1ex]
\node[fill=white, draw, rectangle] (left) at (0,0) {$\JW{2}$};
\begin{pgfonlayer}{background}
\path[fill=black!20]
($(left.240)+(0,-0.5)$) -- ($(left.120)+(0,0.5)$) -- ($(left.60)+(0,0.5)$) -- ($(left.300)+(0,-0.5)$);
\draw ($(left.240)+(0,-0.5)$) -- ($(left.120)+(0,0.5)$);
\draw ($(left.60)+(0,0.5)$) -- ($(left.300)+(0,-0.5)$);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
& =
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1ex]
\clip (-0.75,-0.8) rectangle (0.75,0.8);
\path[fill=black!20]
(-0.5,-0.8) -- (-0.5,0.8) -- (0.5,0.8) -- (0.5,-0.8);
\draw (-0.5,-0.8) -- (-0.5,0.8);
\draw (0.5,0.8) -- (0.5,-0.8);
\end{tikzpicture}
-
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1ex]
\clip (-0.75,-0.8) rectangle (0.75,0.8);
\path[draw, fill=black!20]
(-0.5,-0.8) .. controls ++(0,0.7) and ++(0,0.7) .. (0.5,-0.8);
\path[draw, fill=black!20]
(-0.5,0.8) .. controls ++(0,-0.7) and ++(0,-0.7) .. (0.5,0.8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\displaybreak[1] \\
\intertext{and}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1ex]
\node[fill=white, draw, rectangle] (left) at (0,0) {$\JW{2}$};
\begin{pgfonlayer}{background}
\path[fill=black!20] (-0.75,-0.8) rectangle (0.75,0.8);
\path[fill=white]
($(left.240)+(0,-0.5)$) -- ($(left.120)+(0,0.5)$) -- ($(left.60)+(0,0.5)$) -- ($(left.300)+(0,-0.5)$);
\draw ($(left.240)+(0,-0.5)$) -- ($(left.120)+(0,0.5)$);
\draw ($(left.60)+(0,0.5)$) -- ($(left.300)+(0,-0.5)$);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
& =
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1ex]
\path[fill=black!20] (-0.75,-0.8) rectangle (0.75,0.8);
\path[fill=white]
(-0.5,-0.8) -- (-0.5,0.8) -- (0.5,0.8) -- (0.5,-0.8);
\draw (-0.5,-0.8) -- (-0.5,0.8);
\draw (0.5,0.8) -- (0.5,-0.8);
\end{tikzpicture}
- \frac{1}{[2]^2}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1ex]
\path[fill=black!20] (-0.75,-0.8) rectangle (0.75,0.8);
\path[draw, fill=white]
(-0.5,-0.8) .. controls ++(0,0.7) and ++(0,0.7) .. (0.5,-0.8);
\path[draw, fill=white]
(-0.5,0.8) .. controls ++(0,-0.7) and ++(0,-0.7) .. (0.5,0.8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Consider an irreducible shaded planar algebra $\mathcal{P}$ with index $D$. Choose $q$ so $q+q^{-1} = \sqrt{D}$. If $\mathcal{P}$ is spherical then the dimensions of the Jones-Wenzl idempotents are given by
\begin{align*}
\trr{\JW{n} \in \mathcal{P}_{n,\pm}} & = [n+1]_q \in \mathbb Q(\sqrt{D}) \\
\intertext{while when $\mathcal{P}$ is lopsided they are}
\trr{\JW{n} \in \mathcal{P}_{n,+}} & =
\begin{cases}
\frac{[n+1]_q}{[2]_q} & \text{if $n$ is odd} \\
[n+1]_q & \text{if $n$ is even}
\end{cases}
\\
& \in \mathbb Q(D) \displaybreak[1] \\
\trr{\JW{n} \in \mathcal{P}_{n,-}} & =
\begin{cases}
[2]_q [n+1]_q & \text{if $n$ is odd} \\
[n+1]_q & \text{if $n$ is even}
\end{cases}
\\
& \in \mathbb Q(D)
\end{align*}
\end{example}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years there have been discovered numerous exotic states
which have unexpected and puzzling nature, such as charmonium-like
states, $XYZ$ series, and $\theta(1540)$, and also there seem to be
too many observed mesons, especially in the light $(u,d)$-quark sector, to
be classified as the conventional
quark-model $q\bar{q}$ states \cite{PDG2009}. These experimental
situations have revived multiquark hadrons and their theoretical
studies which were declining before them. A serious complication
of most models suggesting multiquark states is that they would
predict too many states to exist, that is, the known problem of
``state inflation'', and further, though many theoretical
proposals for interpreting exotic charmonium-like states have
put forward, no single framework of models can accommodate most
of those states.
\section{The $\bm{\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF}
\times O(3,1)_{L}}$-Classification Scheme of Hadrons}
The $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification
scheme \cite{IIM2000} is a covariant system of classification
for hadrons which
gives covariant quark representations for composite hadrons
with definite Lorentz and chiral transformation properties.
In the rest frame of hadrons the $SU(2)_{\sigma}$ intrinsic
spin symmetry is extended to $U(4)_{S}$ by adding a new
degree of freedom on the $\rho$-spin, $SU(2)_{\rho}$,
being connected with decomposition of Dirac matrices,
$\gamma = \rho \times \sigma$. Then an extended $U(12)_{SF}$
spin-flavor symmetry, including the flavor $SU(3)_{F}$, has
as its subgroups both the nonrelativistic spin-flavor and
chiral symmetry, as $SU(6)_{SF} \times SU(2)_{\rho}$ and
$U(3)_{L} \times U(3)_{R} \times SU(2)_{\sigma}$.
The $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification
scheme is obtained through the covariant generalization from
$U(12)_{SF} \times O(3)_{L}$ by boosts,
separating the spin and space degrees of freedom.
Thus the $U(12)_{SF}$ symmetry in the hadron rest
frame is embedded in the covariant $\widetilde{U}(12)$-representation
space, which includes subgroups as $\widetilde{U}(4)_{D}
\times SU(3)_{F}$, $\widetilde{U}(4)_{D}$ being the pseudounitary
homogeneous Lorentz group for Dirac spinors.
An essential ingredient of the $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF}
\times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification
scheme is that quarks have the $\rho$-spin degree of freedom,
which is discriminated by the eigenvalues $r=\pm$
of $\rho_{3}$ in the hadron rest frame. This implies that not only
conventional quarks with $r=+$ but also new type quarks with
$r=-$ are building blocks of hadrons. Thus hadron states are
characterized, aside from flavors, by the quantum numbers,
the net constituent $\rho$-spin $S^{(\rho)}$, its third component
$S^{(\rho)}_{3}$, the ordinary net constituent $\sigma$-spin $S$,
the net orbital angular momentum $L$, and the total spin $J$.
For $q\bar{q}$ meson states the meson spin $J$, parity $P$, and
charge-conjugation parity $C$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{J}=\mathbf{L}+\mathbf{S}, \ \
P=(-1)^{L+|S^{(\rho)}_{3}|}, \ \
C=(-1)^{L+S+S^{(\rho)}+1}.
\end{equation}
The ground ($L=0$) states of $q\bar{q}$ mesons are composed of
states with the $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers, two pseudoscalars
$P(0^{-+})$, $P^{(\chi)}(0^{-+})$, two scalars
$S^{(\chi)}_{A}(0^{++})$, $S^{(\chi)}_{B}(0^{+-})$, two vectors
$V(1^{--})$, $V^{(\chi)}(1^{--})$, and two axial-vectors
$A^{(\chi)}(1^{++})$, $B^{(\chi)}(1^{+-})$, where the symbol
$\chi$ represents at least one of the
constituents having the negative eigenvalue $r=-$ of $\rho_{3}$,
referred to as ``chiralons''. There are also orbital and radial excitations
for each of these eight types of meson. The $\rho$-spin quantum numbers
of ground states and their excitations are given by
\begin{equation}
(S^{(\rho)},S^{(\rho)}_{3}) = \begin{cases}
(1,1) &\text{for $P$ and $V$ sectors} \\
(1,-1) &\text{for $P^{(\chi)}$ and $V^{(\chi)}$ sectors} \\
(1,0) &\text{for $S^{(\chi)}_{A}$ and $B^{(\chi)}$ sectors} \\
(0,0) &\text{for $S^{(\chi)}_{B}$ and $A^{(\chi)}$ sectors}
\end{cases}
,
\end{equation}
where the $(1,1)$ sector corresponds to the conventional
$q\bar{q}$ states. Here I simply assume
that all ground and excited states are physically realized,
though it is a highly dynamical problem.
\section{A Novel Classification of Exotic Hadrons and Exotic
Charmonium-like States}
Exotic hadrons are defined, in the conventional quark
model, as mesonic and baryonic states with quantum numbers
forbidden for $q\bar{q}$ and $qqq$ states or anomalous
features which cannot be explained as those states. Here I
classify exotic hadrons into the following two types:
\begin{description}
\item[``Genuine'' exotics]
mesonic and baryonic states with flavor quantum numbers forbidden
for the conventional quark-model $q\bar{q}$ and $qqq$ states.
\item[``Hidden'' exotics]
mesonic and baryonic states which are constructed by adding extra
flavor-singlet light-$q\bar{q}$ or gluon components to the
conventional $q\bar{q}$ and $qqq$ states, and pure gluonic ones.
\end{description}
Then I conjecture that the hidden exotics would be interpreted
as chiralons in the $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times
O(3,1)_{L}$-classification scheme. Mesonic $q\bar{q}$ chiralons
are considered to be asymptotically four quark states
($q\bar{q}$ $+$ flavor-singlet light $q\bar{q}$),
$q\bar{q}$-gluon states ($q\bar{q}$ $+$ gluon(s)), or pure
gluonic states ($gg$, $ggg$), while baryonic $qqq$ chiralons
are considered to be asymptotically five quark states
($qqq$ $+$ flavor-singlet light $q\bar{q}$) or $qqq$-gluon
states ($qqq$ $+$ gluon(s)).
\subsection{The charmonium spectrum in the
$\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification scheme}
Based upon the above conjecture I undertake explaining numerous
charmonium-like states, which have unexpected and puzzling nature,
in the $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification
scheme. Here I will restrict myself to discussing the neutral
charmonium-like $XY$ states which have large hadronic
transition rates to lower conventional charmonia.
The corresponding observed states, together with measured
properties, are collected in Table \ref{tab:a}.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{State}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Mass (MeV)}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Width (MeV)}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$\bm{J^{PC}}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Decay Modes}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Experiments} \\
\hline
$Y(4008)$ & $4008^{+82}_{-49}$ & $226^{+97}_{-80}$ & $1^{--}$ & $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}J/\psi$
& Belle \cite{Y(4008):Belle} \\
$Y(4260)$ & $4263^{+8}_{-9}$ & $95\pm 14$ & $1^{--}$ & $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}J/\psi$
& Babar, CLEO, Belle \cite{PDG2009} \\
$Y(4360)$ & $4361\pm 13$ & $74\pm 18$ & $1^{--}$ & $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\psi(2S)$
& Babar, Belle \cite{Y(4360)Y(4660):Belle} \\
$Y(4660)$ & $4664\pm 12$ & $48\pm 15$ & $1^{--}$ & $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\psi(2S)$
& Belle \cite{Y(4360)Y(4660):Belle} \\
$X(3872)$ & $3871.46\pm 0.19$ & $<2.3$ & $1^{++}$
& $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}J/\psi$, $\gamma J/\psi$, $D\bar{D}^{*}$
& Belle, CDF, D0, Babar \cite{PDG2009,X(3872)} \\
$X(3915)$ & $3914\pm 4$ & $28^{+12}_{-14}$ & $0/2^{++}$ & $\omega J/\psi$
& Belle \cite{X(3915):Belle} \\
$Y(3940)$ & $3916\pm 6$ & $40^{+18}_{-13}$ & $?^{?+}$ & $\omega J/\psi$
& Belle, Babar \cite{PDG2009} \\
$Y(4140)$ & $4143.0\pm 3.1$ & $11.7^{+9.1}_{-6.2}$ & $?^{?+}$ & $\phi J/\psi$
& CDF \cite{Y(4140):CDF} \\
$X(4350)$ & $4350.6^{+4.7}_{-5.1}$ & $13.3^{+18.4}_{-10.0}$ & $0/2^{++}$
& $\phi J/\psi$ & Belle \cite{X(4350):Belle} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Measured properties of the neutral charmonium-like $XY$ states
with large hadronic transition rates to lower conventional charmonia.
The statistical and systematic errors of the respective masses and widths
were added in quadrature.}
\label{tab:a}
\end{table}
To assign these nine charmonium-like states to $J^{PC}$ multiplets
in this scheme, I make predictions on the mass spectrum of $1S$, $1P$,
and $2S$ states for the $c\bar{c}$ system, assuming a phenomenological
mass formula in which spin-dependent interactions are taken into account
as
\begin{equation}
M(n^{2S+1}L_{J}) = \overline{M}(nL; S^{(\rho)},S^{(\rho)}_{3})
+ c_{LS}(nL)\langle \mathbf{L}\cdot \mathbf{S}\rangle
+ c_{T}(nL)\langle S_{T}\rangle
+ c_{SS}(nL)\langle \mathbf{S}_{Q}\cdot \mathbf{S}_{\bar{Q}}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\overline{M}(nL;S^{(\rho)},S^{(\rho)}_{3})$ are
the spin-averaged masses of $1S$, $1P$,
$2S$ states for the $(S^{(\rho)},S^{(\rho)}_{3})=(1,1)$, $(1,-1)$,
$(1,0)$, $(0,0)$ sectors and $c_{LS}(nL)$, $c_{T}(nL)$, $c_{SS}(nL)$
are the constant parameters which represent the contributions of
spin-orbit, tensor, and spin-spin interactions, respectively.
I take the excitation energies of $1P$ and $2S$ states to be equal
for all the $(1,1)$, $(1,-1)$, $(1,0)$, $(0,0)$ sectors, so there are
six independent parameters concerning the spin-averaged masses,
$\overline{M}(1S)$, $\overline{M}(1P)$, $\overline{M}(2S)$ for the
$(1,1)$ sector and $\overline{M}(1S)$'s for each of the $(1,-1)$,
$(1,0)$, $(0,0)$ sectors. I also assume the following mass relations
for the scalar and axial-vector states with $(1,0)$ and $(0,0)$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
M(0^{++};S^{(\rho)}=1) &< M(0^{+-};S^{(\rho)}=0), \\
M(1^{+-};S^{(\rho)}=1) &< M(1^{++};S^{(\rho)}=0),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and the respective mass differences between the $S^{(\rho)}=0$ and
$1$ states are identical.
The $c_{SS}(1S)$, $c_{SS}(2S)$, $c_{LS}(1P)$, $c_{T}(1P)$, and $c_{SS}(1P)$
are taken to be common values for all the $(1,1)$, $(1,-1)$, $(1,0)$,
$(0,0)$ sectors, except for the sign of $c_{SS}$ for the $(1,0)$ and
$(0,0)$ sectors, and thus there are five independent parameters,
$c_{SS}(1S)$, $c_{SS}(2S)$, $c_{LS}(1P)$, $c_{T}(1P)$, and $c_{SS}(1P)$.
To fix values of the model parameters I use measured masses
of the $\eta_{c}(1S)$, $J/\psi(1S)$, $h_{c}(1P)$, $\chi_{c0,1,2}(1P)$,
$\eta_{c}(2S)$, $\psi(2S)$ \cite{PDG2009},\footnote{The $\psi(2S)$ is
assumed to be a pure $2^{3}S_{1}$ state, neglecting a small admixture
of the $1^{3}D_{1}$ state.
}
$X(3872)$ \cite{X(3872)},
$X(3915)$ \cite{X(3915):Belle}, $X(4350)$ \cite{X(4350):Belle},
assuming that the last two states have $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, and
extracted values are as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\overline{M}(1S;1,1) =3067.8 \ \text{MeV}, \ \
\overline{M}(1P;1,1) =3525.3 \ \text{MeV}, \ \
\overline{M}(2S;1,1) =3673.8 \ \text{MeV},\\
&\overline{M}(1S;1,-1) =4003.7 \ \text{MeV}, \ \
\overline{M}(1S;1,0) =3826.6 \ \text{MeV}, \ \
\overline{M}(1S;0,0) =3901.5 \ \text{MeV},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&c_{SS}(1S)=116.6 \ \text{MeV}, \ \ c_{SS}(2S)=49.0 \ \text{MeV}, \\
&c_{LS}(1P)=35.0 \ \text{MeV}, \ \
c_{T}(1P)=40.6 \ \text{MeV}, \ \ c_{SS}(1P)\approx 0 \ \text{MeV}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using these values the charmonium spectrum of $1S$, $1P$, $2S$
states are calculated, and then comparing the calculated masses of the
predicted $J^{PC}$ states with the measured masses and $J^{PC}$ of
the relevant $XY$ states, I assign those $XY$ states to appropriate
places. The results are given in Table \ref{tab:b}, where the
``$Y(4280)$'' is a hypothetical state mentioned by the CDF collaboration
as follows \cite{Y(4140):CDF}: \textit{There is a small cluster of
events approximately one pion mass higher than the first
structure. However, the statistical significance of this
cluster is less than $3\sigma$}. In Table \ref{tab:c} the suggested
assignments for the relevant $XY$ states are summarized
in comparison with experiment. From this table it is seen that
the theoretical masses for the relevant $XY$ states are
in excellent agreement with experiment.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$P$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$V$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$P^{(\chi)}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$V^{(\chi)}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$S_{A}^{(\chi)}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$B^{(\chi)}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$S_{B}^{(\chi)}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$A^{(\chi)}$} \\
\hline
$S^{(\rho)}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$S^{(\rho)}_{3}$ & $1$ & $1$ & $-1$ &$-1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
& $1^{1}S_{0}$ & $1^{3}S_{1}$ & $1^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi)}$ & $1^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi)}$
& $1^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi A)}$ & $1^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi B)}$ & $1^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi B)}$
& $1^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$n=1$ & $0^{-+}$ & $1^{--}$ & $0^{-+}$ & $1^{--}$ & $0^{++}$ & $1^{+-}$
& $0^{+-}$\tablenote{$J^{PC}$-exotic states.} & $1^{++}$ \\
\cline{2-9}
$L=0$ & $\underline{2980}$ & $\underline{3097}$ & $3916$ & $4033$ & $\underline{3914}$
& $3797$ & $3989$ & $\underline{3872}$ \\
& $\eta_{c}(1S)$ & $J/\psi(1S)$ & $Y(3940)$ & $Y(4008)$ & $X(3915)$ &
& & $X(3872)$ \\
\hline
& & $1^{3}P_{0}$ & & $1^{3}P_{0}^{(\chi)}$
& & $1^{3}P_{0}^{(\chi B)}$ & & $1^{3}P_{0}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
& & $0^{++}$ & & $0^{++}$ & & $0^{-+}$
& & $0^{--*}$ \\
\cline{2-9}
& & $\underline{3415}$ & & $\underline{4351}$ & & $4144$ & & $4248$ \\
& & $\chi_{c0}(1P)$ & & $X(4350)$ & & $Y(4140)$ & & \\
\cline{2-9}
\rule[14pt]{0pt}{0pt}
& $1^{1}P_{1}$ & $1^{3}P_{1}$ & $1^{1}P_{1}^{(\chi)}$ & $1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi)}$
& $1^{1}P_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ & $1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi B)}$ & $1^{1}P_{1}^{(\chi B)}$
& $1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$n=1$ & $1^{+-}$ & $1^{++}$ & $1^{+-}$ & $1^{++}$ & $1^{--}$
& $1^{-+*}$ & $1^{-+*}$ & $1^{--}$ \\
\cline{2-9}
$L=1$ & $\underline{3526}$ & $\underline{3511}$ & $4461$ & $4447$ & $4255$ & $4240$
& $4359$ & $4344$ \\
& $h_{c}(1P)$ & $\chi_{c1}(1P)$ & & & $Y(4260)$ & & & $Y(4360)$ \\
\cline{2-9}
\rule[14pt]{0pt}{0pt}
& & $1^{3}P_{2}$ & & $1^{3}P_{2}^{(\chi)}$
& & $1^{3}P_{2}^{(\chi B)}$ & & $1^{3}P_{2}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
& & $2^{++}$ & & $2^{++}$ & & $2^{-+}$
& & $2^{--}$ \\
\cline{2-9}
& & $\underline{3556}$ & & $4492$ & & $4286$ & & $4390$ \\
& & $\chi_{c2}(1P)$ & & & & ``$Y(4280)$'' & & \\
\hline
& $2^{1}S_{0}$ & $2^{3}S_{1}$ & $2^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi)}$ & $2^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi)}$
& $2^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi A)}$ & $2^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi B)}$ & $2^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi B)}$
& $2^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$n=2$ & $0^{-+}$ & $1^{--}$ & $0^{-+}$ & $1^{--}$ & $0^{++}$ & $1^{+-}$
& $0^{+-*}$ & $1^{++}$ \\
\cline{2-9}
$L=0$ & $\underline{3637}$ & $\underline{3686}$ & $4573$ & $4622$ & $4469$
& $4420$ & $4544$ & $4495$ \\
& $\eta_{c}(2S)$ & $\psi(2S)$ & & $Y(4660)$ & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Theoretical mass spectrum (in MeV) of conventional and chiralonic
charmonia. The fitted mass values are underlined. The $n$ and $L$ are
radial and orbital angular-momentum quantum numbers.}
\label{tab:b}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.0}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
& \tablehead{2}{c}{b}{Experiment} & & \tablehead{3}{c}{b}{Theory} \\
\cline{2-3} \cline{5-7}
\tablehead{1}{c}{b}{State}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$\bm{J^{PC}}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Mass (MeV)}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{$\bm{J^{PC}}$}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{ Mass (MeV)}
& \tablehead{1}{c}{b}{Assignment} \\
\hline
$Y(4008)$ & $1^{--}$ & $4008^{+82}_{-49}$
& & $1^{--}$ & $4033$ & $1^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi)}$ \\
$Y(4260)$ & $1^{--}$ & $4263^{+8}_{-9}$
& & $1^{--}$ & $4255$ & $1^{1}P_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$Y(4360)$ & $1^{--}$ & $4361\pm 13$
& & $1^{--}$ & $4344$ & $1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$Y(4660)$ & $1^{--}$ & $4664\pm 12$
& & $1^{--}$ & $4622$ & $2^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi)}$ \\
$X(3872)$ & $1^{++}$ & $3871.46\pm 0.19$
& & $1^{++}$ & $3872$ (fit) & $1^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$X(3915)$ & $0/2^{++}$ & $3914\pm 4$
& & $0^{++}$ & $3914$ (fit) & $1^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi A)}$ \\
$Y(3940)$ & $?^{?+}$ & $3916\pm 6$
& & $0^{-+}$ & $3916$ & $1^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi)}$ \\
$Y(4140)$ & $?^{?+}$ & $4143.0\pm 3.1$
& & $0^{-+}$ & $4144$ & $1^{3}P_{0}^{(\chi B)}$ \\
$X(4350)$ & $0/2^{++}$ & $4350.6^{+4.7}_{-5.1}$
& & $0^{++}$ & $4351$ (fit) & $1^{3}P_{0}^{(\chi)}$ \\
``$Y(4280)$'' & $?^{?+}$ & $\approx 4280$
& & $2^{-+}$ & $4286$ & $1^{3}P_{2}^{(\chi B)}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Suggested assignments for the neutral charmonium-like
$XY$ states in the $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification
scheme in comparison with experiment.}
\label{tab:c}
\end{table}
As is seen from Table \ref{tab:b}, there exist some $J^{PC}$-exotic states,
$0^{+-}(h_{c0})$ in the $1S$ and $2S$ levels and $0^{--}(\psi_{0})$,
$1^{-+}(\eta_{c1})$
in the $1P$ level,\footnote{
In the light $(u,d)$-quark sector there are presently experimental
observations of the two exotic mesons with $I^{G}(J^{PC})=1^{-}(1^{-+})$,
$\pi _{1}(1400)$ and $\pi _{1}(1600)$ \cite{PDG2009}, which can be
assigned to the $1^{1}P_{1}^{(\chi B)}$ and $1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi B)}$
states.
}
which is a remarkable feature of the $\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times
O(3,1)_{L}$-classification scheme. Of particular interest is
that a recent lattice QCD calculation of the charmonium spectrum showed the
existence of exotic $1^{-+}(\eta_{c1})$ and $0^{+-}(h_{c0})$ states
with masses of
$4300(50)$ MeV and $4465(65)$ MeV, respectively \cite{Lattice:DR}.
These masses might be
compared with the corresponding predicted ones of $4240$ (or $4359$) MeV
and $4544$ MeV for the $1^{-+}(1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi B)} \ \textrm{or} \
1^{1}P_{1}^{(\chi B)})$ and $0^{+-}(2^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi B)})$ states.
A subsequent lattice QCD analysis on the radiative decay of the exotic
$\eta_{c1}$ state at $4300(50)$ MeV, $\eta_{c1} \to J/\psi \gamma$,
suggests that a $q\bar{q}$ pair in the $\eta_{c1}$ is in a spin
triplet \cite{Lattice:DET} and thus it might be favorable to being assigned
to $1^{3}P_{1}^{(\chi B)}$. Then the three states $Y(4140)$,
``$\eta_{c1}(\sim 4300)$'', ``$Y(4280)$'' would form the
$1^{3}P_{J}^{(\chi B)}(0^{-+},1^{-+},2^{-+})$ multiplet.
In the present study another interesting prediction is obtained that there exists
a spin-singlet partner, $\eta_{c}(2^{1}S_{0}^{(\chi)})$, of
the $Y(4660)$, assigned above to $\psi(2^{3}S_{1}^{(\chi)})$, where the mass
splitting between them is the same as that of the conventional charmonia,
$\psi(2S)$ and $\eta_{c}(2S)$, being $\approx 49$ MeV.\footnote{
The same prediction was given in a completely different approach
of the hadronic molecule model with heavy-quark spin symmetry \cite{GHM2009}.}
\section{Final Remarks}
I have investigated the mass spectrum of
$1S$, $1P$, and $2S$ states for the $c\bar{c}$ system in the
$\widetilde{U}(12)_{SF} \times O(3,1)_{L}$-classification scheme and
have seen that the observed spectrum of the neutral charmonium-like
$XY$ states is described well. The resultant assignments
suggest that the $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers of the $X(3915)$ and $X(4350)$
are $0^{++}$, while both the $Y(3940)$ and $Y(4140)$ have $0^{-+}$, and
there exists a charmonium-like state with a mass of $\approx4280$ MeV
and $J^{PC}=2^{-+}$ which seems to correspond to the hypothetical state
``$Y(4280)$''. It is also expected that there exist some $J^{PC}$-exotic states,
such as $1^{-+}(\eta_{c1})$ and $0^{+-}(h_{c0})$ states around $4.3$ GeV
and $4.5$ GeV, respectively.
These results will be tested in the coming experiment.
In a future work, to put the present interpretation for the neutral
charmonium-like $XY$ states on a firm basis, it is necessary to explain
the decay properties of these $XY$ states that they do not decay dominantly
into $D^{(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$, but have large hadronic transition rates to
lower conventional charmonia.
\bibliographystyle{aipproc}
|
\section{Introduction}
A crucial issue in modeling mobility is to find a good balance between the goal of implementing important
features
of concrete scenarios and the possibility to study the model from an analytical point of view. Several
interesting approaches have been introduced and studied over the last years
\cite{CBD02,DPSW08,LV05,L06}. Among them, we focus on those models where \emph{agents} move independently and
according to some random process, i.e., random mobility models.
Nice examples of such random models are
the random-way point and the walker models \cite{CBD02,BRS03,DPSW08,L06,LV05} which are, in turn,
special cases of a family of mobility models known as random trip model \cite{L06}.
Mobile networks are complex dynamical systems whose analysis is far to be trivial. In particular, deriving explicit
formulas of the relative stationary probabilistic distributions, such as the agent spatial one,
requires very complex integral calculus and/or sophisticated tools like the Palm Calculus
\cite{BB87,CNB04,L06,L07}.
A first goal of our study is to make the analysis of such dynamical systems more accessible to
the (Theoretical) Computer Science Community by adopting concepts and methods
which are typical of this Community. A possible solution for this issue could be that of considering agents that
walk over (random) paths of a graph. Nice results on random walks over graphs are available \cite{AF99, DPSW08}, however,
such models are not suitable to consider agent speed variations, crossways, parking zones and other concrete aspects
of mobile systems.
We
propose a new approach to model and analyse mobility. This approach is based on a simple observation
over concrete network scenarios:
\smallskip
\begin{quote}
It is not so important to record every position of
the agents at every instant of time and it thus suffices to discretize the space
into a set of cells and record the current agent cell at discrete time steps.
\end{quote}
\smallskip
\noindent
We exploit the above observation to get a class of fully-discrete mobility models based on
\emph{ agent movement-traces} (in short, traces). A \emph{trace} is the representation of an agent trajectory by means of
the sequence of visited cells. Similarly to the Random Trip Model, our mobile model is defined by fixing
the set of feasible traces and the criterium the agent adopts to select
the next trace after arriving at the end of the current trace.
We define the \emph{(Discrete) Markov Trace Model} (in short, MTM) where, at every time step,
an agent either is (deterministically) following the selected trace or is choosing at random (according to a given
probability distribution) the next trace over a set of feasible traces, all starting from the final cell of the previous trace.
\noindent It is important to observe that the same trajectory run at different speeds yields different traces (cell-sequences
are in general ordered multi-sets): so, it is possible to model variable agent speeds that may depend on the specific
area traffic or on other concrete issues.
A detailed description of the MTM is given in Section \ref{sec::MTM}. We here discuss its major features
and benefits.
Any MTM $\mathcal{D}$ determines a discrete-time \emph{Markov chain}
$\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{D}}$
whose generic state is a pair $\langle T, i \rangle$: an agent has chosen trace $T$ and, at that time
step, she is in position $T(i)$.
We first study the stationary distribution(s) of the Markov chain $\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{D}}$
(in what follows we will say shortly: ''stationary distribution of
$\mathcal{D}$'').
We show evidence of the generality of our model, derive an explicit form of the stationary distribution(s), and
establish \emph{existence} and \emph{uniqueness} conditions for the stationary distributions of an MTM.
Our last result for general MTM is a necessary and sufficient condition for \emph{uniformness} of the
stationary distribution of $\mathcal{D}$.
\smallskip
The above results for the stationary phase can be applied to get explicit formulas for the stationary
\emph{(agent) spatial distribution} and the stationary \emph{ (agent) destination} one.
The former gives the probability that an agent lies in a given cell, while the
latter gives the probability that an agent, \emph{conditioned} to stay in a cell $v$, has \emph{destination} cell $w$,
for any choice
of $v$ and $w$.
The knowledge of such distributions is crucial to achieve \emph{perfect simulation}, to derive connectivity
properties of Mobile Ad-hoc NETworkS (MANETS) defined over the mobility model, and for the
study of information spreading over such MANETS \cite{CMPS09,CPS09,CDMRV09}.
We emphasize that all the obtained explicit formulas can be computed by counting arguments (it mainly concerns
calculating the number of feasible traces passing over or starting from a cell). If the agent's behaviour
can be described by using a limited set of \emph{typical} traces
(this happens in most of MANETS applications), then such formulas can be computed by a computer in few minutes.
Our MTM model can thus serve as a general framework that allows an analytical study of concrete mobility scenarios.
We provide two examples that show its power and applicability.
In the first one,
we consider the \emph{Manhattan Random Way-Point} (MRWP) model \cite{CDMRV09,BRS03,L06}.
This version of the \emph{Random Way-Point} model is motivated by scenarios where
agents travel over an urban zone and try to
minimize the number of \emph{turns} while keeping the chosen route as short as possible.
We then implement this model as a specific MTM and we derive explicit formulas for its stationary distributions.
In particular,
we provide the spatial and the destination
distributions for any choice of the cell resolution parameter $\epsilon>0$.
We observe that, by taking the limit for $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, our explicit formula
of the spatial distribution coincides to that computed by using rather complex integral calculus
in \cite{CDMRV09} for the continuous space-time MRWP model (in terms of \emph{probability density functions}).
\noindent
Finally, we give, for the first
time, the destination distribution of the continuous space-time MRWP model as well.
Both these formulas have been recently used to derive the first analytical bounds on flooding time for the MRWP
model \cite{CMS10b}.
Our approach can make the analysis of complex scenarios much simpler: it is just a matter of modelling
objects and events as ingredients of an MTM. After doing that, you do not need to prove new properties
or new formulas, you can just apply ours.
\noindent
As a second concrete example of this fact, we consider
a more complex vehicular-mobility scenario: The \emph{Down-Town} model
where a set of horizontal and vertical
streets cross each other and they alternate with building blocks (see Fig \ref{fig_downtown}).
Agents (i.e. vehicles) move over the streets
according to \emph{Manhattan-like} paths and
park on the border of the streets (a detailed description of the model is given in Section \ref{ssec::down}).
Different agent speeds and
red and green events of traffic lights can be implemented by considering different traces over the same street path.
Thanks to a \emph{modular}
version of our MTM model, we are also able to analyze this more
complex scenario. In fact, the main advantage of our approach is that a
given scenario can be analyzed by simply modelling objects and events
as ''ingredient'' of an MTM, thus obtaining the stationary probability
distributions directly from our formulas.
\section{The Markov Trace Model} \label{sec::MTM}
The mobility model we are introducing is discrete with respect to time and space. The positions an
agent can occupy during her movement belong to the set of \emph{points} $\mathcal{R}$ and they are traced at discrete time steps. The set $\mathcal{R}$ might be a subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$, for some $d =1,2,\ldots$, or it might be
some other set. It is only assumed that $\mathcal{R}$ is a metric space.
\noindent A \emph{movement trace}, or simply a \emph{trace}, is any
(finite) sequence $T = (u_0,u_1,\ldots, u_k)$ of at least two points. When we mention points we tacitly assume that they
belong to $\mathcal{R}$. The points of a trace are not necessarily distinct.
The length of a trace $T$ (i.e., the number of points of $T$) is denoted by $|T|$ and,
for each $i = 0,1,\ldots |T|-1$, let $T(i)$ denote the $i$-th point of the trace $T$.
A trace $T$ can be interpreted as the recording
of the movement of an agent starting from some initial time $t_0$: for every $i=0,1,\ldots,|T| - 1$,
$T(i)$ is the traced position of the agent at time $t_0 + i\cdot\tau$, where $\tau >0$ is the duration of a time step.
\noindent
In our model,
an agent can move along trajectories that are represented by traces.
For any trace $T$, let $T_{start}$ and $T_{end}$
denote, respectively, the starting point and the ending point of the trace. Let $\mathcal{T}$ be any set (possibly infinite)
of traces.
We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is \emph{endless} if for every trace $T\in \mathcal{T}$, there is a trace $T'\in \mathcal{T}$ such
that $T'_{start} = T_{end}$.
\noindent
For any
point $u\in\mathcal{R}$, $\tripout{u}$ denotes the subset of traces of $\mathcal{T}$ whose starting point is $u$.
Let \[ P(\mathcal{T}) = \{ u \;|\; \tripout{u} \neq\emptyset\} \ \mbox{ and } \
S(\mathcal{T}) = \{ \langle T, i \rangle \;|\; T\in \mathcal{T} \wedge 1 \leqslant i \leqslant |T| - 1\} \]
\noindent
A \emph{Markov Trace Model} (\emph{MTM}) is a pair $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ such that:
\noindent
$i)$.
$\mathcal{T}$ is an endless trace set such that $|P(\mathcal{T})| < \infty$;
\noindent
$ii)$.
$\Psi$ is a \emph{Trace Selecting Rule for} $\mathcal{T}$ (\emph{TSR}), that is,
$\Psi$ is a family of probability distributions $\{\psi_u\}_{u\in P(\mathcal{T})}$ such that for
each point $u \in P(\mathcal{T})$, $\psi_u$ is a probability distribution over $\tripout{u}$.
\noindent
Similarly to the random trip model \cite{L06},
any MTM $\mathcal{D}$ determines a Markov chain $\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{D}} = (S(\mathcal{T}), P[\mathcal{T}, \Psi])$
whose state space is $S(\mathcal{T})$ and the transition probabilities $P[\mathcal{T}, \Psi]$ are defined as follows:
for every $T\in \mathcal{T}$,
\noindent
- \emph{Deterministic-move Rule.} For every $i$ with $1 \leqslant i < |T| - 1$,
$ \Prob{\langle T, i \rangle \rightarrow \langle T, i + 1\rangle} = 1$;
\noindent
- \emph{Next-trace Rule}. For every $T'$ in $\tripout{T_{end}}$,
$\Prob{\langle T, |T|-1\rangle \rightarrow \langle T', 1\rangle} = \psi_{T_{end}}(T')$; \\
all the other transition probabilities are 0.
It is immediate to verify that for any $s \in S(\mathcal{T})$ it holds that
$\sum_{r \in S(\mathcal{T})} \Prob{s \rightarrow r} = 1$.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\large \textbf{- Stationary Properties.}}
We first introduce some notions that are useful in studying the stationary distributions of a MTM.
For any $u, v\in\mathcal{R}$, $\trips{u}{v}$ denotes the subset of traces of $\mathcal{T}$ whose starting point is $u$ and whose
ending point is $v$.
A crucial Markov chain, determined by a MTM $\mathcal{D}$, is its
\emph{Kernel}: its states are the cells of $\mathcal{D}$, considered as \emph{turn} points
(also known as \emph{way-points}),
and the transition
probability $\Prob{u \rightarrow v}$ equals the probability that an agent, lying on $u$, chooses any
trace ending in $v$.
Given a MTM $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$, the \emph{Kernel of} $\mathcal{D}$ is the Markov chain
$\kernel{\mathcal{D}} = (P(\mathcal{T}), K[\mathcal{T}, \Psi])$ where the transition probabilities $K[\mathcal{T}, \Psi]$ are defined
as follows: for every $u, v\in P(\mathcal{T})$,
{\small \[
\Prob{u \rightarrow v} \;=\; \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{T\in \trips{u}{v}} \psi_u(T) & \mbox{if $\trips{u}{v} \neq \emptyset$}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\]}
Observe that this definition is sound since, for every $u\in P(\mathcal{T})$, it holds that
\[
\sum_{v\in P(\mathcal{T})} \Prob{u \rightarrow v} \;=\; \sum_{v\in P(\mathcal{T})} \sum_{T\in \trips{u}{v}} \psi_u(T)
\;=\; \sum_{T \in \tripout{u}} \psi_u(T) \;=\; 1
\]
where the second equality derives from the fact that $\mathcal{T}$ is endless.
Along with a MTM $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ we will use the following notations. For every $u\in P(\mathcal{T})$,
$
\Lambda_{\Psi}(u) = \sum_{T\in \tripout{u}} (|T| - 1)\psi_u(T)$.
Observe that $\Lambda_{\Psi}(u)$ can be interpreted as the expected length of a trace starting from point $u$.
Define also
$\tripin{u} = \{ T \in \mathcal{T}\;|\; T_{end} = u\}$.
The stationary distributions of $\mathcal{D}$ and that of $\kernel{\mathcal{D}}$ are strongly related as stated in the following
\begin{theorem}\label{kernel_stationary}
Let $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ be any MTM. The following properties hold.
$a)$
A map $\pi : S(\mathcal{T}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a stationary distribution of
$\mathcal{D}$ if and only if
a stationary distribution $\sigma$ of $\kernel{\mathcal{D}}$ exists such that
\small \[
\forall \langle T, i\rangle \in S(\mathcal{T}) \qquad
\pi(\langle T, i\rangle) \;=\; \frac{1}{\sum_{u\in P(\mathcal{T})} \sigma(u)\Lambda_{\Psi}(u)}\sigma(T_{start}) \psi_{T_{start}}(T)
\] \normalsize
$b)$ A map $\sigma : P(\mathcal{T}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a stationary distribution of
$\kernel{\mathcal{D}}$ if and only if
a stationary distribution $\pi$ of $\mathcal{D}$ exists such that
\small \[
\forall u\in P(\mathcal{T}) \qquad
\sigma(u) \; =\; \frac{1}{\sum_{T\in \mathcal{T}} \pi(\langle T, 1\rangle)}\sum_{T\in \tripout{u}} \pi(\langle T, 1\rangle)
\] \normalsize
\end{theorem}
\noindent
\textbf{Stationary Distributions: Existence and Uniqueness.}
\begin{cor}\label{kernel_stationary_cor}
Let $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ be any MTM. The following properties hold.
$a)$
$\mathcal{D}$ has always a stationary distribution.
$b)$
$\mathcal{D}$ has a unique stationary distribution if and only if
$\kernel{\mathcal{D}}$ has a unique stationary distribution.
\end{cor}
\noindent
Next proposition shows that the Kernel of an MTM can be any finite Markov chain.
\begin{prop}\label{kernel_general}
Given any Markov chain $\mathcal{M} = (S, P)$ with $S \subseteq \mathcal{R}$, there exists a MTM $\mathcal{D}$
such that $\kernel{\mathcal{D}} = \mathcal{M}$.
\end{prop}
\noindent Let $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ be a MTM. For any two distinct points $u, v\in P(\mathcal{T})$, we say that
$u$ is \emph{connected to} $v$ in $\mathcal{D}$ if there exists a sequence of points of $P(\mathcal{T})$
$(z_0, z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ such that $z_0 = u$, $z_k = v$, and, for every $i = 0,1,\ldots, k-1$,
$
\sum_{T\in \trips{z_i}{z_i+1}} \psi_{z_i}(T) > 0
$
Informally, this can be interpreted as saying that if an agent is
in $u$ then, with positive probability, she will reach $v$. We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is \emph{strongly
connected} if, for every $u, v\in P(\mathcal{T})$, $u$ is connected to $v$. Observe that if $\mathcal{D}$ is not strongly
connected then at least a pair of points $u,v\in P(\mathcal{T})$ exists such that $u$ is not connected to $v$.
\begin{theorem}\label{uniqueness}
If $\mathcal{D}$ is a strongly connected MTM then $\mathcal{D}$ has a unique stationary distribution.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
{\bf Stationary Distributions: Uniformity.}
Let $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ be any MTM. We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is \emph{uniformly selective} if
$\forall u\in P(\mathcal{T})$, $\psi_u$ is a uniform distribution.
We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is \emph{balanced} if
$\forall u\in P(\mathcal{T})$, $|\tripin{u}| \;=\; |\tripout{u}|$
Observe that if a MTM $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ has a uniform stationary distribution then it must be the case that
$|S(\mathcal{T})| < \infty$ or, equivalently, $|\mathcal{T}| < \infty$.
\begin{theorem}\label{uniformity}
A MTM $\mathcal{D} = (\mathcal{T}, \Psi)$ has a uniform stationary distribution if and only if it is both
uniformly selective and balanced.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
{\bf Stationary Spatial and Destination Distributions.}
We use the following notations. For any trace $T \in \mathcal{T}$ and for any $u \in \mathcal{R}$, define
\small \[ \#_{T,u} = | \{ i \in \mathbb{N} \ | \ 1 \leqslant i < |T|-1 \ \wedge \ T(i) = u \}|
\ \mbox{ and } \ \mathcal{T}_u = \{ T \in \mathcal{T} \ | \ \#_{T,u} \geqslant 1 \} \] \normalsize
\noindent
- We now derive the function $\mathfrak{s}(v)$ representing the probability that an agent lies in point
$v\in \mathcal{R}$
w.r.t. the stationary distribution $\pi$. This is called \emph{Stationary (Agent) Spatial Distribution}.
By definition, for any point $u \in\mathcal{R} $, it holds that
\small \[
\mathfrak{s}(u) = \sum_{\langle T,i \rangle \in S(\mathcal{T}) \wedge T(i) = v} \pi(\langle T,i\rangle)
= \sum_{T \in \mathcal{T}_u} \#_{T,u} \cdot \pi(\langle T,1\rangle) \label{pos1}
\] \normalsize
\noindent If the stationary distribution $\pi$ is uniform, then
$
\mathfrak{s}(u) \ = \ (1 / | S(\mathcal{T}) | ) \cdot \sum_{T \in \mathcal{T}_u} \#_{T,u}$. \\
We say that an MTM is \emph{simple} if, for any trace $T \in \mathcal{T}$ and $u \in \mathcal{R}$,
$\#_{T,u} \leqslant 1$. Then, if the MTM is simple \emph{and} $\pi$ is uniform, then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{pos}
\mathfrak{s}(u) \ = \ \frac {|\mathcal{T}_u|} {| S(\mathcal{T}) |}
\end{equation}
\noindent
- Another important distribution is given by function $blue_u(v)$ representing
the probability
that an agent has destination $v$ under the condition she is in position $u$.
This function will be called \emph{Stationary (Agent) Destination Distribution.} By definition, it holds that
{\small \[
blue_u(v) =
\frac{\sum_{\langle T,i \rangle \in S(\mathcal{T}) \wedge T(i) = u \wedge T_{end} = v} \pi(\langle T,i\rangle) }{ \mathfrak{s}(u) }
= \frac{\sum_{ T \in \mathcal{T}_u \wedge T_{end} = v} \#_{T,u} \cdot \pi(\langle T,1\rangle) }{ \mathfrak{s}(u) }
\]}
\noindent
We define $ \Gamma_u(v) = | \mathcal{T}_u \cap \tripin{v}|$
and $\Gamma_u = | \mathcal{T}_u |$ and
observe that, if the MTM is simple \emph{and} $\pi$ is uniform, then
{\small \begin{equation}\label{eq::destsimple}
blue_u(v) = \frac{ \Gamma_u(v) }{ \Gamma_u} \end{equation}
}
\section{The Manhattan Random-Way Point} \label{sec::Manhattan}
In this section, we study a mobility model, called \emph{Manhattan Random-Way Point}, an
interesting variant of the Random-Way Point that has been recently studied in \cite{CDMRV09}. \\
Consider a finite 2-dimensional square of edge length $L>0$. A set $\sc{A}$ of $n$ independent \emph{Agents} move
over this square according to the following random rule. Starting from an initial position $(x_0,y_0)$, every
agent selects a \emph{destination}
$(x,y)$ uniformly at random
in the square (i.e. every point of the square has the same probability to be chosen). Then, the agent chooses
(again \emph{uniformly at random}) between the two feasible \emph{Manhattan (shortest) paths}.
Once the destination and the feasible path are randomly selected, the agents start following the chosen route
with \emph{speed} determined by the parameter $\mbox{\sc{v}}$.
In the sequel, we assume that all agents have the same speed $\mbox{\sc{v}}$ that represents
the travelled distance by an agent in the time unit. However, a variable agent speed can be easily
modelled and analyzed by considering more traces for any\emph{ source-destination} pair.
Once arrived at the selected destination, every agent independently re-applies the
process described above again and again. This
infinite process yields the \emph{Manhattan Random Way-Point}.
\noindent
We here consider a discrete version of the Manhattan Random-Way Point which is in fact a \emph{Markov Trace Model}.
Agents will act over a \emph{square
cell grid } of \emph{arbitrary-high resolution} according to a global discrete clock.
Every agent, within the next time step,
can reach any grid point (that can be also considered as a square cell) which is adjacent to its current position.
We emphasize that, as the grid
resolution increases, the time unit decreases.
This scalability allows to observe the process at arbitrary-small time unit and space resolution
while preserving the ability to choice any possible agent speed.
\noindent
In order to formally define the MTM, we introduce the following \emph{support
graph} $G_{\epsilon}(V_{\epsilon},E_{\epsilon})$ where
$
V_{\epsilon} = \{ (i\epsilon, j\epsilon) \, : \, i,j\in \{0,1,\ldots, N-1\}\}$ and
$
E_{\epsilon} = \{ (u,v) \, : \, u, v \in V_{\epsilon}\;\; \wedge \ d(u,v) = \epsilon \}$
where, here and in the sequel, $N = \lceil L / \epsilon \rceil$ and $d(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the Euclidean
distance.
\noindent Now, given any point $v
\in V_{\epsilon}$, we define a set $\mathcal{C} (v)$ of feasible paths from $v$ as follows. For any point $u$,
$\mathcal{C}(v)$ includes the (at most) two Manhattan paths having exactly one corner point. More precisely, let $v =
(x,y)$ and $u =( x', y')$ we consider the path having first the horizontal segment from $(x,y)$ to $(x',y)$ and
then the vertical segment to $(x',y')$. The second path is symmetrically formed by the vertical segment from
$(x,y)$ to $(x,y')$ and the horizontal segment to $(x',y')$. Observe that if $x = x'$ or $y = y'$, then the two
paths coincides. We are now able to define the \emph{Manhattan Markov Trace Model} (in short $\mbox{\sc{Manhattan-mtm}}$)
$(\mathcal{T}_{\epsilon},\Psi_{\epsilon})$, where \\
$ \mathcal{T}_{\epsilon} = \{ T \ | \ \text{ $T$ is the point sequence of a path in $\mathcal{C}(v)$ for some $v \in V_{\epsilon}$ } \}$, \\
and $\Psi_\epsilon$ is the \emph{uniform} TSR for $\mathcal{T}_{\epsilon}$. It is easy to verify the $\mbox{\sc{Manhattan-mtm}}$ enjoys the following properties.
\begin{obs} \label{obs::revers}
The $\mbox{\sc{Manhattan-mtm}}$ is balanced, uniformly-selective and strongly-connected. So, from Theorems \ref{uniformity}
and \ref{uniqueness}, the $\mbox{\sc{Manhattan-mtm}}$ has a unique stationary distribution and it is the uniform one.
Moreover, since the $\mbox{\sc{Manhattan-mtm}}$ is simple, the stationary spatial and the destination distributions are given by
Eq.s \ref{pos} and \ref{eq::destsimple}, respectively.
\end{obs}
\noindent
So, we just have to count the size of some subsets of traces (i.e paths in $G_{\epsilon}(V_{\epsilon},E_{\epsilon})$).
Due to lack of space, all calculations are given in App. \ref{app::manhatdest}.
The point $(i\epsilon,j\epsilon)$ will be denoted by its grid
coordinates $(i,j)$.
\noindent The stationary spatial distribution for $(\mathcal{T}_{\epsilon},\Psi_{\epsilon})$ is
{\small \begin{equation}\label{posm}
\mathfrak{s}_\epsilon (i,j)=\frac{3( (4N^2-6N+2)(i+j)-(4N-2)(i^2+j^2)+6N^2-8N+3)}{(N^4-N^2)(4N-2)}
\end{equation} }
\noindent
We now study the Manhattan Random-Way Point over grids of arbitrarily high
\emph{resolution}, i.e. for $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ in order to derive the \emph{probability densitiy}
functions of the stationary distributions. We first compute the probability that an agent lies into a square of
center $(x,y)$ (where $x$ and $y$ are the Euclidean coordinates of a point in $V_{\epsilon}$) and side length $2
\delta$ w.r.t. the spatial distribution; then, we take the limits as $\delta,\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. We thus get
the \emph{probability
density function} of the spatial distribution (see Fig. \ref{fig_manhattan})
{\small \begin{equation}\label{rpd}
s(x,y) = \frac{3}{L^3}(x+y)-\frac{3}{L^4}({x}^2+{y}^2)
\end{equation} }
\noindent
\begin{SCfigure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=0.6]
\def10.8{10}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\LLQ}{200/(10.8*10.8)}
\def0,.2,...,\LL{0,.2,...,10.8}
\foreach \x in 0,.2,...,\LL {
\foreach \y in 0,.2,...,\LL {
\pgfmathsetmacro{\d}{(\LLQ*(10.8*(\x + \y) - \x*\x - \y*\y))}
\dw{black}{\d} (\x, \y) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
}
}
\defblue{blue}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\NN}{100/10.8}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XX}{floor((10.8/0.2)/3)*0.2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\YY}{floor((10.8/0.2)/4)*0.2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\d}{\NN*\YY}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\LY}{10.8 + .1 - \YY}
\dw{blue}{\d} (\XX, \YY) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, \LY);
\pgfmathsetmacro{\d}{\NN*(10.8 - \YY)}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\YYZ}{\YY + .1}
\dw{blue}{\d} (\XX, \YY) +(-.1, -\YYZ) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\pgfmathsetmacro{\d}{\NN*(10.8 - \XX)}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XXZ}{\XX + .1}
\dw{blue}{\d} (\XX, \YY) +(-\XXZ, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\pgfmathsetmacro{\d}{\NN*\XX}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\LX}{10.8 + .1 - \XX}
\dw{blue}{\d} (\XX, \YY) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(\LX, .1);
\dw{blue}{50} (\XX, \YY) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The spatial density function is shown by a gradation
of gray (black corresponds to the maximum density and white corresponds to the
minimum density). The destination probability over the cross
of agent position $(L/3, L/4)$ is shown in gradation of blue.} \label{fig_manhattan}
\end{SCfigure}
\noindent
This is also the formula obtained in \cite{CDMRV09} for the classic
(real time-space) MRWP model.
\noindent
\normalsize
The stationary destination density function can be computed very similarly by applying Eq. \ref{eq::destsimple}.
This is described in Appendix \ref{app::manhatdest}.
The probability $f_{(x_0,y_0)}(x,y)$
that an agent, conditioned to stay in position $(x_0,y_0)$,
has destination $(x,y)$ is
{\footnotesize
\begin{equation} \label{eq::DENSITY}
f_{(x_0,y_0)}(x,y) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac {2L - x_0 - y_0}{4L(L(x_0+y_0) -(x_0^2 +y_0^2 ))} & \mbox{if $x<x_0$ and $y<y_0$}\\
\frac { x_0+y_0} {4L(L(x_0+y_0) -(x_0^2 +y_0^2 ))} & \mbox{if $x>x_0$ and $y>y_0$}\\
\frac { L-x_0 + y_0 }{4L(L(x_0+y_0) -(x_0^2 +y_0^2 ))} & \mbox{if $x<x_0$ and $y>y_0$}\\
\frac { L + x_0 -y_0}{4L(L(x_0+y_0) -(x_0^2 +y_0^2 ))} & \mbox{if $x>x_0$ and $y<y_0$}\\
+ \infty & \mbox{if $x=x_0$ and $y=y_0$} \\
+ \infty& \mbox{if $x=x_0$ and $y<y_0$ (South Case)}\\
+ \infty & \mbox{if $x<x_0$ and $y=y_0$ (West Case}\\
+ \infty & \mbox{if $x=x_0$ and $y>y_0$ (North Case)}\\
+ \infty & \mbox{if $x>x_0$ and $y=y_0$ (East Case)}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
}
It is also possible to derive the probability that an agent, visiting point $(x_0,y_0)$,
has destination in one of the last four cases (south, west, north, and east) (see Fig. \ref{fig_manhattan})
{\footnotesize \begin{eqnarray*}
\phi^{\mbox{south}}_{(x_0,y_0)} = \phi^{\mbox{north}}_{(x_0,y_0)} =
\frac{y_0(L-y_0)}{4L(x_0+y_0) - 4(x_0^2 + y_0^2)} \ , & &
\phi^{\mbox{west}}_{(x_0,y_0)} = \phi^{\mbox{east}}_{(x_0,y_0)} =
\frac{x_0(L-x_0)}{4L(x_0+y_0) - 4(x_0^2 + y_0^2)} \
\end{eqnarray*}
}
\noindent
We observe that the resulting \emph{cross} probability, (i.e. the probability
an agent has destination over the \emph{cross} centered on its current position), is equal to $1/2$ despite the
fact that this region (i.e. the cross) has area 0. This is crucial for getting an upper bound on flooding time
\cite{CMS10b}.
\section{Modular Trace Models} \label{sec::modular}
Defining a MTM whose aim is the approximate representation of a concrete mobility scenario might be
a very demanding task. We thus introduce a technique that makes
the definition of MTMs easier when the mobility scenario is \emph{modular}. For example, consider vehicular mobility
in a city. Any mobility trace can be viewed as formed by the concatenation of \emph{trace segments} each of which is the
segment of the trace that lies on a suitable segment of a street (e.g., the segment of a street between two
crossings). Moreover, given a street segment we can consider all the trace segments that lies on it. Then, it is reasonable
to think that two alike street segments (e.g., two rectilinear segments approximately of the same length),
have similar collections of trace segments. This leads us to the insight that all the traces can be defined by
suitably combining the collection of trace segments relative to street segments. It works just like combining
\emph{Lego} blocks.
\noindent
In the sequel, we use the term \emph{trace segment} to mean a trace that is a part of longer traces.
Given a trace (or a trace segment) $T$, the \emph{shadow of} $T$, denoted by $S_T$, is the sequence of points
obtained from $T$ by replacing each maximal run of repetitions of a point $u$ by a
single occurrence of $u$. For example, the shadow of $(u, u, v, w, w, w, u)$ is $(u, v, w, u)$ (where $u$, $v$, $w$ are
distinct points).
Given any two sequences of points $T$ and $T'$ (be them traces, trace segments, or shadows),
the \emph{combination} of $T$ and $T'$, in symbols $T\cdot T'$, is the concatenation
of the two sequences of points. Moreover, we say that $T$ and $T'$ are \emph{disjoint} if no point occurs
in both $T$ and $T'$.
Given any multiset $X$ we denote the cardinality of $X$
by $|X|$, including repeated memberships.
\noindent
A \emph{bundle} $B$ is any non-empty finite multiset of trace segments such that, for every $T, T'\in B$,
$S_T = S_{T'}$. The common shadow of all the trace segments in $B$ is called the \emph{shadow of}
$B$ and it is denoted by $S_B$.
\\ Two bundles $B$ and $B'$ are \emph{non-overlapping} if $S_B$ and
$S_{B'}$ are disjoint. Given two non-overlapping bundles $B$ and $B'$ the \emph{combination} of $B$
and $B'$, in symbols $B\cdot B'$, is the bundle consisting of all the trace segments $T\cdot T'$ for all the
$T, T'$ with $T\in B$ and $T'\in B'$. Notice that, since $B$ and $B'$ are non-overlapping, it holds that
$S_{B\cdot B'} = S_B\cdot S_{B'}$. Moreover, it holds that $|B\cdot B'| = |B|\cdot |B'|$.
\noindent
A \emph{bundle-path} is a sequence of bundles $P = (B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_k)$ such that any two consecutive
bundles of $P$ are non-overlapping. A bundle-path $P$ determines a bundle $\bpath{P} = B_1\cdot B_2\cdots B_k$.
Observe that
$ |\bpath{P}| \;=\; \prod_{i = 1}^k |B_i|$.
Given a bundle-path $P$, let $P_{start}$ and $P_{end}$ denote, respectively, the starting point and the ending
point of the traces belonging to $\bpath{P}$.
\noindent
A {\em route} $R$ is a multiset of bundle-paths all having the same starting point $R_{start}$ and
the same ending point $R_{end}$ (i.e. there exist points $R_{start}$ and $R_{end}$ such that for every bundle-path $P$ in $R$ it holds
$P_{start}=R_{start}$ and $P_{end}=R_{end}$).
\noindent
Informally speaking, a bundle-path is formed by traces having the same shadow; introducing such different traces allows to model agents travelling on the same
path at different speeds (in this way, it is also possible to change speed around cross-ways and modeling other concrete events).
Moreover, routes are introduced to allow different bundle-paths connecting two points. By introducing more copies of the same bundle-path into a route, it is possible
to determine paths having more agent traffic. As described below, all such issues can be implemented without making the system analysis much harder: it
still mainly concerns counting traces visiting a given bundle.
\noindent
A \emph{Route System} is a pair $\mathfrak{R} = (\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{R})$ where:
$(i)$
$\mathcal{B}$ is a set of bundles, and
$(ii)$
$\mathcal{R}$ is a multiset of routes over the bundles of $\mathcal{B}$ such that,
for every $R\in \mathcal{R}$, there exists $R'\in \mathcal{R}$ with $R'_{start} = R_{end}$.
\noindent
We need some further notations.
Let $\mathcal{R}_u$ be the multiset $\left\{ R\in \mathcal{R} |R_{start}=u \right\}$.
$\#_{P,T}$ is the multiplicity of trace $T$ in $\bpath{P}$.
$\#_{P,B}$ is the number of occurrences of bundle $B$ in the bundle-path $P$.
Moreover $\#_{R,B}=\sum_{p\in R}\#_{P,B}$ and $\#_{B,u}=\sum_{T\in B}\#_{T,u}$,
where the sums vary over all the elements, including repeated memberships.
Let $\#B$ denote the total number of occurrences of points in all the trace segments of $B$, including repeated
memberships, that is,
{\small \[
\#B \;=\; \sum_{\text{$u$ in $S_B$}}\#_{B, u}
\]}
A Route System $\mathfrak{R} = (\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{R})$ defines a MTM $\mathcal{D}[\mathfrak{R}] =
(\btripset{\mathfrak{R}}, \Psi[\mathfrak{R}])$ where \\
$(i)$
$\btripset{\mathfrak{R}} \;=\; \{ T \;|\; \exists R\in \mathcal{R} \,\,\exists P\in R :\; T \in \bpath{P} \}
$
Notice that $\btripset{\mathfrak{R}} $ is a set not a multiset.
$(ii)$
for every $u\in P(\btripset{\mathfrak{R}})$ and for every $T \in \btripout{\mathfrak{R}}{u}$,
{\small \[
\psi[\mathfrak{R}]_u(T) \;=\; \frac{1}{\left|\mathcal{R}_u\right|}\sum_{R\in \mathcal{R}_u}\frac{1}{|R|}\sum_{P\in R}\frac{\#_{P,T}}{|\bpath{P}|}
\]}
The above probability distribution assigns equal probability to routes starting from $u$, then it assigns equal probability to
every bundle path of the same route and, finally, it assigns equal probability to every trace occurrence of the same bundle path.
\noindent
The ''stationary'' formulas for general route systems are given in Appendix \ref{apx::modular}.
We here give the simpler formulas for balanced route systems.
A Route System $\mathfrak{R} = (\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{R})$ is \emph{balanced} if, for every $u\in \mathcal{S}$,
it holds that \\
$ \left|\{R\in \mathcal{R}| R_{start}=u\}\right|\;=\; \left|\{R\in \mathcal{R}| R_{end}=u\}\right|
$.
\noindent
We are now able to derive the explicit formulas for the spatial and the destination distributions; observe that such formulas can be computed by counting arguments or by computer calculations.
\begin{prop}\label{balanced_lego_formulas}
Let $\mathfrak{R} = (\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{R})$ be a balanced Route System such that the associated MTM
$\mathcal{D}[\mathfrak{R}] = (\btripset{\mathfrak{R}}, \Psi[\mathfrak{R}])$ is strongly connected. Then,
$(i)$
The stationary spatial distribution $\mathfrak{s}$ of $\mathcal{D}[\mathfrak{R}]$ is, for every $u\in \mathcal{S}$,
{\small \[
\mathfrak{s}(u) \;=\; \frac{1}{\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}[\mathfrak{R}]} \sum_{B\in \mathcal{B}}
\frac{\#_{B, u}}{|B|}\sum_{R\in\mathcal{R}}\frac{\#_{R,B}}{|R|}
\; \mbox{ with } \;
\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}[\mathfrak{R}] \;=\; \sum_{B\in \mathcal{B}}
\frac{\#B}{|B|}
\sum_{R\in\mathcal{R}}\frac{\#_{R,B}}{|R|}\\
\]}
$(ii)$
the stationary destination distributions $\mathfrak{d}$ of $\mathcal{D}[\mathfrak{R}]$ are, for every $u, v\in \mathcal{S}$,
{\small \[
\mathfrak{d}_u(v) \;=\; \frac{1}{\mathfrak{s}(u)\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}[\mathfrak{R}]} \sum_{B\in \mathcal{B}}
\frac{\#_{B, u}}{|B|}\sum_{R\in\mathcal{R}\wedge R_{end} = v}\frac{\#_{R,B}}{|R|}
\]}
\end{prop}
\begin{obs} \label{obs::slowness}
In the formulas of the stationary distributions stated in Prop. \ref{balanced_lego_formulas},
the factor $\frac{\#_{B, u}}{|B|}$ is the only one depending on trace segments. When points are
homogeneous square cells of size length $d>0$, the following important interpretation hold. Given a trace segment
$T$ and a cell $u$ of $T$, the ratio $v_{T,u} = d / (\#_{T, u} \tau)$ (where $\tau$ is the time unit) can be interpreted as the
\emph{(agent) instanteneous speed} at cell $u$ in trace $T$. We can thus define the \emph{ instantaneous slowness} as
$ \slow{T,u} = 1/ v_{T,u}$ $ = (\#_{T, u} \tau)/ d$. We thus get
$(\#_{B, u})/{|B|} = ( d / \tau) \cdot (\sum_{T \in B} \slow{T,u})/{|B|}$.
Since $d/\tau$ is a constant, the factor $\#_{B, u} / |B|$ is proportional to the average of the instantaneous slowness in $u$
of bundle $B$: this average will be denoted as $\slow{B,u}$.
In order to compute the stationary distributions in Prop. \ref{balanced_lego_formulas} of a given
balanced Route System, we can thus provide the values of $\slow{B,u}$ rather than specifying all the trace segments.
\end{obs}
\subsection{Application: The DownTown Model} \label{ssec::down}
We now use the Modular Trace Model to describe vehicles that move over a squared \emph{city-like} support.
This support consists of a square of $(n+1) \times (n+1)$ crossing \emph{streets} (horizontal and vertical)
and \emph{buildings} (where $n$ is an even number).
Buildings are interdicted zones, while veichles move and park on the streets. Streets
are in turn formed by \emph{parking} and \emph{transit} cells and
every transit cells of a given street has its own direction (see Fig.s \ref{fig_downtown} and \ref{fig_shadows}).
Moreover, a parking cell has its natural direction given by the direction of its closest transit cells.
\noindent
A vehicle (agent) moves from one parking cell (the \emph{start}) to another parking one (the \emph{destination})
by choosing at random one of the feasible paths. To every feasible path, a set of traces is uniquely
associated that models the different ways a vehicle may run over that path: this will also allow to simulate
traffic lights on the cross-ways.
\noindent
Every street is an alternating sequence of \emph{cross-ways} and \emph{blocks}. We enumerate
horizontal streets by an increasing even index $\{0, 2, \ldots , n\}$, starting from the left-top corner.
We do the same for vertical streets as well. In this way, every cross-way gets a pair of coordinates $(i,j)$.
We say that a direction is \emph{positive} over a horizontal street if it goes from left to right and while
the opposite direction is said to be \emph{negative}. As for vertical streets, the positive direction is the
one going from top to bottom and the opposite is said to be negative (see Fig.s \ref{fig_downtown} and \ref{fig_shadows}).
\noindent
Then, the blocks of a horizontal street $i$ will be indexed from left to right with coordinates $(i,1),
(i,3), (i,5), \ldots $. Similarly, the block of a vertical street $j$ will be indexed from top to bottom
with coordinates $(1,j), (3,j), \ldots)$.
\noindent
\begin{SCfigure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=1]
\def0.8,2.8,4.8,6.8,8.8,10.8{0.8,2.8,4.8,6.8,8.8,10.8}
\def1.2,3.2,5.2,7.2,9.2,11.2{1.2,3.2,5.2,7.2,9.2,11.2}
\def1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6{1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6,5.4/6.6,7.4/8.6,9.4/10.6}
\foreach \x / \xx in 1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6 {
\foreach \y / \yy in 1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6 {
\draw[gray,fill=black!10] (\x, \y) rectangle (\xx, \yy);
}
}
\draw[gray] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (11.4,11.4);
\foreach \p / \x in {1/0,2/1,3/2,4/3,5/4,6/5,7/6,8/7,9/8,10/9,11/10} {
\draw (\p, 11.6) node {\x};
}
\foreach \p / \y in {1/10,2/9,3/8,4/7,5/6,6/5,7/4,8/3,9/2,10/1,11/0} {
\draw (0.2, \p) node {\y};
}
\def1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6,5.4/6.6,7.4/8.6,9.4/10.6{1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6,5.4/6.6,7.4/8.6,9.4/10.6}
\begin{scope}[gray]
\foreach \x / \xx in 1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6,5.4/6.6,7.4/8.6,9.4/10.6 {
\foreach \y in 0.8,2.8,4.8,6.8,8.8,10.8 {
\draw[-triangle 45] (\x, \y) -- (\xx, \y);
}
\foreach \y in 1.2,3.2,5.2,7.2,9.2,11.2 {
\draw[-triangle 45] (\xx, \y) -- (\x, \y);
}
}
\foreach \y / \yy in 1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6,5.4/6.6,7.4/8.6,9.4/10.6 {
\foreach \x in 0.8,2.8,4.8,6.8,8.8,10.8 {
\draw[-triangle 45] (\x, \yy) -- (\x, \y);
}
\foreach \x in 1.2,3.2,5.2,7.2,9.2,11.2 {
\draw[-triangle 45] (\x, \y) -- (\x, \yy);
}
}
\end{scope}
\draw (8, 7) node {(4, 7)};
\draw (9, 8) node {(3, 8)};
\draw (9, 7) node {(4, 8)};
\begin{scope}[ultra thick,draw=blue]
\draw (6, 4.5) -- (6, 4.8);
\draw[draw=green,fill=green] (6, 4.5) circle (1mm);
\draw[-triangle 45] (6, 4.8) -- (6.8, 4.8);
\draw[-triangle 45] (6.8, 4.8) -- (6.8, 2.8);
\draw[-triangle 45] (6.8, 2.8) -- (10, 2.8);
\draw (10, 2.8) -- (10, 2.5);
\draw[draw=red,fill=red] (10, 2.5) circle (1mm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[ultra thick,draw=blue]
\draw (6, 2.5) -- (6, 3.2);
\draw[draw=green,fill=green] (6, 2.5) circle (1mm);
\draw[-triangle 45] (6, 3.2) -- (3.2, 3.2);
\draw[-triangle 45] (3.2, 3.2) -- (3.2, 8);
\draw (3.2, 8) -- (2.5, 8);
\draw[draw=red,fill=red] (2.5, 8) circle (1mm);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[ultra thick,draw=blue]
\draw (6, 6.5) -- (6, 7.2);
\draw[draw=green,fill=green] (6, 6.5) circle (1mm);
\draw[-triangle 45] (6, 7.2) -- (5.2, 7.2);
\draw[-triangle 45] (5.2, 7.2) -- (5.2, 10.8);
\draw[-triangle 45] (5.2, 10.8) -- (10, 10.8);
\draw (10, 10.8) -- (10, 10.5);
\draw[draw=red,fill=red] (10, 10.5) circle (1mm);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The DownTown model with $n = 10$. Directions for each block are shown in gray.
In blue are shown three possible routes. The starting
cells are in green and the ending cells are in red.}\label{fig_downtown}
\end{SCfigure}
\noindent
\begin{SCfigure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=3]
\def1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6{1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6}
\foreach \x / \xx in 1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6 {
\foreach \y / \yy in 1.4/2.6,3.4/4.6 {
\draw[gray,fill=black!10] (\x, \y) rectangle (\xx, \yy);
}
}
\draw (1.2, 2) node {$i + 1$};
\draw (1.2, 3) node {$i$};
\draw (1.2, 4) node {$i - 1$};
\draw (2, 4.7) node {$j - 1$};
\draw (3, 4.7) node {$j$};
\draw (4, 4.7) node {$j + 1$};
\draw[-triangle 45,draw=black!20,fill=black!20,line width=1mm] (2.9, 4.6) -- (2.9, 3.4);
\foreach \x in {2.7,2.9} {
\foreach \y / \n in {3.5/6,3.7/5,3.9/4,4.1/3,4.3/2,4.5/1} {
\draw[gray] (\x, \y) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\draw[-triangle 45,draw=black!20,fill=black!20,line width=1mm] (3.1, 3.4) -- (3.1, 4.6);
\foreach \x in {3.1,3.3} {
\foreach \y / \n in {3.5/1,3.7/2,3.9/3,4.1/4,4.3/5,4.5/6} {
\draw[gray] (\x, \y) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\defred!50{red!50}
\defgreen!40{green!40}
\defblue!40{blue!40}
\defblue!80{blue!80}
\def violet!40{violet!40}
\defviolet!80{violet!80}
\deforange!50{orange!50}
\foreach \x in {3.1,3.3} {
\draw[gray] (\x, 2.5) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (\x, 2.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (\x, 2.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=green!40] (\x, 1.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (\x, 1.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (\x, 1.5) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
}
\draw[gray,fill=red!50] (2.9, 2.5) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=red!50] (2.9, 2.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=red!50] (2.9, 2.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=green!40] (2.9, 1.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=green!40] (2.9, 1.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=green!40] (2.9, 1.5) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (2.7, 2.5) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (2.7, 2.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=red!50] (2.7, 2.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (2.7, 1.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (2.7, 1.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (2.7, 1.5) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[green,line width=1mm] (3.4, 1.9) -- (2.9, 1.9);
\draw[-triangle 45,green,line width=1mm] (2.9, 1.9) -- (2.9, 1.4);
\draw[red,line width=1mm] (2.9, 2.6) -- (2.9, 2.1);
\draw[-triangle 45,red,line width=1mm] (2.9, 2.1) -- (2.6, 2.1);
\draw(2.2, 2.1) node{$B_{E, 3}^{++}(i+1, j)$};
\draw(3.8, 1.9) node{$B_{S, 3}^{-+}(i+1, j)$};
\foreach \x in {2.7,2.9} {
\foreach \y / \n in {1.5/6,1.7/5,1.9/4,2.1/3,2.3/2,2.5/1} {
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\foreach \x in {3.1,3.3} {
\foreach \y / \n in {1.5/1,1.7/2,1.9/3,2.1/4,2.3/5,2.5/6} {
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\draw[gray] (3.5, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.7, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= green!40] (3.9, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.1, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.3, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.5, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= green!40] (3.5, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= green!40] (3.7, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= green!40] (3.9, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= red!50] (4.1, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= red!50] (4.3, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= red!50] (4.5, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.5, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.7, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.9, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray, fill=red!50] (4.1, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.3, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.5, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.5, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.7, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.9, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray, fill=red!50] (4.1, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.3, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (4.5, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[green,line width=1mm] (3.9, 3.4) -- (3.9, 3.1);
\draw[-triangle 45,green,line width=1mm] (3.9, 3.1) -- (3.4, 3.1);
\draw[red,line width=1mm] (4.1, 3.1) -- (4.6, 3.1);
\draw[-triangle 45,red,line width=1mm] (4.1, 3.1) -- (4.1,2.6);
\foreach \x / \n in {3.5/6,3.7/5,3.9/4,4.1/3,4.3/2,4.5/1} {
\foreach \y in {3.3,3.1} {
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\foreach \x / \n in {3.5/1,3.7/2,3.9/3,4.1/4,4.3/5,4.5/6} {
\foreach \y in {2.9,2.7} {
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\draw(3.9, 3.5) node{$B_{S, 4}^{--}(i, j+1)$};
\draw(4.1, 2.5) node{$B_{E, 4}^{+-}(i, j+1)$};
\foreach \x in {1.5,1.7,1.9,2.1,2.3,2.5} {
\draw[gray] (\x, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=blue!40] (\x, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=blue!40] (\x, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (\x, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
}
\draw[-triangle 45,blue!80,line width=1mm] (2.6, 3.1) -- (1.4, 3.1);
\draw[-triangle 45,blue!80,line width=1mm] (1.4, 2.9) -- (2.6, 2.9);
\foreach \x / \n in {1.5/6,1.7/5,1.9/4,2.1/3,2.3/2,2.5/1} {
\foreach \y in {3.3,3.1} {
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\foreach \x / \n in {1.5/1,1.7/2,1.9/3,2.1/4,2.3/5,2.5/6} {
\foreach \y in {2.9,2.7} {
\draw (\x, \y) node{\n};
}
}
\draw(2, 3.5) node{$B_{T}^{-}(i, j-1)$};
\draw(2, 2.5) node{$B_{T}^{+}(i, j-1)$};
\draw[gray,fill=black!10] (2.7, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=black!10] (3.3, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=black!10] (2.7, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=black!10] (3.3, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (2.9, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.1, 3.3) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=violet!40] (2.7, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= violet!40] (3.3, 3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= violet!40] (2.9,3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill= violet!40] (3.1,3.1) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=orange!50] (2.7, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=orange!50] (2.9, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray,fill=orange!50] (2.9, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.1, 2.7) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.3, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[gray] (3.1, 2.9) +(-.1, -.1) rectangle ++(.1, .1);
\draw[-triangle 45,violet!80,line width=1mm] (3.4, 3.1) -- (2.6, 3.1);
\draw[orange,line width=1mm] (2.6, 2.9) -- (2.9, 2.9);
\draw[-triangle 45,orange,line width=1mm] (2.9, 2.9) -- (2.9, 2.6);
\iffalse
\draw[xshift=0.5] (4.7, 4.7) node[below right,text width=4.5cm,inner sep=1ex] {
Figure~\ref{fig_shadows}.\\
The cross way at $(i, j)$ and its four adjacent blocks are shown, with $m = 6$. The shadows
of two transit bundles are shown blue. The shadows of start bundles are shown in green. Here only the cases
$--$ and $-+$ are shown. The other two cases (i.e., $++$, and $+-$) are symmetric.
The shadows of end bundles are shown in red}. Here only the cases $++$ and $+-$ are shown.
The other two cases (i.e., $--$ and $-+$) are symmetric.
};
\fi
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{
The cross way at $(i, j)$ and its four adjacent blocks are shown, with $m = 6$. The shadows
of two transit bundles are shown blue. The shadows of start bundles, $--$ and $-+$, are shown in green, the other
two cases (i.e., $++$, and $+-$) are symmetric.
The shadows of end bundles, $++$ and $+-$, are shown in red,
the other two cases are symmetric. The shadow of $B_{C}^{H,-}(i, j)$ is shown in violet, the other
three straight cross bundles are symmetric. The shadow of $B_{C}^{H,++}(i, j)$ is
shown in orange, the other
seven turn cross bundles are symmetric.
}
\label{fig_shadows}
\end{SCfigure}
\noindent
We now formally introduce the \emph{DownTown Route System}
$\mathfrak{R}^D = \langle \mathcal B^D, \mathcal R^D \rangle$; let's start with the bundle set
$\mathcal B^D$.
\smallskip
\noindent
\textbf{[Blocks.] } Each (street) block is formed by $4$ stripes of $m$ cells each
with indexing shown in Fig. \ref{fig_shadows}. Two stripes are
for transit while the two external ones are for parking use. The parking stripe adjacent to
the transit stripe with positive direction is said \emph{positive parking stripe} while the other
one is said \emph{negative parking stripe}. \\
For every
$0 \leqslant i,j \leqslant n$ such that $( i \ \mbox{ odd } \wedge j \mbox{ even } ) \vee
(i \mbox{ even } \wedge j \mbox{ odd })$,
Block $(i,j)$ has the following bundles.
Bundle $\btrans{+}$ whose shadow is the stripe having positive direction;
Bundle $\btrans{-}$ is symmetric to $\btrans{+}$ for the negative direction;
For each parking cell of index $k$, there are four start-Bundles $\bstop{S}{++}$,
$\bstop{S}{+-}$, $\bstop{S}{--}$, and $\bstop{S}{-+}$;
For each parking cell of index $k$, there are four end-Bundles $\bstop{E}{++}$,
$\bstop{E}{+-}$, $\bstop{E}{--}$, and $\bstop{E}{-+}$. The shadows of the above bundles
are shown in Fig. \ref{fig_shadows}.
\noindent
As for the trace segments, thanks to Obs. \ref{obs::slowness}, we only describe the average slowness of the bundles.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume the latter depends only on the cell positions. For any transit cell of index $k$, the average
slowness in that cell is $\slk(k)$, where $\slk( )$ is an arbitrary positive function.
The $\slk( )$ function is the same for all transit cells of any of the above bundles. Notice that, by choosing a suitable function
$\slk()$, we can implement variable agent speeds and simulate traffic lights at the cross-ways. For instance, assume there is
a traffic light on a cross-way having two possible states (red and green): the 2 states alternate at regular fixed time (say
1 minute). Then the slowness of cells along every of the four adjacent transit blocks should be an increasing function of the
distance between the cell (determined by index $k$) and the crossway. The exact form of such increasing function
depends on the average traffic over that cell (notice that the ratio between the highest and the lowest slowness
in the same transit block might be order of hundreds).
As for the parking cells, we assume that the average slowness is equal to a positive constant $\wait$.
\smallskip
\noindent
\textbf{[Cross-Ways.]} A cross-way is formed by 12 cells as shown in Fig. \ref{fig_shadows}. We have two types of associated bundles.\\ For every
$ 0 \leqslant i,j \leqslant n$ such that $( i \mbox{ even } \wedge j \mbox{ even } )$,
we have:
The 4 straight bundles $\bcross{H}{+}$, $\bcross{H}{-}$, $\bcross{V}{+}$, and $\bcross{V}{-}$;
The 8 turn
bundles $\bcross{H}{++}$, $\bcross{H}{+-}$, $\bcross{H}{--}$
$\bcross{H}{-+}$; Moreover,
$\bcross{V}{++}$, $\bcross{V}{+-}$, $\bcross{V}{--}$, and $\bcross{V}{-+}$. The
relative shadows are shown in Fig. \ref{fig_shadows}. Observe that the first sign indicates the sign of the in-direction and the
other indicates the out-direction.
We assume that the average slowness of cross-ways cells is set to a positive constant $\crc$.
\smallskip
\noindent
Let us now introduce the set of DownTown routes $\mathcal R^D$ formed by combining
the bundles described above. First of all, every route contains exactly one bundle-path.
So we can describe the bundle-path. For every pair $\langle c , c' \rangle$
of parking cells not
belonging to the same block, there is (only) one bundle-path that goes from $c$ to $c'$.
The structure of a bundle-path has a start-bundle for $c$, followed by an alternating sequence
of block and cross-way bundles, and finally an end-bundle for $c'$, i.e.,
$S,C_1,B_2,C_3, \ldots , B_{k-1}, C_k, E $ with $ k \geqslant 1$.
\noindent
Notice that two consecutve bundles of a bundle-path sequence belong to two adjacent
cross-ways and blocks, and the bundles of a bundle-path are all distinct.
Let us describe the bundle-paths whose starting cells belong to horizontal blocks. The case of vertical blocks is fully
symmetric. let $(i,j)$ be the coordinates of the
starting horizontal block and let $(k,z)$ be the coordinates of the ending block.
\noindent
\textbf{[Vertical End Block.] } The bundle-path is easily determined by the following
\emph{driving directions}: go straight down horizontal street $i$ toward cross-way $(i,z)$;
turn to vertical street $z$ till block $(k,z)$.
\noindent
\textbf{[Horiz. End Block.]} This case yields in turn two subcases. \\
- Case $j \neq z$. If $k=i$
then go straight down to horizontal street $i$ till block $(i,z)$; if $k \neq i$
then go to cross-way $(i,j+a)$ (where $a=1$ if $i < k$ and $a = -1$ otherwise)
and turn to vertical street $j+a$ towards cross-way $(k,j+a )$, then
turn to horizontal street $k$ towards block $(k,z)$. \\
- Case $j = z$. The resulting bundle-path depends on whether the starting cell belongs to
positive or negative parking stripe. Go to cross-way $(i,j+a)$
(where $a=1$ if we are in the positive case and $a = -1$ otherwise)
and turn to vertical street $j+a$ towards cross-way $(k,j+a )$, then
turn to horizontal street $k$ towards block $(k,z)$.
\noindent
Typical examples of the above paths are shown in Fig. \ref{fig_downtown}.
\noindent
Observe there are some cross-way bundles on the border that do not belong to any route.
For the sake of convenience, for every bundle $B \in \mathcal B^D$,
we define
{\small \[ \sbg \ = \ \sum_{R\in \mathcal{R}^{D}}\frac{\#_{R,B}}{|R|} \]}
Since every route contains exactly one bundle-path and a bundle occurs at most once in any bundle-path, then
$\sbg$ equals the number of bundle-paths containing bundle $B$.
In Appendix \ref{apx:boundlecounting}, we compute $\sbg$ for each kind of bundle in order to get
the stationary spatial distribution given by Prop. \ref{balanced_lego_formulas}. Due to lack of space,
below we give such formulas only for a cell in a horizontal transit block. As for parking cell and
cross-way cells we provide explicit formulas in Appendix \ref{apx:boundlecounting}.
\noindent
Let $\Lambda = \Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}[\mathfrak{R^D}] / m^2$ be the normalization constant
with $\Lambda_{\mathrm{b}}[\mathfrak{R^D}]$ defined in Prop \ref{balanced_lego_formulas}.
Let $u$ be a transit cell of index $k$ (with any $k \in \{1, \ldots , m\}$)
in the \emph{positive transit stripe} of the horizontal transit block $(i,j)$ (i.e. $i$ even and $j$ odd).
(with $i \notin \{0,n\}$).
Then
{\small
\[
\mathfrak{s}(u) = \frac{\slk(k)}{\Lambda}\left(a(i,j)+\frac{k}{m}b(j)+\frac{1}{m}c(j)\right) \ \mbox{ where }
\]
\[
a(i,j) = (n-j)(2nj+j+n-i-1)+(n-2)j-\frac{n}{2}+i-2, \]
\[ b(j) = n(n+1)+\frac{n}{2}-2(n+1)j , \ \mbox{ and } \
c(j) = (n+1)(n+j)+n-3 \]
}
\noindent
An informal representation of the asymptotical behaviour of the above function is
given in Fig. \ref{fig_dtasymptotic}.
\noindent
\begin{SCfigure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[scale=0.6]
\draw (1, 11.6) node {0};
\draw (1.5, 11.6) node {1};
\draw (2, 11.6) node {2};
\draw (5, 11.6) node {\textbf{.}};
\draw (5.5, 11.6) node {\textbf{.}};
\draw (6, 11.6) node {\textbf{.}};
\draw (11, 11.6) node {$n$};
\draw (0.4, 1) node {$n$};
\draw (0.4, 6) node {\textbf{.}};
\draw (0.4, 6.5) node {\textbf{.}};
\draw (0.4, 7) node {\textbf{.}};
\draw (0.4, 10) node {2};
\draw (0.4, 10.5) node {1};
\draw (0.4, 11) node {0};
\defblack{black}
\def15{15}
\def20{20}
\def30{30}
\def10.8{10.8}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XB}{0.6 + (15/100)*10.8}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XM}{\XB + (20/100)*10.8}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XC}{\XM + (30/100)*10.8}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XMM}{\XC + (20/100)*10.8}
\dw{black}{15} (0.6,0.6) rectangle (\XB,11.4);
\dw{black}{30} (\XB,0.6) rectangle (\XM,11.4);
\dw{black}{50} (\XM,0.6) rectangle (\XC,11.4);
\dw{black}{30} (\XC,0.6) rectangle (\XMM,11.4);
\dw{black}{15} (\XMM,0.6) rectangle (11.4,11.4);
\draw[black] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (11.4,11.4);
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XBC}{0.6 + (\XB - 0.6)/2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XMC}{\XB + (\XM - \XB)/2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XCC}{\XM + (\XC - \XM)/2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XMMC}{\XC + (\XMM - \XC)/2}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\XBBC}{\XMM + (11.4 - \XMM)/2}
\draw (\XBC, 5.7) node {\LARGE $n^2$};
\draw (\XMC, 5.7) node {\LARGE $n^{2 + \alpha}$};
\draw (\XCC, 5.7) node {\LARGE $n^3$};
\draw (\XMMC, 5.7) node {\LARGE $n^{2 + \alpha}$};
\draw (\XBBC, 5.7) node {\LARGE $n^2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Asymptotical behaviour of the spatial probability distribution of horizontal positive transit cells ($0 < \alpha < 1$). The role of vertical
coordinate $i$ is almost negligible since the only transit direction of such cells is the \emph{positive horizontal} one. This representation takes no care about the slowness of the cells. Clearly, in vertical positive cells, the roles of $i$ and $j$
interchange.
}\label{fig_dtasymptotic}
\end{SCfigure}
\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgements.} We are very grateful to Paolo Penna for useful comments.
\newpage
\setcounter{page}{0}
\thispagestyle{empty}
|
\section{Introduction}
There is a widespread belief that continuous and pervasive monitoring
will be possible in the near future with large numbers of networked,
mobile, and wireless sensors. Thus, we are witnessing an intense
research activity that focuses on the design of efficient control
mechanisms for these systems. In particular, decentralized algorithms
would allow sensor networks to react autonomously to changes in the
environment with minimal human supervision.
A substantial body of research on sensor networks has concentrated on
simple sensors that can collect scalar data; e.g.,~temperature,
humidity or pressure data. Here, a main objective is the design of
algorithms that can lead to optimal collective sensing through
efficient motion control and communication schemes. However, scalar
measurements can be insufficient in many situations; e.g.,~in
automated surveillance or traffic monitoring applications. In
contrast, data-intensive sensors such as cameras can collect visual
data that are rich in information, thus having tremendous potential
for monitoring applications, but at the cost of a higher processing
overhead.
Precisely, this paper aims to solve a coverage optimization problem
taking into account part of the sensing/processing trade-off.
Coverage optimization problems have mainly been formulated as
cooperative problems where each sensor benefits from sensing the
environment as a member of a group. However, sensing may also require
expenditure; e.g.,~the energy consumed or the time spent by image
processing algorithms in visual networks. Because of this, we endow
each sensor with a utility function that quantifies this trade-off,
formulating a coverage problem as a variation of congestion games
in~\cite{RWR:73}.
{\em Literature review.} In broad terms, the problem studied here is
related to a bevy of sensor location and planning problems in the
Computational Geometry, Geometric Optimization, and Robotics
literature. For example, different variations on the (combinatorial)
Art Gallery problem include~\cite{JOR:87}\cite{TCS:92}\cite{JU:00}.
The objective here is how to find the optimum number of guards in a
non-convex environment so that each point is visible from at least one
guard. A related set of references for the deployment of mobile robots
with omnidirectional cameras
includes~\cite{AG-JC-FB:05k}\cite{AG-JC-FB:06r}. Unlike the Art
Gallery classic algorithms, the latter papers assume that robots have
local knowledge of the environment and no recollection of the
past. Other related references on robot deployment in convex
environments include~\cite{JC-SM-FB:03p}\cite{KL-JC:09} for
anisotropic and circular footprints.
The paper~\cite{IFA-TM-KC:07} is an excellent survey on multimedia
sensor networks where the state of the art in algorithms, protocols,
and hardware is surveyed, and open research issues are discussed in
detail. As observed in~\cite{RC:05}, multimedia sensor networks
enhance traditional surveillance systems by enlarging, enhancing, and
enabling multi-resolution views. The investigation of coverage
problems for static visual sensor networks is conducted
in~\cite{KYC-KSL-EYL:07}\cite{EH-RL:06}.
Another set of relevant references to this paper comprise those on the
use of game-theoretic tools to (i) solve static target assignment
problems, and (ii) devise efficient and secure algorithms for
communication networks. In~\cite{JRM-AW:08}, the authors present a
game-theoretic analysis of a coverage optimization problem for static
sensor networks. This problem is equivalent to the weapon-target
assignment problem in~\cite{RAM:99} which is nondeterministic
polynomial-time complete. In general, the solution to assignment
problems is hard from a combinatorial optimization viewpoint.
Game Theory and Learning in Games are used to analyze a variety of
fundamental problems in; e.g.,~wireless communication networks and the
Internet. An incomplete list of references includes~\cite{TA-TB-SD:06}
on power control,~\cite{TR:05} on routing, and~\cite{AT-LA:08} on flow
control. However, there has been limited research on how to employ
Learning in Games to develop distributed algorithms for mobile sensor
networks. One exception is the paper~\cite{JRM-GA-JSS:08} where the
authors establish a link between cooperative control problems (in
particular, consensus problems), and games (in particular, potential
games and weakly acyclic games).
{\em Statement of contributions.} The contributions of this paper
pertain to both coverage optimization problems and Learning in Games.
Compared with~\cite{AK-SM:08b} and~\cite{KL-JC:09}, this paper employs
a more accurate sensing model and the results can be easily extended
to include non-convex environments. Contrary to~\cite{AK-SM:08b}, we
do not consider energy expenditure from sensor motions.
Regarding Learning in Games, we extend the use of the payoff-based
learning dynamics in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}. The
coverage game we consider here is shown to be a (constrained) potential
game. A number of learning rules; e.g.,~better (or best) reply dynamics
and adaptive play, have been proposed to reach Nash equilibria in
potential games. In these algorithms, each player must have access to
the utility values induced by alternative actions. In our problem
set-up; however, this information is unaccessible because of the
information constraints caused by unknown rewards, motion and sensing
limitations. To tackle this challenge, we develop two distributed
payoff-based learning algorithms where each sensor only remembers its
own utility values and actions played during the last plays.
In the first algorithm, at each time step, each sensor repeatedly
updates its action synchronously, either trying some new action or
selecting the action which corresponds to a higher utility value in
the most recent two time steps. The first advantage of this algorithm
over the payoff-based learning algorithms
of~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06} is its simpler dynamics,
which reduces the computational complexity. Furthermore, the algorithm
employs a diminishing exploration rate (in contrast to the constant
one in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}). The dynamically
changing exploration rate renders the algorithm an inhomogeneous
Markov chain (instead of the homogeneous ones
in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}). This technical change
allows us to prove convergence in probability to the set of
(constrained) Nash equilibria from which no agent is willing to
unilaterally deviate. Thus, the property is substantially stronger
than those in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06} where the
algorithms are guaranteed to converge to Nash equilibria with a
sufficiently large probability by choosing a sufficiently small
exploration rate in advance.
The second algorithm is asynchronous. At each time step, only one
sensor is active and updates its state by either trying some new
action or selecting an action according to a Gibbs-like distribution
from those played in last two time steps when it was active. The
algorithm is shown to be convergent in probability to the set of
global maxima of a coverage performance metric. Compared with the
synchronous payoff-based log-linear learning algorithm
in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}, this algorithm is asynchronous and
simpler. Furthermore, rather than maximizing the associated potential
function, the second algorithm optimizes a different global function
which captures better a global trade-off between the overall network
benefit from sensing and the total energy the network consumes. Again,
by employing a diminishing exploration rate, our algorithm is
guaranteed to have stronger convergence properties that the ones
in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}.
\section{Problem formulation}\label{sec:problem}
Here, we first review some basic game-theoretic concepts; see, for
example~\cite{DF-JT:91}. This will allow us to formulate subsequently
an optimal coverage problem for mobile visual sensor networks as a
repeated multi-player game. We then introduce notation used
throughout the paper.
\subsection{Background in Game Theory}\label{sec:gametheory}
A strategic game $\Gamma := \langle V, A, U \rangle$ has three
components:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] A set $V$ enumerating players $i \in V := \{1,\cdots,N\}$.
\item[2.] An action set $A := \prod_{i=1}^N A_i$ is the space of all
actions vectors, where $s_i\in A_i$ is the action of player $i$ and
an (multi-player) action $s\in A$ has components $s_1,\dots, s_N$.
\item[3.] The collection of utility functions $U$, where the utility
function $u_i : A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ models player $i$'s
preferences over action profiles.
\end{itemize}
Denote by $s_{-i}$ the action profile of all players other than $i$,
and by $A_{-i}=\prod_{j\neq i}A_j$ the set of action profiles for all
players except $i$. The concept of (pure) Nash equilibrium (NE, for
short) is the most important one in Non-cooperative Game
Theory~\cite{DF-JT:91} and is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[Nash equilibrium~\cite{DF-JT:91}] Consider the
strategic game $\Gamma$. An action profile $s^{*} := (s_i^*,
s_{-i}^*)$ is a (pure) NE of the game $\Gamma$ if $\forall i\in V$
and $\forall s_i\in A_i$, it holds that $u_i(s^*)\geq u_i(s_i,
s_{-i}^*)$. \label{def3}
\end{definition}
An action profile corresponding to an NE represents a scenario where
no player has incentive to unilaterally deviate. Potential Games form
an important class of strategic games where the change in a player's
utility caused by a unilateral deviation can be measured by a
potential function.
\begin{definition}[Potential game~\cite{DM-LS:96}] The strategic game
$\Gamma$ is a potential game with potential function $\phi :
A\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ if for every $i\in V$, for every
$s_{-i}\in A_{-i}$, and for every $s_i, s_i'\in A_i$, it holds that
\begin{align}
\phi(s_i, s_{-i})-\phi(s_i', s_{-i}) = u_i(s_i,
s_{-i})-u_i(s_i', s_{-i}).\label{e4}
\end{align}
\label{def2}
\end{definition}
In conventional Non-cooperative Game Theory, all the actions in
$A_{i}$ always can be selected by player $i$ in response to other
players' actions. However, in the context of motion coordination, the
actions available to player $i$ will often be constrained to a
state-dependent subset of $A_i$. In particular, we denote by $F_i(s_i,
s_{-i})\subseteq A_i$ the set of feasible actions of player $i$ when
the action profile is $s := (s_i, s_{-i})$. We assume that $F_i(s_i,
s_{-i})\neq \emptyset$. Denote $F(s) := \prod_{i\in V}F_i(s) \subseteq
A$, $\forall s\in A$ and $F := \cup\{F(s)\;|\;s\in A\}$. The
introduction of $F$ leads naturally to the notion of constrained
strategic game $\subscr{\Gamma}{res} := \langle V, A, U, F \rangle$,
and the following associated concepts.
\begin{definition}[Constrained Nash equilibrium] Consider the
constrained strategic game $\subscr{\Gamma}{res}$. An action profile
$s^{*}$ is a constrained (pure) NE of the game $\subscr{\Gamma}{res}$
if $\forall i\in V$ and $\forall s_i\in F_i(s_i^*, s_{-i}^*)$, it
holds that $u_i(s^*)\geq u_i(s_i, s_{-i}^*)$. \label{def1}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Constrained potential game] The game
$\subscr{\Gamma}{res}$ is a constrained potential game with potential
function $\phi(s)$ if for every $i\in V$, every $s_{-i}\in A_{-i}$,
and every $s_i\in A_i$, the equality~\eqref{e4} holds for every
$s_i'\in F_i(s_i, s_{-i})$. \label{def4}
\end{definition}
Observe that if $s^*$ is an NE of the strategic game $\Gamma$, then it
is also a constrained NE of the constrained strategic game
$\subscr{\Gamma}{res}$. For any given strategic game, NE may not
exist. However, the existence of NE in potential games is
guaranteed~\cite{DM-LS:96}. Hence, any constrained potential game has
at least one constrained NE.
\subsection{Coverage problem formulation}
\subsubsection{Mission space}
We consider a convex 2-D mission space that is discretized into a
(squared) lattice. We assume that each square of the lattice has unit
dimensions. Each square will be labeled with the coordinate of its
center $q=(q_x, q_y)$, where $q_x\in [q_{x_{\min}}, q_{x_{\max}}]$ and
$q_y\in [q_{y_{\min}}, q_{y_{\max}}]$, for some integers
$q_{x_{\min}},\; q_{y_{\min}},$ $ q_{x_{\max}},\; q_{y_{\max}}$.
Denote by ${\mathcal{Q}}$ the collection of all squares of the
lattice.
We now define an associated location graph $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc} :=
({\mathcal{Q}}, \subscr{E}{loc})$ where $((q_x, q_y),$ $(q_{x'}, q_{y'}))\in
\subscr{E}{loc}$ if and only if $|q_x -q_{x'}|+|q_y - q_{y'}|=1$ for
$(q_x, q_y), (q_{x'}, q_{y'})\in{\mathcal{Q}}$. Note that the graph
$\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc}$ is undirected; i.e., $(q, q')\in \subscr{E}{loc}$
if and only if $(q', q)\in \subscr{E}{loc}$. The set of neighbors of
$q$ in $\subscr{E}{loc}$ is given by $\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{loc}_{q} :=
\{q'\in\mathcal{Q}\setminus \{q\} \;|\; (q, q')\in \subscr{E}{loc}\}$. We
assume that the location graph ${\mathcal{G}}_{\rm loc}$ is fixed and
connected, and denote its diameter by $D$.
Agents are deployed in $\mathcal{Q}$ to detect certain events of interest. As
agents move in $\mathcal{Q}$ and process measurements, they will assign a
numerical value $W_{q}\ge 0$ to the events in each square with center
$q \in \mathcal{Q}$. If $W_{q}=0$, then there is no significant event at the
square with center $q$. The larger the value of $W_{q}$ is, the more
interest the set of events at the square with center $q$ is of.
Later, the amount $W_{q}$ will be identified with a benefit of
observing the point $q$. In this set-up, we assume the values $W_{q}$
to be constant in time. Furthermore, $W_q$ is not a prior knowledge to
the agents, but the agents can measure this value through sensing the
point $q$.
\subsubsection{Modeling of the visual sensor nodes}
Each mobile agent~$i$ is modeled as a point mass in $\mathcal{Q}$, with
location $a_i := (x_i, y_i) \in \mathcal{Q}$. Each agent has mounted a pan-tilt-zoom camera,
and can adjust its orientation and focal length.
The visual sensing range of a camera is directional, limited-range, and has a
finite angle of view. Following a geometric simplification, we model
the visual sensing region of agent~$i$ as an annulus sector in the
2-D plane; see Figure~\ref{fig1}.
\begin{figure}[th]
\centerline{ \epsfxsize=3in \epsffile{ring.eps},\epsfxsize=3.5in \epsffile{coveragegameblack.eps}}
\caption{Visual sensor footprint and a configuration of the mobile sensor network}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The visual sensor footprint is completely characterized by the
following parameters: the position of agent~$i$, $a_i\in \mathcal{Q}$, the
camera orientation, $\theta_i \in [0,2\pi)$, the camera angle of view,
$\alpha_i \in [\subscr{\alpha}{min},\subscr{\alpha}{max}]$, and the
shortest range (resp.~longest range) between agent $i$ and the nearest
(resp.~farthest) object that can be recognized from the image,
$\supscr{r}{shrt}_i \in [\subscr{r}{min},\subscr{r}{max}]$
(resp.~$\supscr{r}{lng}_i \in [\subscr{r}{min},\subscr{r}{max}]$).
The parameters $\supscr{r}{shrt}_i$, $\supscr{r}{lng}_i$, $\alpha_i$
can be tuned by changing the focal length $\operatorname{FL}_i$ of agent $i$'s
camera. In this way, $c_i : = (\operatorname{FL}_i, \theta_i)\in
[0,\subscr{\operatorname{FL}}{max}]\times [0,2\pi)$ is the camera control vector of
agent $i$. In what follows, we will assume that $c_i$ takes values in
a finite subset $\mathcal{C} \subset [0,\subscr{\operatorname{FL}}{max}]\times [0,2\pi)$. An
agent action is thus a vector $s_i:=(a_i, c_i)\in {\mathcal{A}}_i :=
\mathcal{Q}\times \mathcal{C}$, and a multi-agent action is denoted by
$s=(s_1,\dots,s_N) \in \mathcal{A} := \Pi_{i=1}^N
\mathcal{A}_i$.
Let ${\mathcal{D}}(a_i,c_i)$ be the visual sensor footprint of
agent~$i$. Now we can define a proximity sensing
graph\footnote{See~\cite{FB-JC-SM:08} for a definition of proximity
graph.} $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{sen}(s) := (V, \subscr{E}{sen}(s))$ as
follows:
the set of neighbors of agent $i$, $\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(s)$, is given as
$\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(s) := \{j \in V\backslash\{i\} \;|\;
{\mathcal{D}}(a_i, c_i)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(a_j,
c_j)\cap{\mathcal{Q}}\neq\emptyset\}$.
Each agent is able to communicate with others to exchange information.
We assume that the communication range of agents is
$2\subscr{r}{max}$. This induces a $2\subscr{r}{max}$-disk
communication graph $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{comm}(s) := (V,
\subscr{E}{comm}(s))$ as follows: the set of neighbors of agent $i$ is
given by $\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{comm}_i(s) := \setdef{j \in
V\backslash\{i\}} {(x_i - x_j)^2+(y_i - y_j)^2 \leq
(2\subscr{r}{max})^2}$. Note that $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{comm}(s)$ is
undirected and that $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{sen}(s)\subseteq
\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{comm}(s)$.
The motion of agents will be limited to a neighboring point in
$\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc}$ at each time step. Thus, an agent feasible action
set will be given by
${\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i):=(\{a_i\}\cup\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{loc}_{a_i})\times
{\mathcal{C}}$.
\subsubsection{Coverage game}
We now proceed to formulate a coverage optimization problem as a
constrained strategic game. For each $q\in{\mathcal{Q}}$, we denote $n_q(s)$ as
the cardinality of the set $\{k\in V \;|\; q\in {\mathcal{D}}(a_k,
c_k)\cap{\mathcal{Q}}\}$; i.e., the number of agents which can observe
the point $q$. The ``profit'' given by $W_{q}$ will be equally shared
by agents that can observe the point $q$. The benefit that agent $i$
obtains through sensing is thus defined by $\sum_{q
\in{\mathcal{D}}(a_i,c_i)\cap{\mathcal{Q}}}\frac{W_{q}}{n_{q}(s)}$.
On the other hand, and as argued in~\cite{CBM-VP-KO-RM:06}, the
processing of visual data can incur a higher cost than that of
communication. This is in contrast with scalar sensor networks, where
the communication cost dominates.
With this observation, we model the energy consumption of agent $i$ by
$f_i(c_i) := \frac{1}{2}\alpha_i
((\supscr{r}{lng}_i)^2-(\supscr{r}{shrt}_i)^2)$. This measure
corresponds to the area of the visual sensor footprint and can serve
to approximate the energy consumption or the cost incurred by image
processing algorithms.
We will endow each agent with a utility function that aims to capture
the above sensing/processing trade-off. In this way, we define a
utility function for agent $i$ by
\begin{align*}
u_i(s) = \sum_{q\in{\mathcal{D}}(a_i,
c_i)\cap{\mathcal{Q}}}\frac{W_{q}}{n_{q}(s)} - f_i(c_i).
\end{align*}
Note that the utility function $u_i$ is local over the visual sensing
graph $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{sen}(s)$; i.e., $u_i$ is only dependent on
the actions of $\{i\}\cup \supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(s)$.
With the set of utility functions $\subscr{U}{cov}=\{u_i\}_{i\in V}$,
and feasible action set $\subscr{\mathcal{F}}{cov} = \Pi_{i=1}^N\bigcup_{a_i
\in \mathcal{A}_i} \mathcal{F}_i(a_i)$, we now have all the ingredients to introduce
the coverage game $\subscr{\Gamma}{cov} := \langle V, {\mathcal{A}},
\subscr{U}{cov}, \subscr{\mathcal{F}}{cov}\rangle$. This game is a variation
of the congestion games introduced in~\cite{RWR:73}.
\begin{lemma}
The coverage game $\subscr{\Gamma}{cov}$ is a constrained potential
game with potential function
\begin{align*}
\phi(s) = \sum_{q\in {\mathcal{Q}}}\sum_{\ell=1}^{n_q(s)}\frac{W_q}{\ell}-\sum_{i=1}^N
f_i(c_i).\end{align*}\label{lem1}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The proof is a slight variation of that
in~\cite{RWR:73}. Consider any $s:=(s_i, s_{-i})\in {\mathcal{A}}$
where $s_i := (a_i, c_i)$. We fix $i\in V$ and pick any $s_i'=(a_i',
c_i')$ from ${\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i)$. Denote $s':=(s_i', s_{-i})$, $\Omega_1
:= ({\mathcal{D}}(a_i, c_i)\backslash {\mathcal{D}}(a_i',
c_i'))\cap{\mathcal{Q}}$ and $\Omega_2 := ({\mathcal{D}}(a_i',
c_i')\backslash {\mathcal{D}}(a_i, c_i))\cap{\mathcal{Q}}$. Observe
that
\begin{align*}& \phi(s_i, s_{-i})-\phi(s_i',
s_{-i})\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{q\in \Omega_1}(\sum_{\ell=1}^{n_q(s)}\frac{W_q}{\ell}-\sum_{\ell=1}^{n_q(s')}\frac{W_q}{\ell})
+\sum_{q\in \Omega_2}(-\sum_{\ell=1}^{n_q(s)}\frac{W_q}{\ell}+\sum_{\ell=1}^{n_q(s')}\frac{W_q}{\ell})
-f_i(c_i)+f_i(c_i')\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{q\in \Omega_1}\frac{W_q}{n_q(s)}-\sum_{q\in \Omega_2}\frac{W_q}{n_q(s')}-f_i(c_i)+f_i(c_i')\nonumber\\
&= u_i(s_i,s_{-i})-u_i(s_i',s_{-i})
\end{align*} where in the second equality we utilize the fact that for
each $q\in \Omega_1$, $n_q(s) = n_q(s')+1$, and each $q\in \Omega_2$, $n_q(s')= n_q(s)+1$.
\end{proof}
We denote by ${\mathcal{E}}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})$ the set of constrained
NEs of $\subscr{\Gamma}{cov}$. It is worth mentioning that
${\mathcal{E}}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})\neq\emptyset$ due to the fact that
$\subscr{\Gamma}{cov}$ is a constrained potential game.
\begin{remark} The assumptions of our problem formulation admit
several extensions. For example, it is straightforward to extend our
results to non-convex 3-D spaces. This is because the results that
follow can also handle other shapes of the sensor footprint; e.g.,~a
complete disk, a subset of the annulus sector. On the other hand,
note that the coverage problem can be interpreted as a target
assignment problem---here, the value $W_q\geq0$ would be associated
with the value of a target located at the point
$q$.\oprocend\label{rem1}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Notations}
In the following, we will use the Landau symbol, $O$, as in
$O(\epsilon^k)$, for some $k\geq0$. This implies that
$0<\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\frac{O(\epsilon^k)}{\epsilon^k}<+\infty$. We denote by $\diag{\mathcal{A}} :=
\setdef{(s,s)\in {\mathcal{A}}^2}{s\in \mathcal{A}}$ and
$\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}:=\setdef{(s, s)\in
{\mathcal{A}}^{2}}{ s\in {\mathcal{E}}(\Gamma_{\rm cov})}$.
Consider $a, a'\in {\mathcal{Q}^N}$ where $a_i\neq a_i'$ and
$a_{-i}=a_{-i}'$ for some $i\in V$. The transition $a\rightarrow a'$
is feasible if and only if $(a_i, a_i')\in \subscr{E}{loc}$. A
feasible path from $a$ to $a'$ consisting of multiple feasible
transitions is denoted by $a\Rightarrow a'$. Let $\diamond a :=
\setdef{a'\in\mathcal{Q}}{a \Rightarrow a'}$ be the reachable set from
$a$.
Let $s = (a, c), s' = (a', c') \in {\mathcal{A}}$ where $a_i \neq
a_i'$ and $a_{-i} = a_{-i}'$ for some $i\in V$. The transition $s
\rightarrow s'$ is feasible if and only if $s_i' \in {\mathcal{F}}_i(a)$. A
feasible path from $s$ to $s'$ consisting of multiple feasible
transitions is denoted by $s \Rightarrow s'$. Finally, $\diamond s :=
\setdef{s' \in {\mathcal{A}}}{ s \Rightarrow s'}$ will be the
reachable set from $s$.
\section{Distributed coverage learning algorithms and convergence
results}\label{sec:algorithm}
In our coverage problem, we assume that $W_q$ is unknown in
advance. Furthermore, due to the limitations of motion and sensing,
each agent is unable to obtain the information of $W_q$ if the point
$q$ is outside its sensing range. These information constraints
renders that each agent is unable to access to the utility values
induced by alternative actions. Thus the action-based learning
algorithms; e.g., better (or best) reply learning algorithm and
adaptive play learning algorithm can not be employed to solve our
coverage games. It motivates us to design distributed learning
algorithms which only require the payoff received.
In this section, we come up with two distributed payoff-based learning
algorithms, say \emph{Distributed Inhomogeneous Synchronous Coverage
Learning Algorithm} ($\operatorname{DISCL}$, for short) and \emph{Distributed
Inhomogeneous Asynchronous Coverage Learning Algorithm} ($\operatorname{DIACL}$, for
short). We then present their convergence properties. Relevant
algorithms include payoff-based learning algorithms proposed
in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}.
\subsection{Distributed Inhomogeneous Synchronous Coverage Learning Algorithm}
For each $t\ge 1$ and $i \in V$, we define $\tau_i(t)$ as follows: $\tau_i(t) = t$ if $u_i(s(t))\geq u_i(s(t-1))$, otherwise, $\tau_i(t) = t-1$. Here, $s_i(\tau_i(t))$ is the more successful action of agent $i$ in last two steps. The main steps of the
$\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm are the following:
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE [\underline{Initialization}:] At $t=0$, all agents are
uniformly placed in $\mathcal{Q}$. Each agent $i$ uniformly chooses
its camera control vector $c_i$ from the set $\mathcal{C}$,
communicates with agents in $\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(s(0))$, and
computes $u_i(s(0))$. At $t = 1$, all the agents keep their
actions.
\STATE [\underline{Update}:] At each time $t\geq2$, each agent $i$
updates its state according to the following rules:
\begin{itemize}
\item Agent $i$ chooses the exploration rate $\epsilon(t) =
t^{-\frac{1}{N(D+1)}}$ and compute $s_i(\tau_i(t))$.
\item With probability $\epsilon(t)$, agent $i$ experiments, and
chooses the temporary action $\supscr{s}{tp}_i:=
(\supscr{a}{tp}_i, \supscr{c}{tp}_i)$ uniformly from the set
$\mathcal{F}_i(a_i(t))\setminus\{s_i(\tau_i(t))\}$.
\item With probability $1-\epsilon(t)$, agent $i$ does not
experiment, and sets $\supscr{s}{tp}_i=s_i(\tau_i(t))$.
\item After $\supscr{s}{tp}_i$ is chosen, agent $i$ moves to the
position $\supscr{a}{tp}_i$ and sets the camera control vector to
$\supscr{c}{tp}_i$.
\end{itemize}
\STATE [\underline{Communication and computation}:] At position
$\supscr{a}{tp}_i$, agent $i$ communicates with agents in
$\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(\supscr{s}{tp}_i, \supscr{s}{tp}_{-i})$, and
computes $u_i(\supscr{s}{tp}_i, \supscr{s}{tp}_{-i})$ and
$\mathcal{F}_i(\supscr{a}{tp}_i)$.
\STATE Repeat Step 2 and 3.
\end{algorithmic}
\begin{remark}
A variation of the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm corresponds to
$\epsilon(t)=\epsilon\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$ constant for all
$t\geq2$. If this is the case, we will refer to the algorithm as
\emph{Distributed Homogeneous Synchronous Coverage Learning
Algorithm} ($\operatorname{DHSCL}$, for short). Later, the convergence analysis of
the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm will be based on the analysis of the $\operatorname{DHSCL}$
algorithm.\oprocend\label{rem2}
\end{remark}
Denote the space ${\mathcal{B}} :=
\setdef{(s,s')\in{\mathcal{A}}\times{\mathcal{A}}}{s_i'\in{\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i),\;\forall
i\in V}$. Observe that $z(t) := (s(t-1), s(t))$ in the $\operatorname{DISCL}$
algorithm constitutes a time-inhomogeneous Markov chain
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ on the space ${\mathcal{B}}$. The following
theorem states that the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm asymptotically converges to
the set of $\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})$ in probability.
\begin{theorem}
Consider the Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ induced by the $\operatorname{DISCL}$
Algorithm. It holds that
$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(z(t)\in\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})})
= 1$.\label{the8}
\end{theorem}
The proofs of Theorem~\ref{the8} are provided in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
\begin{remark} The $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm is simpler than the payoff-based
learning algorithm proposed in~\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}, reducing
the computational complexity. The algorithm studied
in~\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06} converges the set of NEs with a
arbitrarily high probability by choosing a arbitrarily small
exploration rate $\epsilon$ in advance. However, it is difficult to
derive the relation between the convergent probability and the
exploration rate. It motivates us to utilize a diminishing
exploration rate in the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm which induces a
time-inhomogeneous Markov chain in contrast to a time-inhomogeneous
Markov chain in~\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}. This change renders a
stronger convergence property, i.e., the convergence to the set of
NEs in probability. \oprocend\label{rem3}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Distributed Inhomogeneous Asynchronous Coverage Learning
Algorithm}
Lemma~\ref{lem1} shows that the coverage game $\subscr{\Gamma}{cov}$
is a constrained potential game with potential function
$\phi(s)$. However, this potential function is not a straightforward
measure of the network coverage performance. On the other hand, the
objective function $U_g(s) := \sum_{i\in V}u_i(s)$ captures the
trade-off between the overall network benefit from sensing and the
total energy the network consumes, and thus can be perceived as a more
natural coverage performance metric. Denote by $S^* := \setdef{s}{{\rm
argmax}_{s\in{\mathcal{A}}}U_g(s)}$ as the set of global
maximizers of $U_g(s)$. In this part, we present the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm
which is convergent in probability to the set $S^*$.
Before that , we first introduce some notations for the $\operatorname{DIACL}$
algorithm. Denote by ${\mathcal{B}}'$ the space ${{\mathcal{B}}}' :=
\setdef{(s, s')\in{\mathcal{A}}\times{\mathcal{A}}}{s_{-i} =
s_{-i}',\; s_i'\in {\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i)\; {\rm for\;\; some}\;\;i\in
V}$. For any $s^0, s^1\in{\mathcal{A}}$ with $s^0_{-i}=s^1_{-i}$ for
some $i\in V$, we denote
\begin{align*}
\Delta_i(s^1,s^0) := \frac{1}{2}\sum_{q\in\Omega_1}
\frac{W_q}{n_q(s^1)}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{q\in\Omega_2}\frac{W_q}{n_q(s^0)},
\end{align*}
where $\Omega_1 :=
{\mathcal{D}}(a_i^1,c_i^1)\backslash{\mathcal{D}}(a_i^0,c_i^0)\cap\mathcal{Q}$
and $\Omega_2 :=
{\mathcal{D}}(a_i^0,c_i^0)\backslash{\mathcal{D}}(a_i^1,c_i^1)\cap\mathcal{Q}$,
and
\begin{align*}
&\rho_i(s^0,s^1) :=
u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0)-u_i(s^0)+\Delta_i(s^0,s^1),\nonumber\\&\Psi_i(s^0,
s^1) := \max\{u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1),
u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0)\},\nonumber\\ &m^* :=
\max_{(s^0,s^1)\in{\mathcal{B}},s_i^0\neq s_i^1}\{\Psi_i(s^0,
s^1)-(u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1)),\frac{1}{2}\}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to check that $\Delta_i(s^1,s^0) = -\Delta_i(s^0,s^1)$ and
$\Psi_i(s^0, s^1) = \Psi_i(s^1, s^0)$. Assume that at each time
instant, one of agents becomes active with equal probability. Denote
by $\gamma_i(t)$ the last time instant before $t$ when agent $i$ was
active. We then denote $\gamma^{(2)}_i(t) :=
\gamma_i(\gamma_i(t))$. The main steps of the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm are
described in the following.
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE [\underline{Initialization}:] At $t=0$, all agents are
uniformly placed in $\mathcal{Q}$. Each agent $i$ uniformly chooses the
camera control vector $c_i$ from the set $\mathcal{C}$, and then
communicates with agents in $\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(s(0))$ and computes
$u_i(s(0))$. Furthermore, each agent $i$ chooses $m_i \in (2m^*,
Km^*]$ for some $K\geq2$. At $t = 1$, all the sensors keep their
actions.
\STATE [\underline{Update}:] Assume that agent $i$ is active at time
$t\geq2$. Then agent $i$ updates its state according to the
following rules:
$\bullet$ Agent $i$ chooses the exploration rate $\epsilon(t) =
t^{-\frac{1}{(D+1)(K+1)m^*}}$.
$\bullet$ With probability $\epsilon(t)^{m_i}$, agent $i$
experiments and uniformly chooses $\supscr{s}{tp}_i :=
(\supscr{a}{tp}_i, \supscr{c}{tp}_i)$ from the action set
$\mathcal{F}_i(a_i(t))\setminus\{s_i(t), s_i(\gamma_i^{(2)}(t)+1)\}$.
$\bullet$ With probability $1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i}$, agent $i$ does not
experiment and chooses $\supscr{s}{tp}_i$ according to the following
probability distribution:
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{P}(\supscr{s}{tp}_i = s_i(t)) =
\frac{1}{1+\epsilon(t)^{\rho_i(s_i(\gamma_i^{(2)}(t)+1), s_i(t))}},\nonumber\\
&\mathbb{P}(\supscr{s}{tp}_i = s_i(\gamma_i^{(2)}(t)+1)) =
\frac{\epsilon(t)^{\rho_i(s_i(\gamma_i^{(2)}(t)+1),
s_i(t))}}{1+\epsilon(t)^{\rho_i(s_i(\gamma_i^{(2)}(t)+1),
s_i(t))}}.
\end{align*}
$\bullet$ After $\supscr{s}{tp}_i$ is chosen, agent $i$ moves to the
position $\supscr{a}{tp}_i$ and sets its camera control vector to be
$\supscr{c}{tp}_i$.
\STATE [\underline{Communication and computation}:] At position
$\supscr{a}{tp}_i$, the active agent $i$ communicates with agents in
$\supscr{\mathcal{N}}{sen}_i(\supscr{s}{tp}_i,s_{-i}(t))$, and computes
$u_i(\supscr{s}{tp}_i,s_{-i}(t))$,
$\Delta_i((\supscr{s}{tp}_i,s_{-i}(t)),s(\gamma_i(t)+1))$,
$\mathcal{F}_i(\supscr{a}{tp}_i)$.
\STATE Repeat Step 2 and 3.
\end{algorithmic}
\begin{remark}
A variation of the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm corresponds to
$\epsilon(t)=\epsilon\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$ constant for all
$t\geq2$. If this is the case, we will refer to the algorithm as the
\emph{Distributed Homogeneous Asynchronous Coverage Learning
Algorithm} ($\operatorname{DHACL}$, for short). Later, we will base the
convergence analysis of the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm on that of the $\operatorname{DHACL}$
algorithm.\oprocend
\label{rem4}\end{remark}
Like the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm, $z(t) := (s(t-1), s(t))$ in the $\operatorname{DIACL}$
algorithm constitutes a time-inhomogeneous Markov chain
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ on the space ${\mathcal{B}}'$. The following
theorem states that the convergence property of the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm.
\begin{theorem} Consider the Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$
induced by the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm for the game
$\subscr{\Gamma}{cov}$. Then it holds that
$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(z(t)\in\diag{S^*}) =
1$.\label{the2}
\end{theorem}
The proofs of Theorem~\ref{the2} are provided in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
\begin{remark} The authors in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08} proposed a synchronous
payoff-based log-linear learning algorithm. This algorithm is able
to maximize the potential function of a potential game. While the
$\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm is a variation of that in~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}, and optimizes a different function $U_g(s)$. Furthermore, the convergence of the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm is in probability and stronger than the arbitrarily high
probability~\cite{JRM-JSS:08} by choosing an arbitrarily small
exploration rate in advance.\oprocend\label{rem5}\end{remark}
\section{Convergence Analysis}\label{sec:analysis}
In this section, we prove Theorem~\ref{the8} and~\ref{the2} by
appealing to the Theory of Resistance Trees in~\cite{HPY:93} and the
results in strong ergodicity in~\cite{DI-RM:76}. Relevant papers
include~\cite{JRM-JSS:08}\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06} where the Theory of
Resistance Trees in~\cite{HPY:93} is first utilized to study the class
of payoff-based learning algorithms, and~\cite{BG:85}\cite{SA-AF:87}\cite{DM-FR-ASV:86} where the strong ergodicity theory is employed to characterize the convergence properties of time-inhomogeneous Markov chains.
\subsection{Convergence analysis of the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ Algorithm}
We first utilize Theorem~\ref{the4} to characterize the convergence
properties of the associated $\operatorname{DHSCL}$ algorithm. This is essential for
the analysis of the $\operatorname{DISCL}$ algorithm.
Observe that $z(t):=(s(t-1), s(t))$ in the $\operatorname{DHSCL}$ algorithm constitutes
a time-homogeneous Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ on
the space ${\mathcal{B}}$. Consider $z, z'\in {\mathcal{B}}$. A
feasible path from $z$ to $z'$ consisting of multiple feasible
transitions of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is denoted by $z
\Rightarrow z'$. The reachable set from $z$ is denoted as $\diamond z
:= \{z' \in {\mathcal{B}} \;|\; z \Rightarrow z'\}$.
\begin{lemma}
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is a regular perturbation of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$.\label{lem2}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a feasible transition $z^1 \rightarrow z^2$ with
$z^1:=(s^0,s^1)$ and $z^2:=(s^1,s^2)$. Then we can define a
partition of $V$ as $\Lambda_1:=\setdef{i\in V}{s^2_i =
s_i^{\tau_i(0, 1)}}$ and $\Lambda_2:=\setdef{i\in V}{s^2_i \in
{\mathcal{F}}_i(a^1_i)\setminus\{s^{\tau_i(0, 1)}_i\}}$. The corresponding
probability is given by
\begin{align}
P^{\epsilon}_{z^1 z^2} = \prod_{i\in
\Lambda_1}(1-\epsilon)\times\prod_{j\in
\Lambda_2}\frac{\epsilon}{|\mathcal{F}_i(a^1_i)|-1}.\label{e7}
\end{align}
Hence, the resistance of the transition $z^1 \rightarrow z^2$ is
$|\Lambda_2|\in\{0,1,\cdots,N\}$ since \begin{align*}
0<\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{P^{\epsilon}_{z^1
z^2}}{\epsilon^{|\Lambda_2|}}=\prod_{j\in
\Lambda_2}\frac{1}{|\mathcal{F}_i(a^1_i)|-1}<+\infty.\end{align*}
We have that (A3) in Section~\ref{sec:resistancetrees} holds. It is
not difficult to see that (A2) holds, and we are now in a position to
verify (A1). Since $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc}$ is undirected and connected,
and multiple sensors can stay in the same position, then $\diamond a^0
= {\mathcal{Q}}^N$ for any $a^0\in {\mathcal{Q}}$. Since sensor $i$
can choose any camera control vector from $\mathcal{C}$ at each time, then $\diamond s^0 =
{\mathcal{A}}$ for any $s^0\in{\mathcal{A}}$. It implies that
$\diamond z^0 = {\mathcal{B}}$ for any $z^0 \in {\mathcal{B}}$, and
thus the Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is irreducible
on the space $\mathcal{B}$.
It is easy to see that any state in $\diag{\mathcal{A}}$ has period $1$. Pick
any $(s^0, s^1)\in{\mathcal{B}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$. Since
$\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc}$ is undirected, then $s_i^0\in
{\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^1)$ if and only if $s_i^1\in {\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^0)$. Hence, the
following two paths are both feasible:
\begin{align*}
&(s^0, s^1)\rightarrow (s^1, s^0) \rightarrow (s^0, s^1)\nonumber\\
&(s^0, s^1)\rightarrow (s^1, s^1) \rightarrow (s^1, s^0) \rightarrow
(s^0, s^1).
\end{align*}
Hence, the period of the state $(s^0,s^1)$ is $1$. This proves
aperiodicity of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$. Since
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is irreducible and aperiodic, then
(A1) holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} For any $(s^0, s^0)\in
\diag{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$, there is a
finite sequence of transitions from $(s^0,s^0)$ to some $(s^*,
s^*)\in\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$ that
satisfies
\begin{align*}
&{\mathcal{L}}:=(s^0, s^0)\stackrel{O(\epsilon)}{\rightarrow}
(s^0, s^1)\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow} (s^1,
s^1)\stackrel{O(\epsilon)}{\rightarrow}(s^1,
s^2)\nonumber\\&\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow} (s^2,
s^2)\stackrel{O(\epsilon)}{\rightarrow}
\cdots\stackrel{O(\epsilon)}{\rightarrow}(s^{k-1},s^k)\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow}(s^k,s^k)
\end{align*}
where $(s^k,s^k)=(s^*, s^*)$ for some
$k\geq1$.\label{lem5}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $s^0\notin{\mathcal{E}}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})$, there exists a
sensor $i$ with a action $s_i^1\in{\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^0)$ such that
$u_i(s^1) > u_i(s^0)$ where $s_{-i}^0 = s_{-i}^1$. The transition
$(s^0, s^0) \rightarrow (s^0, s^1)$ happens when only sensor $i$
experiments, and its corresponding probability is
$(1-\epsilon)^{N-1}\times\frac{\epsilon}{|{\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^0)|-1}$. Since
the function $\phi$ is the potential function of the game
$\subscr{\Gamma}{cov}$, then we have that $\phi(s^1) - \phi(s^0) =
u_i(s^1) - u_i(s^0)$ and thus $\phi(s^1) > \phi(s^0)$.
Since $u_i(s^1) > u_i(s^0)$ and $s_{-i}^0 = s_{-i}^1$, the
transition $(s^0, s^1) \rightarrow (s^1, s^1)$ occurs when all
sensors do not experiment, and the associated probability is
$(1-\epsilon)^N$.
We repeat the above process and construct the path $\mathcal{L}$
with length $k\geq1$. Since $\phi(s^i) > \phi(s^{i-1})$ for $i
=\until{k}$, then
$s^i\neq s^j$ for $i\neq j$ and thus the path $\mathcal{L}$ has no
loop. Since $\mathcal{A}$ is finite, then $k$ is finite and thus
$s^k=s^*\in{\mathcal{E}}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})$.
\end{proof}
A direct result of Lemma~\ref{lem2} is that for each $\epsilon$, there
exists a unique stationary distribution of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$, say $\mu(\epsilon)$. We now proceed
to utilize Theorem~\ref{the4} to characterize
$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\mu(\epsilon)$.
\begin{proposition} Consider the regular perturbation
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$. Then
$\displaystyle{\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\mu(\epsilon)}$ exists and the limiting
distribution $\mu(0)$ is a stationary distribution of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$. Furthermore, the stochastically stable
states (i.e., the support of $\mu(0)$) are contained in the set
$\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$.\label{pro4}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Notice that the stochastically stable states are contained in the
recurrent communication classes of the unperturbed Markov chain that
corresponds to the $\operatorname{DHSCL}$ Algorithm with $\epsilon = 0$. Thus the
stochastically stable states are included in the set
$\diag{\mathcal{A}}\subset {\mathcal{B}}$. Denote by $T_{\min}$ the minimum
resistance tree and by $h_v$ the root of $T_{\min}$. Each edge of
$T_{\min}$ has resistance $0,1,2,\dots$ corresponding to the
transition probability $O(1),O(\epsilon),O(\epsilon^2),\dots$. The
state $z'$ is the $successor$ of the state $z$ if and only if $(z,
z')\in T_{\min}$. Like Theorem 3.2 in~\cite{JRM-HPY-GA-JSS:06}, our
analysis will be slightly different from the presentation
in~\ref{sec:resistancetrees}. We will construct $T_{\min}$ over
states in the set $\mathcal{B}$ (rather than $\diag{\mathcal{A}}$) with the
restriction that all the edges leaving the states in
${\mathcal{B}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$ have resistance $0$. The
stochastically stable states are not changed under this
difference.
\begin{claim}
For any $(s^0,s^1)\in {\mathcal{B}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$, there is
a finite path
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal{L}}' := (s^0, s^1)\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow} (s^1,
s^2)\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow} (s^2, s^2)
\end{align*}
where $s_i^2 = s_i^{\tau_i(0, 1)}$ for all $i\in V$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
These two transitions occur when all agents do not experiment. The
corresponding probability of each transition is $(1-\epsilon)^N$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim} The root $h_v$ belongs to the set $\diag{\mathcal{A}}$.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $h_v=(s^0, s^1)\in
{\mathcal{B}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$. By Claim 1, there is a finite
path ${\mathcal{L}}' := (s^0, s^1)\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow} (s^1,
s^2)\stackrel{O(1)}{\rightarrow} (s^2, s^2)$. We now construct a new
tree $T'$ by adding the edges of the path ${\mathcal{L}}'$ into the
tree $T_{\min}$ and removing the redundant edges. The total
resistance of adding edges is $0$. Observe that the resistance of
the removed edge exiting from $(s^2,s^2)$ in the tree $T_{\min}$ is
at least $1$. Hence, the resistance of $T'$ is strictly lower than
that of $T_{\min}$, and we get to a contradiction.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Pick any ${s}^* \in
{\mathcal{E}}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})$ and consider $z := ({s}^*,
{s}^*),$ $z' := ({s}^*,{\tilde{s}})$ where $\tilde{s}\neq s^*$. If
$(z, z')\in T_{\min}$, then the resistance of the edge $(z, z')$ is
some $k\geq2$.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Suppose the deviator in the transition $z\rightarrow
z'$ is unique, say $i$. Then the corresponding transition
probability is $O(\epsilon)$. Since
$s^*\in{\mathcal{E}}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})$ and
$\tilde{s}_i\in{\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^*)$, we have that $u_i(s_i^*, s_{-i}^*)
\geq u_i(\tilde{s}_i,\tilde{s}_{-i})$, where $s_{-i}^* =
\tilde{s}_{-i}$.
Since $z'\in {\mathcal{B}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$, it follows from
Claim 2 that the state $z'$ can not be the root of $T_{\min}$ and
thus has a successor $z''$. Note that all the edges leaving the
states in ${\mathcal{B}}\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$ have resistance
$0$. Then none experiments in the transition $z'\rightarrow z''$ and
$z'' = (\tilde{s}, \hat{s})$ for some $\hat{s}$. Since $u_i(s_i^*,
s_{-i}^*) \geq u_i(\tilde{s}_i,\tilde{s}_{-i})$ with $s_{-i}^* =
\tilde{s}_{-i}$, we have $\hat{s} = s^*$ and thus $z'' = (\tilde{s},
s^*)$. Similarly, the state $z''$ must have a successor $z'''$ and
$z'''=z$. We then obtain a loop in $T_{\min}$ which contradicts that
$T_{\min}$ is a tree.
It implies that at least two sensors experiment in the transition
$z\rightarrow z'$. Thus the resistance of the edge $(z, z')$ is at
least 2.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} The root $h_v$ belongs to the set
$\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $h_v=(s^0, s^0)\notin
\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$. By Lemma~\ref{lem5}, there is a
finite path $\mathcal{L}$ connecting $(s^0, s^0)$ and some $(s^*,
s^*)\in\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$. We now construct a new
tree $T'$ by adding the edges of the path $\mathcal{L}$ into the
tree $T_{\min}$ and removing the edges that leave the states in
$\mathcal{L}$ in the tree $T_{\min}$. The total resistance of adding
edges is $k$. Observe that the resistance of the removed edge
exiting from $(s^i,s^i)$ in the tree $T_{\min}$ is at least $1$ for
$i\in\{1,\cdots,k-1\}$. By Claim 3, the resistance of the removed
edge leaving from $(s^*,s^*)$ in the tree $T_{\min}$ is at least
$2$. The total resistance of removing edges is at least
$k+1$. Hence, the resistance of $T'$ is strictly lower than that of
$T_{\min}$, and we get to a contradiction.\end{proof}
It follows from Claim 4 that the states in
$\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$ have minimum stochastic
potential. Since Lemma~\ref{lem2} shows that Markov chain
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is a regularly perturbed Markov
process, Proposition~\ref{pro4} is a direct result of
Theorem~\ref{the4}.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to show Theorem~\ref{the8}.
\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{the8}:}
\begin{claim} Condition (B2) in Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For each $t\geq0$ and each $z\in X$, we defines the
numbers \begin{align*} &\sigma_z(\epsilon(t)) :=
\sum_{T\in{G(z)}}\prod_{(x,y)\in T}P^{\epsilon (t)}_{xy},\quad
\sigma_z^t = \sigma_z(\epsilon(t))\nonumber\\ &\mu_z(\epsilon(t)) :=
\frac{\sigma_z(\epsilon(t))}{\sum_{x\in
X}\sigma_x(\epsilon(t))},\quad \mu_z^t =
\mu_z(\epsilon(t)). \end{align*}
Since $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is a regular perturbation of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$, then it is irreducible and thus $\sigma_z^t >
0$. As Lemma 3.1 of Chapter 6 in~\cite{MF-AW:50}, one can show that
$(\mu^t)^TP^{\epsilon (t)} = (\mu^t)^T$. Therefore, condition (B2) in
Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Condition (B3) in Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We now proceed to verify condition (B3) in Theorem~\ref{the5}. To do
that, let us first fix $t$, denote $\epsilon = \epsilon(t)$ and study
the monotonicity of $\mu_z(\epsilon)$ with respect to $\epsilon$. We
write $\sigma_z(\epsilon)$ in the following
form
\begin{align}
\sigma_z(\epsilon) = \sum_{T\in G(z)}\prod_{(x,y)\in
T}P^{\epsilon}_{xy} = \sum_{T\in G(z)}\prod_{(x,y)\in
T}\frac{\alpha_{xy}(\epsilon)}{\beta_{xy}(\epsilon)} =
\frac{\alpha_z(\epsilon)}{\beta_z(\epsilon)}\label{e6}
\end{align}
for some polynomials $\alpha_z(\epsilon)$ and $\beta_z(\epsilon)$ in
$\epsilon$. With~\eqref{e6} in hand, we have that $\sum_{x\in
X}\sigma_x(\epsilon)$ and thus $\mu_z(\epsilon)$ are ratios of two
polynomials in $\epsilon$; i.e., $\mu_z(\epsilon) =
\frac{\varphi_z(\epsilon)}{\beta(\epsilon)}$ where
$\varphi_z(\epsilon)$ and $\beta(\epsilon)$ are polynomials in
$\epsilon$. The derivative of $\mu_z(\epsilon)$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \mu_z(\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon} =
\frac{1}{\beta(\epsilon)^2}(\frac{\partial
\varphi_z(\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon}\beta(\epsilon) -
\varphi_z(\epsilon)\frac{\partial \beta(\epsilon)}{\partial
\epsilon}).
\end{align*}
Note that the numerator $\frac{\partial \varphi_z(\epsilon)}{\partial
\epsilon}\beta(\epsilon) - \varphi_z(\epsilon)\frac{\partial
\beta(\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon}$ is a polynomial in
$\epsilon$. Denote by $\iota_z\neq0$ the coefficient of the leading
term of $\frac{\partial \varphi_z(\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon} -
\varphi_z(\epsilon)\frac{\partial \beta(\epsilon)}{\epsilon}$. The
leading term dominates $\frac{\partial \varphi_z(\epsilon)}{\partial
\epsilon} - \varphi_z(\epsilon)\frac{\partial
\beta(\epsilon)}{\epsilon}$ when $\epsilon$ is sufficiently
small. Thus there exists $\epsilon_z > 0$ such that the sign of
$\frac{\partial \mu_z(\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon}$ is the sign of
$\iota_z$ for all $0< \epsilon \leq \epsilon_z$. Let $\epsilon^* =
\max_{z\in X}\epsilon_z$.
Since $\epsilon(t)$ strictly decreases to zero, then there is a unique
finite time instant $t^*$ such that $\epsilon(t^*) = \epsilon^*$ (if
$\epsilon(0) < \epsilon^*$, then $t^* = 0$). Since $\epsilon(t)$ is
strictly decreasing, we can define a partition of $X$ as
follows:
\begin{align*}
&\Xi_1 := \{z \in X\; |\; \mu_z(\epsilon(t)) >
\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1)),\quad \forall t\in [t^*, +\infty)\},\nonumber\\
&\Xi_2 := \{z \in X\; |\; \mu_z(\epsilon(t)) <
\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1)),\quad \forall t\in[t^*, +\infty)\}.
\end{align*}
We are now ready to verify (B3) of Theorem~\ref{the5}. Since
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is a regular perturbed Markov chain
of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$, it follows from Theorem~\ref{the4} that
$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu_z(\epsilon(t))=\mu_z(0)$, and thus it
holds that
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{t=0}^{+\infty}\sum_{z\in X}\|\mu^t_z-\mu^{t+1}_z\| = \sum_{t=0}^{+\infty}\sum_{z\in X}|\mu_z(\epsilon(t))-\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1))|\nonumber\\
& = \sum_{t=0}^{t^*}\sum_{z\in X}|\mu_z(\epsilon(t))-\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1))| + \sum_{t=t^*+1}^{+\infty}(\sum_{z\in \Xi_1}\mu_z(\epsilon(t))-\sum_{z\in \Xi_1}\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1)))\nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{t=t^*+1}^{+\infty}(1-\sum_{z\in \Xi_1}\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1))-(1-\sum_{z\in \Xi_1}\mu_z(\epsilon(t))))\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{t=0}^{t^*}\sum_{z\in
X}|\mu_z(\epsilon(t))-\mu_z(\epsilon(t+1))| + 2\sum_{z\in
\Xi_1}\mu_z(\epsilon(t^*+1)) - 2\sum_{z\in \Xi_1}\mu_z(0)<+\infty.
\end{align*}\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Condition (B1) in Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $P^{\epsilon(t)}$ the transition matrix of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$. As in~\eqref{e7}, the probability of the
feasible transition $z^1\rightarrow z^2$ is given by
\begin{align*}
P^{\epsilon(t)}_{z^1 z^2} = \prod_{i\in
\Lambda_1}(1-\epsilon(t))\times\prod_{j\in
\Lambda_2}\frac{\epsilon(t)}{|\mathcal{F}_i(a^1_i)|-1}.
\end{align*}
Observe that $|\mathcal{F}_i(a^1_i)|\leq 5|{\mathcal{C}}|$. Since
$\epsilon(t)$ is strictly decreasing, there is $t_0\geq 1$ such that
$t_0$ is the first time when $1-\epsilon(t)\geq
\frac{\epsilon(t)}{5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1}$. Then for all $t\geq t_0$, it
holds that
\begin{align*} P^{\epsilon(t)}_{z^1 z^2} \geq
(\frac{\epsilon(t)}{5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1})^N.
\end{align*}
Denote $P(m,n) := \prod_{t=m}^{n-1}P^{\epsilon(t)}$, $0\leq m<
n$. Pick any $z\in {\mathcal{B}}$ and let $u_z\in{\mathcal{B}}$ be
such that $P_{u_z z}(t, t+D+1) = \min_{x\in {\mathcal{B}}} P_{xz}(t,
t+D+1)$. Consequently, it follows that for all $t\geq t_0$,
\begin{align*}
& \min_{x\in {\mathcal{B}}} P_{xz}(t, t+D+1)
= \sum_{i_1\in {\mathcal{B}}}\cdots\sum_{i_D\in\in {\mathcal{B}}}P_{u_zi_1}^{\epsilon(t)}\cdots P_{i_{D-1}i_D}^{\epsilon(t+D-1)}P_{i_D z}^{\epsilon(t+D)}\nonumber\\
&\geq P_{u_zi_1}^{\epsilon(t)}\cdots
P_{i_{D-1}i_D}^{\epsilon(t+D-1)}P_{i_D z}^{\epsilon(t+D)}\geq
\prod_{i=0}^D(\frac{\epsilon(t+i)}{5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1})^{N}\geq
(\frac{\epsilon(t)}{5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1})^{(D+1)N}
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we use $\epsilon(t)$ begin
strictly decreasing. Then we have
\begin{align*}
&1-\lambda(P(t, t+D+1)) = \min_{x,y\in{\mathcal{B}}}\sum_{z\in{\mathcal{B}}}\min\{P_{xz}(t,t+D+1), P_{yz}(t,t+D+1)\}\nonumber\\
&\geq \sum_{z\in{\mathcal{B}}} P_{u_zz}(t, t+D+1)\geq |{\mathcal{B}}|(\frac{\epsilon(t)}{5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1})^{(D+1)N}.
\end{align*}
Choose $k_i := (D+1)i$ and let $i_0$ be the smallest integer such that
$(D+1)i_0\geq t_0$. Then, we have that:
\begin{align}
&\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}(1-\lambda(P(k_i, k_{i+1})))
\geq |{\mathcal{B}}|\sum_{i=i_0}^{+\infty}(\frac{\epsilon((D+1)i)}{5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1})^{(D+1)N}\nonumber\\
& =
\frac{|{\mathcal{B}}|}{(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)^{(D+1)N}}\sum_{i=i_0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{(D+1)i}
= +\infty.\label{e8}
\end{align}
Hence, the weak ergodicity property follows from Theorem~\ref{the7}.\end{proof}
All the conditions in Theorem~\ref{the5} hold. Thus it follows from Theorem~\ref{the5} that
the limiting distribution is $\mu^* = \lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu^t$. Note that
$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu^t = \lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu(\epsilon(t)) = \mu(0)$ and
Proposition~\ref{pro4} shows that the support of $\mu(0)$ is contained
in the set $\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$. Hence, the support of
$\mu^*$ is contained in the set $\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})}$,
implying that $\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(z(t)\in\diag{\mathcal{E}(\subscr{\Gamma}{cov})})
= 1$. This completes the proof.
\subsection{Convergence analysis of the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ Algorithm}
First of all, we employ Theorem~\ref{the4} to study the convergence
properties of the associated $\operatorname{DHACL}$ algorithm. This is essential to
analyze the $\operatorname{DIACL}$ algorithm.
To simplify notations, we will use $s_i(t-1) :=
s_i(\gamma^{(2)}_i(t)+1)$ in the remainder of this section. Observe
that $z(t):=(s(t-1), s(t))$ in the $\operatorname{DHACL}$ algorithm constitutes a
Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ on the space
${\mathcal{B}}'$.
\begin{lemma}
The Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is a regular
perturbation of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$.\label{pro2}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Pick any two states $z^1:=(s^0,s^1)$ and $z^2:=(s^1,s^2)$ with $z^1
\neq z^2$. We have that $P^{\epsilon}_{z^1 z^2} > 0$ if and only if
there is some $i\in V$ such that $s_{-i}^1 = s_{-i}^2$ and one of
the following occurs: $s^2_i\in \mathcal{F}_i(a_i^1)\setminus\{s^0_i,
s^1_i\}$, $s^2_i=s^1_i$ or $s^2_i=s^0_i$. In particular, the
following holds:
\begin{align*}
P^{\epsilon}_{z^1 z^2} =
\begin{cases}
\eta_1, \quad s^2_i\in \mathcal{F}_i(a_i^1)\setminus\{s^0_i, s^1_i\},\\
\eta_2, \quad s^2_i=s^1_i,\\
\eta_3, \quad s^2_i=s^0_i,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\eta_1:=\frac{\epsilon^{m_i}}{N|\mathcal{F}_i(a_i^1)\setminus\{s^0_i, s^1_i\}|},\quad \eta_2:=\frac{1-\epsilon^{m_i}}{N(1+\epsilon^{\rho_i(s^0,s^1)})},\quad
\eta_3:=\frac{(1-\epsilon^{m_i})\times\epsilon^{\rho_i(s^0,s^1)}}{N(1+\epsilon^{\rho_i(s^0,s^1)})}.
\end{align*}
Observe that $ 0<\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow
0^+}\frac{\eta_1}{\epsilon^{m_i}}<+\infty.$ Multiplying the
numerator and denominator of $\eta_2$ by $\epsilon^{\Psi_i(s^1,
s^0)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\eta_2 = \frac{1-\epsilon^{m_i}}{N} \times
\frac{\epsilon^{\Psi_i(s^0,
s^1)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))}}{\eta_2'},
\end{align*}
where $\eta_2' := \epsilon^{\Psi_i(s^0,
s^1)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))}+\epsilon^{\Psi_i(s^0,
s^1)-(u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1))}$. Use \begin{align*} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\epsilon^{x}
= \begin{cases}
1, & x = 0,\\
0, & x > 0,
\end{cases}
\end{align*} and we have
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{\eta_2}{\epsilon^{\Psi_i(s^0, s^1)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))}}
=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{N}, & u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1)\neq u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0),\\
\frac{1}{2N}, & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Similarly, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{\eta_3}{\epsilon^{\Psi_i(s^0,
s^1)-(u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1))}}\in\{\frac{1}{2N},
\frac{1}{N}\}.
\end{align*}
Hence, the resistance of the feasible transition $z^1\rightarrow z^2$,
with $z^1\neq z^2$ and sensor $i$ as the unilateral deviator, can be
described as follows:
\begin{align*}
\chi(z^1\rightarrow z^2) =
\begin{cases}
m_i, \quad s^2_i\in \mathcal{F}_i(a^1)\setminus\{s^0_i, s^1_i\},\\
\Psi_i(s^0, s^1)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0)), & s^2_i=s^1_i,\\
\Psi_i(s^0, s^1)-(u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1)), & s^2_i=s^0_i.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Then (A3) in Section~\ref{sec:resistancetrees} holds. It is
straightforward to verify that (A2) in
Section~\ref{sec:resistancetrees} holds. We are now in a position to
verify (A1). Since $\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc}$ is undirected and connected,
and multiple sensors can stay in the same position, then $\diamond a^0
= {\mathcal{Q}}^N$ for any $a^0\in {\mathcal{Q}}$. Since sensor $i$
can choose any camera control vector from $\mathcal{C}$ at each time,
then $\diamond s^0 = {\mathcal{A}}$ for any
$s^0\in{\mathcal{A}}$. This implies that $\diamond z^0 =
{\mathcal{B}}'$ for any $z^0 \in {\mathcal{B}}'$, and thus the Markov
chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is irreducible on the space
${\mathcal{B}}'$.
It is easy to see that any state in $\diag{\mathcal{A}}$ has period $1$. Pick
any $(s^0, s^1)\in{\mathcal{B}}'\setminus\diag{\mathcal{A}}$. Since
$\subscr{\mathcal{G}}{loc}$ is undirected, then $s_i^0\in
{\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^1)$ if and only if $s_i^1\in {\mathcal{F}}_i(a_i^0)$. Hence, the
following two paths are both feasible:
\begin{align*}
&(s^0, s^1)\rightarrow (s^1, s^0) \rightarrow (s^0, s^1)\nonumber\\
&(s^0, s^1)\rightarrow (s^1, s^1) \rightarrow (s^1, s^0) \rightarrow
(s^0, s^1).
\end{align*}
Hence, the period of the state $(s^0,s^1)$ is $1$. This proves
aperiodicity of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$. Since
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is irreducible and aperiodic, then
(A1) holds.
\end{proof}
A direct result of Lemma~\ref{pro2} is that for each $\epsilon>0$,
there exists a unique stationary distribution of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$, say ${\mu}(\epsilon)$. From the
proof of Lemma~\ref{pro2}, we can see that the resistance of an
experiment is $m_i$ if sensor $i$ is the unilateral deviator. We now
proceed to utilize Theorem~\ref{the4} to characterize
$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}{\mu}(\epsilon)$.
\begin{proposition}
Consider the regular perturbed Markov process
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$. Then
$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}{\mu}(\epsilon)$ exists and the
limiting distribution ${\mu}(0)$ is a stationary distribution of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$. Furthermore, the stochastically stable
states (i.e., the support of ${\mu}(0)$) are contained in the set
$\diag{S^*}$.\label{pro5}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The unperturbed Markov chain corresponds to the $\operatorname{DHACL}$
Algorithm with $\epsilon = 0$. Hence, the recurrent communication
classes of the unperturbed Markov chain are contained in the set
$\diag{\mathcal{A}}$. We will construct resistance trees over vertices in
the set $\diag{\mathcal{A}}$. Denote $T_{\min}$ by the minimum resistance
tree. The remainder of the proof is divided into the following four
claims.
\begin{claim} $\chi((s^0,s^0)\Rightarrow (s^1,s^1)) = m_i +
\Psi_i(s^1, s^0)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))$ where $s^0\neq s^1$
and the transition $s^0\rightarrow s^1$ is feasible with sensor $i$
as the unilateral deviator.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} One feasible path for
$(s^0,s^0)\Rightarrow(s^1,s^1)$ is ${\mathcal{L}}:=(s^0,s^0)\rightarrow
(s^0,s^1)\rightarrow (s^1,s^1)$ where sensor $i$ experiments in the
first transition and does not experiment in the second
one. The total resistance of the path
${\mathcal{L}}$ is $m_i + \Psi_i(s^1, s^0) - (u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))$
which is at most $m_i + m^*$.
Denote by ${\mathcal{L}}'$ the path with minimum resistance among all the
feasible paths for $(s^0,s^0)\Rightarrow(s^1,s^1)$. Assume that the
first transition in ${\mathcal{L}}'$ is $(s^0,s^0)\rightarrow (s^0,s^2)$
where node $j$ experiments and $s^2 \neq s^1$. Observe that the
resistance of $(s^0,s^0)\rightarrow (s^0,s^2)$ is $m_j$. No matter
whether $j$ is equal to $i$ or not, the path ${\mathcal{L}}'$ must include
at least one more experiment to introduce $s_i^1$. Hence the total
resistance of the path ${\mathcal{L}}'$ is at least $m_i+m_j$. Since $m_i +
m_j > m_i+2m^*$, then the path ${\mathcal{L}}'$ has a strictly larger
resistance than the path ${\mathcal{L}}$. To avoid a contradiction, the path
${\mathcal{L}}'$ must start from the transition
$(s^0,s^0)\rightarrow(s^0,s^1)$. Similarly, the sequent transition
(which is also the last one) in the path ${\mathcal{L}}'$ must be
$(s^0,s^1)\rightarrow(s^1,s^1)$ and thus ${\mathcal{L}}' = {\mathcal{L}}$. Hence,
the resistance of the transition $(s^0,s^0)\Rightarrow (s^1,s^1)$ is
the total resistance of the path ${\mathcal{L}}$; i.e., $m_i + \Psi_i(s^1,
s^0)-(u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0))$.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} All the edges $((s,s), (s',s'))$ in $T_{\min}$
must consist of only one deviator; i.e., $s_i \neq s_i'$ and $s_{-i}
= s_{-i}'$ for some $i\in V$.\label{claim9}\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Assume that $(s,s)\Rightarrow (s',s')$ has
at least two deviators. Suppose the path $\hat{\mathcal{L}}$ has the minimum
resistance among all the paths from $(s,s)$ to $(s',s')$. Then, $\ell\geq2$ experiments are
carried out along $\hat{\mathcal{L}}$. Denote $i_k$ by the unilateral deviator in the $k$-th
experiment $s^{k-1}\rightarrow s^k$ where $1\leq k \leq \ell$,
$s^0=s$ and $s^{\ell}=s'$. Then the resistance of $\hat{\mathcal{L}}$ is at least
$\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k}$; i.e., $\chi((s^0, s^0)\Rightarrow(s',
s'))\geq \sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k}$.
Let us consider the following path on $T_{\min}$:
\begin{align*} \bar{\mathcal{L}} := (s^0,s^0)\Rightarrow (s^1,s^1)
\Rightarrow \cdots\Rightarrow (s^{\ell}, s^{\ell}).
\end{align*} From Claim 1, we know that the total resistance of the
path $\bar{\mathcal{L}}$ is at most $\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k} + \ell m^*$.
A new tree $T'$ can be obtained by adding the edges of $\bar{\mathcal{L}}$
into $T_{\min}$ and removing the redundant edges. The removed
resistance is $strictly$ greater than $\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k} +
2(\ell-1)m^*$ where $\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k}$ is the lower bound on the
resistance on the edge from $(s^0, s^0)$ to $(s^{\ell}, s^{\ell})$, and $2(\ell-1)m^*$ is
the strictly lower bound on the total resistances of leaving $(s^k,
s^k)$ for $k = 1, \cdots, \ell-1$. The adding resistance is the total
resistance of $\bar{\mathcal{L}}$ which is at most
$\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k} + \ell m^*$. Since $\ell\geq2$, we have that
$2(\ell-1)m^* \geq \ell m^*$ and thus $T'$ has a strictly lower resistance
than $T_{\min}$. This contradicts the fact that $T_{\min}$ is a
minimum resistance tree.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Given any edge $((s,s), (s',s'))$ in $T_{\min}$,
denote by $i$ the unilateral deviator between $s$ and $s'$. Then the
transition $s_i\rightarrow s_i'$ is feasible.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Assume that the transition $s_i\rightarrow s_i'$ is
infeasible. Suppose the path $\check{\mathcal{L}}$ has the minimum
resistance among all the paths from $(s,s)$ to $(s',s')$. Then,
there are $\ell\geq2$ experiments in $\check{\mathcal{L}}$. The remainder of
the proof is similar to that of Claim 9.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Let $h_v$ be the root of $T_{\min}$. Then,
$h_v\in\diag{S^*}$.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} Assume that $h_v=(s^0,s^0)\notin \diag{S^*}$. Pick
any $(s^*, s^*)\in\diag{S^*}$. By Claim 9 and 10, we have that there
is a path from $(s^*,s^*)$ to $(s^0,s^0)$ in the tree $T_{\min}$ as
follows:
\begin{align*} \tilde{\mathcal{L}}:=(s^{\ell},s^{\ell})\Rightarrow
(s^{\ell-1},s^{\ell-1})\Rightarrow\cdots \Rightarrow
(s^1,s^1)\Rightarrow(s^0,s^0)
\end{align*}
for some $\ell\geq1$. Here, $s^*=s^{\ell}$, there is only one deviator, say
$i_k$, from $s^k$ to $s^{k-1}$, and the transition
$s^k \rightarrow s^{k-1}$ is feasible for $k = \ell, \dots, 1$.
Since the transition $s^k\rightarrow s^{k+1}$ is also feasible for $k = 0,\dots, \ell-1$, we obtain the reverse path
$\tilde{\mathcal{L}}'$ of $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}' := (s^0,s^0)\Rightarrow (s^{1},s^{1})\Rightarrow
\cdots \Rightarrow (s^{\ell-1},s^{\ell-1})
\Rightarrow(s^{\ell}, s^{\ell}).
\end{align*}
By Claim 8, the total resistance of the path
$\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ is
\begin{align*} \chi({\tilde{\mathcal{L}}}) &= \sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k}
+\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}\{\Psi_{i_k}(s^k, s^{k-1})-(u_{i_k}(s^{k-1})-\Delta_{i_k}(s^{k-1},s^k))\},
\end{align*}
and the total resistance of the path $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}'$ is
\begin{align*}
\chi(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}')&=\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}m_{i_k}
+\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}\Psi_{i_k}(s^{k-1},s^k)-(u_{i_k}(s^k)-\Delta_{i_k}(s^k, s^{k-1})).
\end{align*}
Denote $\Lambda_1' := ({\mathcal{D}}(a_{i_k}^k, r_{i_k}^k)\backslash{\mathcal{D}}(a_{i_{k-1}}^{k-1},
r_{i_{k-1}}^{k-1}))\cap\mathcal{Q}$ and $\Lambda_2' := ({\mathcal{D}}(a_{i_{k-1}}^{k-1},
r_{i_{k-1}}^{k-1})\backslash{\mathcal{D}}(a_{i_k}^k, r_{i_k}^k))\cap\mathcal{Q}$. Observe that
\begin{align*}
&U_g(s^k)-U_g(s^{k-1})\nonumber\\
&= u_{i_k}(s^k) - u_{i_k}(s^{k-1}) - \sum_{q\in \Lambda_1'}W_q(\frac{n_q(s^{k-1})}{n_q(s^{k-1})}-\frac{n_q(s^{k-1})}{n_q(s^k)})
+ \sum_{q\in \Lambda_2'}W_q(\frac{n_q(s^k)}{n_q(s^k)}-\frac{n_q(s^k)}{n_q(s^{k-1})}) \nonumber\\
& = (u_{i_k}(s^k) - \Delta_{i_k}(s^k, s^{k-1})) - (u_{i_k}(s^{k-1}) - \Delta_{i_k}(s^{k-1}, s^k)).
\end{align*}
We now construct a new tree $T'$ with the root $(s^*,s^*)$ by adding
the edges of $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}'$ to the tree $T_{\min}$ and removing the
redundant edges $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$. Since $\Psi_{i_k}(s^{k-1}, s^k) =
\Psi_{i_k}(s^k, s^{k-1})$, the difference in the total resistances
across the trees $\chi(T')$ and $\chi(T_{\min})$ is given by
\begin{align*}
&\chi(T')-\chi(T_{\min}) = \chi(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}')-\chi(\tilde{\mathcal{L}})\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}-(u_{i_k}(s^{k-1})-\Delta_{i_k}(s^{k-1},s^k))
-\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}-(u_{i_k}(s^k)-\Delta_{i_k}(s^k,s^{k-1}))\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^{\ell}(U_g(s^k)-U_g(s^{k-1}))=U_g(s^0)-U_g(s^*)<0.
\end{align*}
This contradicts that $T_{\min}$ is a minimum resistance
tree.\end{proof}
It follows from Claim 4 that
the state $h_v\in\diag{S^*}$ has minimum stochastic potential. Then
Proposition~\ref{pro5} is a direct result of Theorem~\ref{the4}.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to show Theorem~\ref{the2}.
\textbf{Proof of Theorem~\ref{the8}:}
\begin{claim} Condition (B2) in Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{claim}
\begin{proof} The proof is analogous to Claim 5.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Condition (B3) in Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Denote by ${P}^{\epsilon(t)}$ the transition matrix of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$. Consider the feasible transition
$z^1\rightarrow z^2$ with unilateral deviator $i$. The corresponding
probability is given by
\begin{align*}
P^{\epsilon(t)}_{z^1 z^2} =
\begin{cases}
\eta_1, \quad s^2_i\in \mathcal{F}_i(a_i^1)\setminus\{s^0_i, s^1_i\},\\
\eta_2, \quad s^2_i=s^1_i,\\
\eta_3, \quad s^2_i=s^0_i,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\eta_1:=\frac{\epsilon(t)^{m_i}}{N|\mathcal{F}_i(a_i^1)\setminus\{s^0_i, s^1_i\}|},\quad
\eta_2:=\frac{1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i}}{N(1+\epsilon(t)^{\rho_i(s^0,s^1)})},\quad
\eta_3:=\frac{(1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i})\times\epsilon(t)^{\rho_i(s^0,s^1)}}{N(1+\epsilon(t)^{\rho_i(s^0,s^1)})}.
\end{align*}
The remainder is analogous to Claim 6.\end{proof}
\begin{claim} Condition (B1) in Theorem~\ref{the5} holds.\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $|\mathcal{F}_i(a_i^1)|\leq5|{\mathcal{C}}|$. Since $\epsilon(t)$ is strictly decreasing, there
is $t_0\geq 1$ such that $t_0$ is the first time when
$1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i}\geq \epsilon(t)^{m_i}$.
Observe that for all $t\geq1$, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\eta_1 \geq \frac{\epsilon(t)^{m_i}}{N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)}\geq
\frac{\epsilon(t)^{m_i+m^*}}{N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)}.
\end{align*}
Denote $b := u_i(s^1)-\Delta_i(s^1,s^0)$ and $a :=
u_i(s^0)-\Delta_i(s^0,s^1)$. Then $\rho_i(s^0, s^1) = b-a$. Since $b-a
\leq m^*$, then for $t\geq t_0$ it holds that
\begin{align*} & \eta_2 =
\frac{1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i}}{N(1+\epsilon(t)^{b-a})}
=\frac{(1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i})\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-b}}{N(\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-b}+\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-a})}\nonumber\\
&\geq \frac{\epsilon(t)^{m_i}\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-b}}{2N}\geq
\frac{\epsilon(t)^{m_i+m^*}}{N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, for $t\geq t_0$, it holds that
\begin{align*} \eta_3 =
\frac{(1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i})\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-a}}{N(\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-b}+\epsilon(t)^{\max\{a,b\}-a})}
\geq \frac{\epsilon(t)^{m_i+m^*}}{N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)}.
\end{align*}
Since $m_i\in(2m^*, Km^*]$ for all $i \in V$ and $Km^* > 1$, then for any
feasible transition $z^1\rightarrow z^2$ with $z^1\neq z^2$, it holds
that:
\begin{align*}
P^{\epsilon(t)}_{z^1 z^2}\geq
\frac{\epsilon(t)^{(K+1)m^*}}{N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)}
\end{align*}
for all $t\geq t_0$. Furthermore, for all $t\geq t_0$ and all $z^1\in
\diag{\mathcal{A}}$, we have that:
\begin{align*}P_{z^1z^1}^{\epsilon(t)} =
1-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\epsilon(t)^{m_i} =
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N(1-\epsilon(t)^{m_i})\geq
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\epsilon(t)^{m_i}\geq
\frac{\epsilon(t)^{(K+1)m^*}}{N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1)}.
\end{align*}
Choose $k_{i} := (D+1){i}$ and let $i_0$ be the smallest integer such
that $(D+1)i_0\geq t_0$. Similar to~\eqref{e8}, we can derive the
following property
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\ell=0}^{+\infty}(1-\lambda(P(k_{\ell}, k_{\ell+1})))
\geq\frac{|\mathcal{B}|}{(N(5|{\mathcal{C}}|-1))^{(D+1)(K+1)m^*}}\sum_{i=i_0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{(D+1)i}
= +\infty.
\end{align*}
Hence, the weak ergodicity of $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ follows from
Theorem~\ref{the7}.\end{proof}
All the conditions in Theorem~\ref{the5} hold. Thus it follows from Theorem~\ref{the5} that
the limiting distribution is $\mu^* =
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu^t$. Note that
$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu^t =
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\mu(\epsilon(t)) = \mu(0)$ and
Proposition~\ref{pro5} shows that the support of $\mu(0)$ is contained in the set
$\diag{S^*}$. Hence, the support of $\mu^*$ is contained in the set
$\diag{S^*}$, implying that
$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(z(t)\in\diag{S^*}) = 1$. It
completes the proof.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
We have formulated a coverage optimization problem as a constrained
potential game. We have proposed two payoff-based distributed learning algorithms
for this coverage game and shown that these algorithms converge in
probability to the set of constrained NEs and the set of global optima
of certain coverage performance metric, respectively.
\section{Appendix}\label{sec:appendix}
For the sake of a self-contained exposition, we include here some
background in Markov chains~\cite{DI-RM:76} and the
Theory of Resistance Trees~\cite{HPY:93}.
\subsection{Background in Markov chains}\label{sec:Markovchain}
A \emph{discrete-time Markov chain} is a discrete-time stochastic
process on a finite (or countable) state space and satisfies the
Markov property (i.e., the future state depends on its present state,
but not the past states). A discrete-time Markov chain is said to be
\emph{time-homogeneous} if the probability of going from one state to
another is independent of the time when the step is taken. Otherwise,
the Markov chain is said to be \emph{time-inhomogeneous}.
Since time-inhomogeneous Markov chains include time-homogeneous ones
as special cases, we will restrict our attention to the former in the
remainder of this section. The evolution of a time-inhomogeneous
Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ can described by the transition
matrix $P(t)$ which gives the probability of traversing from one state
to another at each time $t$.
Consider a Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ with time-dependent
transition matrix $P(t)$ on a finite state space $X$. Denote by $P(m,n)
:= \prod_{t=m}^{n-1}P(t)$, $0 \leq m < n$.
\begin{definition}[Strong ergodicity~\cite{DI-RM:76}] The Markov chain
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ is strongly ergodic if there exists a
stochastic vector $\mu^*$ such that for any distribution $\mu$ on
$X$ and any $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, it holds that $\lim_{k\rightarrow
+\infty}\mu^TP(m,k) = (\mu^*)^T$.\label{def6}
\end{definition}
Strong ergodicity of $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ is equivalent to
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ being convergent in distribution and will be
employed to characterize the long-run properties of our learning
algorithm. The investigation of conditions under which strong
ergodicity holds is aided by the introduction of the coefficient of
ergodicity and weak ergodicity defined next.
\begin{definition}[Coefficient of ergodicity~\cite{DI-RM:76}] For any
$n\times n$ stochastic matrix $P$, its coefficient of ergodicity is
defined as $\lambda(P) := 1-\min_{1\leq i,j\leq
n}\sum_{k=1}^n\min(P_{ik,}P_{jk}).$
\label{def7}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Weak ergodicity~\cite{DI-RM:76}] The Markov chain
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ is weakly ergodic if $\forall x,y,z\in X$,
$\forall m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$, it holds that $\lim_{k \rightarrow
+\infty}(P_{xz}(m,k) - P_{yz}(m,k)) = 0$.\label{def5}
\end{definition}
Weak ergodicity merely implies that $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$
asymptotically forgets its initial state, but does not guarantee
convergence. For a time-homogeneous Markov chain, there is no
distinction between weak ergodicity and strong ergodicity. The
following theorem provides the sufficient and necessary condition for
$\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ to be weakly ergodic.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{DI-RM:76}] The Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$
is weakly ergodic if and only if there is a strictly increasing
sequence of positive numbers $k_i$, $i\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$ such that
$\sum_{i=0}^{+\infty}(1-\lambda(P(k_i,k_{i+1})) = +\infty.$\label{the7}
\end{theorem}
We are now ready to present the sufficient conditions for strong
ergodicity of the Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{DI-RM:76}] A Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$
is strongly ergodic if the following conditions hold:
(B1) The Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}_t\}$ is weakly ergodic.
(B2) For each $t$, there exists a stochastic vector $\mu^t$ on $X$
such that $\mu^t$ is the left eigenvector of the transition matrix
$P(t)$ with eigenvalue $1$.
(B3) The eigenvectors $\mu^t$ in (B2) satisfy
$\sum_{t=0}^{+\infty}\sum_{z\in X}|\mu^t_z-\mu^{t+1}_z|<+\infty$.
Moreover, if $\mu^* = \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty}\mu^t$, then $\mu^*$
is the vector in Definition~\ref{def6}.\label{the5}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Background in the Theory of Resistance
Trees}\label{sec:resistancetrees}
Let $P^0$ be the transition matrix of the time-homogeneous Markov
chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$ on a finite state space $X$. And let
$P^{\epsilon}$ be the transition matrix of a \emph{perturbed Markov
chain}, say $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$. With probability
$1-\epsilon$, the process $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ evolves
according to $P^0$, while with probability $\epsilon$, the transitions
do not follow $P^0$.
A family of stochastic processes $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is
called a \emph{regular perturbation} of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$ if the
following holds $\forall x,y\in X$: (A1) For some $\varsigma>0$, the Markov chain
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ is irreducible and aperiodic for all
$\epsilon\in(0,\varsigma]$.
(A2) $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+} P_{xy}^{\epsilon} = P_{xy}^0$.
(A3) If $P_{xy}^{\epsilon}>0$ for some $\epsilon$, then there exists a
real number $\chi(x\rightarrow y)\geq0$ such that
$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}P_{xy}^{\epsilon}/\epsilon^{\chi(x\rightarrow
y)}\in(0,+\infty)$.
In (A3), $\chi(x\rightarrow y)$ is called
the resistance of the transition from $x$ to $y$.
Let $H_1,H_2,\cdots,H_J$ be the recurrent communication classes of the
Markov chain $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$. Note that within each class
$H_\ell$, there is a path of zero resistance from every state to every
other. Given any two distinct recurrence classes $H_\ell$ and $H_k$,
consider all paths which start from $H_\ell$ and end at $H_k$. Denote
$\chi_{\ell k}$ by the least resistance among all such paths.
Now define a complete directed graph $\mathcal{G}$ where there is one
vertex $\ell$ for each recurrent class $H_\ell$, and the resistance on
the edge $(\ell,k)$ is $\chi_{\ell k}$. An $\ell$-\emph{tree} on
$\mathcal{G}$ is a spanning tree such that from every vertex $k\neq
\ell$, there is a unique path from $k$ to $\ell$. Denote by $G(\ell)$
the set of all $\ell$-\emph{trees} on $\mathcal{G}$. The resistance of
an $\ell$-\emph{tree} is the sum of the resistances of its edges. The
\emph{stochastic potential} of the recurrent class $H_\ell$ is the
least resistance among all $\ell$-\emph{trees} in $G(\ell)$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{HPY:93}] Let $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$ be
a regular perturbation of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$, and for each
$\epsilon>0$, let $\mu(\epsilon)$ be the unique stationary
distribution of $\{{\mathcal{P}}^{\epsilon}_t\}$. Then
$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0^+}\mu(\epsilon)$ exists and the limiting
distribution $\mu(0)$ is a stationary distribution of
$\{{\mathcal{P}}^0_t\}$. The stochastically stable states (i.e., the
support of $\mu(0)$) are precisely those states contained in the
recurrence classes with minimum stochastic potential.\label{the4}
\end{theorem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
After decades of theoretical efforts, understanding the low-energy properties of bidimensionnal frustrated Quantum Heisenberg Antiferromagnets (QHAF) is still a notoriously puzzling problem. In contrast to unfrustated models where powerful paradigms have emerged to describe both the magnetically ordered ground state (N\'eel state) and the excitations (magnons), a general theoretical framework is still lacking. Not only the low-energy physics is in general poorly characterized -- one can have in mind the lack of consensus on archetypal models such as $J_1-J_2$ or {\it kagome} antiferromagnets -- but generic tools to identify the low energy degrees of freedom and understand their effective interaction are missing~\cite{j1j2}.
Recent discoveries of new materials such as {\it herbertsmithite}~\cite{herbertsmithite}, believed to be almost perfect spin-1/2 kagome antiferromagnets, have revived the former interest for bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF
and call more than ever for novel theoretical approaches that could provide a quantitative understanding of these materials and their exotic low-temperature
non-magnetic phases~\cite{j1j2}.
The underlying hardness of the problem comes from the fact that the usual theoretical frame for treating such systems typically requires to (i) identify a well controlled limit (classical limit, unperturbed limit, \ldots) and then (ii) introduce quantum fluctuations and/or corrections to this limit in a putatively perturbative way. This scheme however fails for bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF since none of the above mentioned points is fulfilled : (i) because of frustration the classical limit is highly degenerate and often not fully understood, (ii) quantum fluctuations generally do not act as a small perturbation on the classical limit. As a direct consequence, the low-energy physics of these systems is characterized by very exotic magnetically disordered states such as
Resonating Valence Bond (RVB) states~\cite{anderson}, Valence Bond Crystals (VBC)~\cite{vbc} or spin liquids~\cite{lee-et-al}.
The aim of this article is to build a {\em non-perturbative} scheme allowing to derive an effective low-energy Generalized Quantum Dimer Model (GQDM) that captures the physics of the microscopic model. In turn, the GQDM can be used to efficiently investigate the low-energy properties of the microscopic Hamiltonian either by numerical techniques on large systems (by Exact Diagonalizations or Quantum Monte Carlo when the GQDM has no sign problem) or by analytical techniques such as gauge theory mapping.
Basically, the method relies on (i) the identification of a versatile and relevant manifold of states at low-energy and (ii) the projection of the microscopic Hamiltonian in this manifold. Such a framework, first initiated by Rokhsar and Kivelson~\cite{rokhsar} in a different context, has been put here
on a formal basis and greatly extended, providing a novel versatile and systematic expansion scheme to deal with frustrated magnets.
The paper is organized as follows: in the first part we present the derivation scheme focusing on important results and highlighting practical implementation rules. To increase readability, we make an extensive use of appendices in which all technical details and demonstrations are postponed. The second part is devoted to the application of the method to the kagome antiferromagnet. We derive the parameter-free GQDM Hamiltonian that has been proved to give deeper insights to the low energy physics of the kagome antiferromagnet in a companion paper\cite{qdmkagome}. Then we discuss its key properties focusing on the fact that this untuned GQDM model lies at the vicinity of several competing exotic phases, a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ dimer liquid and two VBC phases, sheding light on the critical properties of the microscopic model.
For completeness, we provide complementary results for the Kagome lattice (see Supplementary material at the end of the article).
\section{Effective Hamiltonian mapping scheme}
\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Low energy manifold}
In the past decades numerical studies played a central role in establishing unbiased and reliable results on bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF\cite{j1j2}. More precisely, Exact Diagonalizations (ED) of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian on finite and generally small clusters were able to provide precise insights on these problems. Other numerical methods, such as Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) or Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG), have proven their relative inadequacy to treat such systems and failed to be generalized for reasons that appear more and more to be fundamental rather than purely technical.
Based on ED results, two salient facts can be retained to draw a phenomenological low-energy picture: bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF (i) remain magnetically disordered at zero temperature (i.e. the zero temperature spin-spin correlation function $\langle \hat{\mathbf{S}}_i.\hat{\mathbf{S}}_j \rangle $ does not display long range antiferromagnetic order), (ii) do not break the SU(2) symmetry, the groundstate and low-lying excitations are singlets (i.e. eigenstates of the total spin $\hat{\mathbf{S}}$ with a zero eigenvalue).
Singlet states are intimately related to Valence Bond (VB) states, namely products over pairs of spins of arbitrary range SU(2) singlet wavefunctions (also called {\it SU(2) dimers} in the following). Indeed, any singlet state can be expressed as a linear superposition of VB states\cite{rumer,hulthen}. It is therefore tempting to build a low-energy singlet theory by representing the original spin Hamiltonian in the VB basis rather than using spin variables. However, the set of all VB states is massively overcomplete, as the number of VB states is much larger than the number of singlets. This originates from the fact that in the VB representation dimers are allowed to connect arbitrarily distant sites. On the other hand, Liang, Dou\c{c}ot and Anderson showed that a deep connection exists between the spin correlation length of a singlet wavefunction and its bond-length distribution\cite{liang}: a finite correlation length for $\langle \hat{\mathbf{S}}_i.\hat{\mathbf{S}}_j \rangle $ can only be obtained for a sufficiently fast decay with dimer length of dimer amplitudes in the wavefunction.
This strongly suggests that a versatile framework for describing the magnetically disordered low energy manifold of bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF can be obtained by considering only the restriction of the VB states to short range or Nearest Neighbor Valence Bond (NNVB) states. The precise numerical check of this statement as well as the ability of the NNVB set of states to capture the low energy physics of bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF has been performed in previous work in the case of the $J_1-J_2-J_3$ model on a square lattice\cite{J1J2J3NNVB} and for the kagome antiferromagnet\cite{kagomeNNVB,kagomeNNVBimpurity}.
As a concluding remark let us mention that, contrary to the unrestricted VB set of states, the NNVB states are linearly independent for most low-connectivity lattices. This can be numerically checked for reasonably large systems on the square, triangular and kagome lattices\cite{mambriniunp} and has been recently proved for the kagome lattice\cite{seidel}. However, as the number of NNRVB states on those lattices is smaller than the total number of singlets, it is clear that this restriction further reduces the singlet Hilbert space which is a key advantage for numerical computations.
\subsection{Effective Hamiltonian}
For convenience, most of the illustrations provided in this section are represented using the kagome lattice. However, the formalism is general and all technical details, provided in the Appendices \ref{subsec:signs} to \ref{sec:fullyconnected} and to which we extensively refer, use a lattice-independent formulation.
\subsubsection{Linear algebra problem}
{\it Non-orthogonality}. A crucial property of VB states is their non-orthogonality: for any $\vert \varphi \rangle$ and $\vert \psi \rangle$, the scalar product $\sca{\varphi}{\psi}$ is always non-zero and, as recalled in Appendix \ref{subsec:signs},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nonorth}
\sca{\varphi}{\psi} = \alpha^{N-2 n_l \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of sites of the system and $n_l \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )$ is the number of loops in the overlap graph (see figure \ref{fig:overlap}). In the general case, the overlap $\sca{\varphi}{\psi}$ is a signed quantity. This is a direct consequence of the SU(2) dimer wavefunction antisymmetry which requires in turn to specify a conventional orientation of lattice bonds.
When restricting to NNVB states, this choice is constrained by the nature of the lattice. The {\it bosonic} convention requires a prescription of bond orientations and hence is more adapted to bipartite lattices. On the other hand, the {\it fermionic} convention, being free of any dimer ordering, is convenient for non-bipartite lattices (see Appendix \ref{subsec:signs}). Using the fermionic convention (for arbitrary lattices) or the bosonic convention on bipartite lattices allow to absorb the sign of $\sca{\varphi}{\psi}$ in the single parameter $\alpha$ by taking $\alpha_b = 1 / \sqrt{2}$ (respectively $\alpha_f = i / \sqrt{2}$).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./Figures/Overlap}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:overlap} (Color online) Overlap $\sca{\varphi}{\psi}$ between two VB wave functions $\ket{\varphi}$ and $\ket{\psi}$. The amplitude of $\sca{\varphi}{\psi}$ is driven by the number of loops appearing in the overlap graph (bottom frame).}
\end{figure}
{\it Dual basis}. When working with a non-orthogonal basis $\{\ket{\psi}\}$ as the NNVB states, it is generally useful to introduce its dual basis $\{\ket{\psi^{\star}}\}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sca{\varphi^{\star}}{\psi}=\delta_{\varphi,\psi}.
\end{equation}
Of course, both span the same space, but the dual states are clearly not VB states, as the overlap between VB states is always non-zero. As we want to work with the NNVB basis, one can then further introduce the operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:oclosing}
\hat{\cal O}=\sum_\chi\ket{\chi}\bra{\chi},
\end{equation}
that transforms the dual states into NNVB states: $\hat{\cal O}\ket{\psi^\star}=\ket{\psi}$. Its inverse is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:invoclosing}
\hat{\cal O}^{-1}=\sum_\chi\ket{\chi^\star}\bra{\chi^\star}
\end{equation}
and transforms the NNVB states back to the dual states. Therefore $\langle \varphi \vert \hat{\cal O}^{-1} \vert \psi \rangle=\sca{\varphi^{\star}}{\psi}=\delta_{\varphi,\psi}$ and $\{\ket{\psi^\perp}\}=\{\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}\ket{\psi}\}$ is easily seen to be an orthonormal basis\cite{rokhsar}.
In order to calculate matrix elements in a non-orthogonal basis, one may define
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\cal A}_{\varphi,\psi} &= \langle \varphi^\star \vert \hat{\cal A} \vert \psi \rangle \\
&=\langle \varphi \vert \hat{\cal O}^{-1}\hat{\cal A} \vert \psi \rangle.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Setting $\hat{\cal H}=\hat{\cal O}\hat{\cal H}_H$, we find
\begin{align}
{\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi} & =\sca{\varphi}{\psi},\\
{\cal H}_{\varphi,\psi} & =\langle \varphi \vert \hat{\cal H}_H \vert \psi \rangle.
\end{align}
${\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi}$ is called \textit{overlap} matrix and the \textit{Heisenberg} Hamiltonian for bidimensionnal frustrated QHAF in its general form is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal H}_H = \sum_{i,j} J_{i,j} \hat{\mathbf{S}}_i.\hat{\mathbf{S}}_j.
\end{equation}
{\it Matrix elements}. The matrix elements ${\cal H}_{\varphi,\psi}$ can be obtained from the overlap matrix elements ${\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi}$ straightforwardly, generalizing Ref.~\onlinecite{sutherland}. It can be shown (see Appendix \ref{subsec:signs} and figure \ref{fig:boucles} for details) that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hamov}
\langle \varphi \vert \hat{\cal H}_H \vert \psi \rangle=\sum_{i,j} J_{i,j}\ \varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi} \sca{\varphi}{\psi},
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi}$ can be derived from the overlap graph. Figure (\ref{fig:boucles}) illustrates the fact that $\varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi}\in\{0,+3/4,-3/4\}$. In the case where $i$ and $j$ are on two distinct loops
in the overlap graph of $\ket{\varphi}$ and $\ket{\psi}$, we have $\varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi}=0$. When $i$ and $j$ are on the same loop one finds that $\varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi}=+3/4$ ($\varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi}=-3/4$) if the distance between $i$ and $j$ is even (odd) with respect to the loop formed by $\ket{\varphi}$ and $\ket{\psi}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{./Figures/Loops}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:boucles} (Color online) Application of $\hat{P}_l = 2 \hat{\mathbf{S}}_i.\hat{\mathbf{S}}_j +1/2$ on a loop diagram $\langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle$ for the three types of bonds $l=(i,j)$ described in the text: ``internal odd'' ({\it a}), ``external'' ({\it b}) and ``internal even'' ({\it c}). The state $\vert \chi \rangle$ (respectively $\vert \varphi \rangle$) is represented with blue (respectively red) bonds. Note that $P_l$ is applied on $\vert \chi \rangle$. Figures nearby the diagrams are the ratios $\langle \varphi \vert \hat{P}_l \vert \chi \rangle / \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle$ (bold) and $\langle \varphi \vert (4/3)\hat{\mathbf{S}}_i.\hat{\mathbf{S}}_j \vert \chi \rangle / \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle$ (italic).}
\end{figure}
In the case where $J_{i,j}$ is uniform for nearest neighbors pairs $\langle i,j \rangle$ of sites $i$ and $j$, we introduce the nearest neighbor coupling $J_1=J_{\langle i,j \rangle }$. Denoting the net length of all non-trivial loops by ${\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi}$, the number of trivial (i.e. length-2) loops is given by $N/2-{\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi}/2$. For convenience we will shift away all contributions from trivial loops and rescale the Hamiltonian by a factor $4/3$, and thus from now on we replace $\hat{\cal H}_H$ by $(4/3) \hat{\cal H}_H +J_1 N/2$.
In this new convention we have $\varepsilon_{i,j}\in\{0,+1,-1\}$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:OHrelation}
{\cal H}_{\varphi,\psi}=h_{\varphi,\psi} {\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weight}
h_{\varphi,\psi}=\sum_{\substack{(i,j) \in \text{ non-} \\ \text{trivial loops}}} J_{i,j} \varepsilon_{i,j}^{\varphi,\psi}+J_1{\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi}/2.
\end{equation}
Because the overlap diagram of two identical configurations contains only trivial loops, equation \eqref{eq:weight} directly implies $h_{\varphi,\varphi}=0$.
{\it Effective Hamiltonian}. Having introduced the NNVB basis $\{\ket{\psi}\}$, the overlap matrix ${\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi}$ and the matrix ${\cal H}_{\varphi,\psi}$, we can now diagonalize the Heisenberg Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}_H$ projected onto the singlet subspace spanned by the NNVB states. This could in principle be done in the NNVB basis directly, i.e. diagonalizing the matrix $(\hat{\cal H}_H)_{\varphi,\psi}=\langle \varphi^\star \vert \hat{\cal H}_H \vert \psi \rangle$. But as we do not want to calculate the dual basis $\{\ket{\psi^{\star}}\}$, this might not be the most practicable way. Traditionally\cite{rokhsar} one chooses the orthonormal basis $\{\ket{\psi^\perp}\}=\{\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}\ket{\psi}\}=\{\hat{\cal O}^{1/2}\ket{\psi^\star}\}$ and diagonalizes the matrix
\begin{equation}
({\cal H}_H)_{\varphi^\perp,\psi^\perp}=\langle \varphi^\star \vert \hat{\cal O}^{1/2}\hat{\cal H}_H\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2} \vert \psi \rangle=({\cal H}_\text{eff})_{\varphi,\psi},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:EffectiveH}
\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff} = \hat{\cal O}^{1/2} \hat{\cal H}_H\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2} = \hat{\cal O}^{-1/2} \hat{\cal H}\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}
Note that on the one hand-side $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$ is expressed in terms of the matrices ${\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi}$ and ${\cal H}_{\varphi,\psi}$, which are both symmetric and easily calculated in terms of the loop structure formed by the NNVB states. On the other hand-side $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$ arises from the Heisenberg Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}_H$ by a similarity transformation and therefore both operators are equivalent. However, working with $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$ rather than with $\hat{\cal H}_H$ allows for using the non-orthogonal NNVB basis without any explicit knowledge of its dual basis, which is the aim of this transformation.\\
In the original scheme\cite{rokhsar,zeng-elser} the dual basis was omitted, but the definition of the effective Hamiltonian is the same in terms of $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$. In order to achieve this, one had to introduce some generalized eigenvalue problem, however missing the fact that $\hat{{\cal H}}$ and $\hat{\cal H}_H$ are indeed distinct operators (i.e. $\hat{{\cal H}}$ is {\it not} the Heisenberg Hamiltonian). Furthermore, one had to interpret the missing $\star$ in $\sca{\varphi^{\star}}{\psi}=\delta_{\varphi,\psi}$ as emergence of so-called hardcore (or quantum) dimers\cite{rokhsar,zeng-elser,triangular-QDM,qdmkagome}. In contrast, the dual basis offers a quite natural framework to clarify the relations between the SU(2) (non-orthogonal) VB basis and the Quantum Dimer (orthogonal) basis.
\subsubsection{Operator expansion and fusions}\label{sec:expfuse}
{\it Diagrams}. In order to explicitly calculate the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$, we need to write down all terms in $\hat{\cal O}$ and $\hat{\cal H}$. Noticing that the identity operator is given by $\hat{\cal I}=\sum_\chi\ket{\chi}\bra{\chi^\star}$, we can express the overlap operator as
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:newoverlap}
\begin{align}
\Ov = & \Ov \hat{\cal I}\nonumber\\
= & \sum_{\varphi,\psi} \ket{\varphi}\sca{\varphi}{\psi}\bra{\psi^\star}\\
= & \sum_{\varphi,\psi} \alpha^{{\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi} - 2 {\cal N}_{\varphi,\psi}} \ket{\varphi}\bra{\psi^\star},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where ${\cal N}_{\varphi,\psi}$ and ${\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi}$ are number and the net length of all non-trivial loops respectively. As the amplitude ${\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi}$ (as well as $h_{\varphi,\psi}$) only depends on the non-trivial loops, it is rather instructive to replace the flipping process $\ket{\varphi}\bra{\psi^\star}$ by a diagram that visually describes the underlying resonating loop structure. For example, considering the two possible dimer coverings around a hexagon, the resulting process is
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.075mm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:hexgraph}
\begin{align}
\hat{\omega}_{g_1} &= \kag{2_1} \label{eq:hexgraph1} \\
&= \ket{\kag{hex1}} \bra{\kag{hex2}^\star} + \ket{\kag{hex2}}\bra{\kag{hex1}^\star}, \label{eq:hexgraph2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where all other loops are trivial and hence omitted in the diagrammatic representation. Note that this type of diagrams \eqref{eq:hexgraph1} actually stands for the sum of all flipping processes with the same amplitude and the same geometrical shape, i.e. all rigid motions of the diagram on the lattice are represented by one diagram. Furthermore, diagrams are symmetric, that is both processes $\ket{\varphi}\bra{\psi^\star}$ and $\ket{\psi}\bra{\varphi^\star}$ are in the same diagram. In other words we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:graphcond}
(\hat{\omega}_g\Ov)^\dagger=\hat{\omega}_g\Ov,
\end{equation}
which we will use as determining condition for a process to be representable in a diagram.
{\it Expansion}. As $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$ are closely related by \eqref{eq:OHrelation}, a simple inspection of \eqref{eq:nonorth} suggests to derive the effective Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:EffectiveH} as an expansion order by order in $\alpha$. Whereas usually\cite{rokhsar,zeng-elser} one was to work out the overlap matrix in terms of the net length ${\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi}$ of the overlap graphs, we will here consider the full exponent, i.e. additionally consider the number ${\cal N}_{\varphi,\psi}$ of loops. Therefore we will denote the order of a graph by $2\mathrm{n}(g)$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:order}
\mathrm{n}(g)={\cal L}_{\varphi,\psi}/2 - {\cal N}_{\varphi,\psi},
\end{equation}
which is clearly a non-negative integer. As an example, the order of the process (\ref{eq:hexgraph}) is $2\mathrm{n}(g_1)=2(6/2-1)=4$
Then we rewrite \eqref{eq:newoverlap} as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ovexpansion}
\Ov = \sum_{g} \alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} \hat{\omega}_g.
\end{equation}
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.09mm}
\begin{table}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{||c|c|c|c|c||}\hline\hline
\text{\bf Processes} & \text{\bf Order} & \text{\bf Loop length} & \text{\bf Hexagon} & \text{\bf Degree}\\
\hat{\omega}_g & 2\mathrm{n}(g) & {{\cal L}_l} & \text{\bf number} & \mathrm{dg}(g)\\ \hline\hline
\kag{2_1} & 4 & 6 & 1 & 1 \\
\kag{3_1} & 6 & 8 & 1 & 1 \\
\kag{4_1} & 8 & 12 & 2 & 2 \\
\kag{4_2} & 8 & 10 & 1 & 1 \\
\kag{5_1} & 10 & 14 & 2 & 2 \\
\kag{5_4} & 10 & 12 & 1 & 1 \\
\kag{5_5} & 10 & 12 & 2 & 1 \\ \hline\hline
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\caption{\label{tab:expansionorders} Order $2\mathrm{n}(g)$ of a graph, compared to the loop length\cite{rokhsar} and the number of enclosed hexagons\cite{zeng-elser}, which were defined as order in previous works.
Note that the different expansion schemes lead to the very same processes but these do not appear at the same orders. Nevertheless, in our procedure, the {\it leading} order
for a given loop of size ${\cal L}=2p$ ($p$ is an integer) in the ${\hat H}_{\rm eff}$ expansion is ${\cal L}-2$ (i.e. it scales linearly with the loop length). The last column illustrates the {\it degrees} of these graphs as defined in Appendix \ref{subsec:generating}.
}
\end{table}
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.045mm}
Table \ref{tab:expansionorders} compares different choices of orders and clearly shows that truncating the expansion at a given order does not produce the same terms in every case. However, our choice might seem more natural as it actually corresponds to the hierarchy of occurring amplitudes in $\Ov$. More importantly, as shown in section \ref{sec:locality}, this choice guaranties (i) the locality of ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ (i.e. non-connected processes, such as
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.09mm}
\begin{equation*}
\kag{4_1} \text{ or } \kag{5_1}
\end{equation*}
appearing in $\hat{{\cal H}}$ actually disappear in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ {\em at all orders}) and (ii) the possibility of {\em resumming all order contributions} for a given graph.
Using \eqref{eq:oclosing} and \eqref{eq:Hamov} one can express the Hamiltonian as
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:newhamilton}
\begin{align}
\hat{{\cal H}} = & \sum_{\varphi,\psi} \ket{\varphi} \langle \varphi \vert \hat{\cal H}_H \vert \psi \rangle \bra{\psi^\star}\\
= & \sum_{\varphi,\psi} h_{\varphi,\psi} {\cal O}_{\varphi,\psi} \ket{\varphi}\bra{\psi^\star}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
or, similarly as \eqref{eq:ovexpansion},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamexpansion}
\hat{{\cal H}} = \sum_{g} \alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} h_g \hat{\omega}_g.
\end{equation}
where $h_g=h_{\varphi,\psi}$ for the corresponding overlap graph.
The expression $\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}\hat{\cal H}\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}$ requires evaluating a non-integer power of $\hat{\cal O}$, which can be done using
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonintpow}
\hat{\cal O}^\tau=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\Gamma(1+\tau)}{\Gamma(1+\tau-k)\Gamma(1+k)}(\hat{\cal O}-1)^k.
\end{equation}
However, this still requires calculating integer powers of $\hat{\cal O}$ and thus it is necessary to look at products of diagrams. Using (\ref{eq:graphcond}) for $\hat{\omega}_1 \Ov$ and $\hat{\omega}_2 \Ov$, it is easy to check that $(\hat{\omega}_1\hat{\omega}_2\Ov)^\dagger=\hat{\omega}_2\hat{\omega}_1\Ov$. Therefore a simple product $\hat{\omega}_1\hat{\omega}_2$ of diagrams does not fulfill (\ref{eq:graphcond}) and hence cannot be represented as a diagram. On the contrary, the symmetrized form
\begin{equation}
\hat{\omega}_g=\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\hat{\omega}_1]{\hat{\omega}_2}
\end{equation}
obviously verifies (\ref{eq:graphcond}) and can be represented as a graph.
{\it Fusions}. The issue of generating graphs out symmetrized products of graphs is called \textit{fusion} of diagrams and shall be illustrated by the following fusion rules, that are valid on the kagome lattice.
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.065mm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:fusexample}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\kag{2_1}]{\kag{2_1}} = & \kag{2_2}+2 \kag{4_1}\label{eq:potgraph}\\
\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\kag{2_1}]{\kag{3_1}} = & \frac{1}{2}\kag{5_5} + \kag{5_1}\label{eq:fusedgraph}\\
\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\kag{2_2}]{\kag{3_3}} = & \frac{1}{2}\kag{5_14} + \kag{5_11}\label{eq:assistgraph}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
All these rules can be obtained by direct application of processes on dimer configurations using processes definitions like \eqref{eq:hexgraph}. Let us comment rules \eqref{eq:fusexample}.
Up to now, in the overlap matrix and the Hamiltonian we have only met flipping processes, which are called \textit{kinetic} terms. The first example (eq. \ref{eq:potgraph}) shows that the fusion of two identical kinetic diagrams always involves the emergence of \textit{potential} terms that are drawn with a yellow shape. This kind of terms arises, when a flipping process is acting twice at exactly the same position. In this case the dimers are flipped twice, which means that they are not flipped at all. However, it is important to emphasize that a potential term is not identical to the identity operator, as it is actually checked whether the plaquette is flippable or not. Indeed, applying a flipping process to a non-flippable plaquette annihilates the state. This can also be seen from the fact that contributions of potential terms can be expressed as $\ket{\varphi}\bra{\varphi^\star}$ and as an example on a hexagon we have
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.075mm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:hexpotgraph}
\begin{align}
\hat{\omega}_{g_2} &= \kag{2_2} \label{eq:hexpotgraph1} \\
&= \ket{\kag{hex1}} \bra{\kag{hex1}^\star} + \ket{\kag{hex2}}\bra{\kag{hex2}^\star}. \label{eq:hexpotgraph2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Furthermore, the fusion of diagrams always generates disconnected diagrams, where the flipping or checking processes are simply happening at distant positions (e.g. last terms on the r.h.s of equations \eqref{eq:fusexample}). Notice, that due to combinatorics the prefactor is not the same in the case when identical or different diagrams are fusing.
Equations \eqref{eq:fusedgraph} and \eqref{eq:assistgraph} illustrate, that when both kinetic or potential processes are happening close to each other (i.e. sharing at least one bond), the resulting diagrams generally look more complicated. A typical merging of two loops in one larger loop is displayed by rule \eqref{eq:fusedgraph}. Furthermore, more unusual \textit{assisted kinetic processes} where the plaquette flipping requires the presence of specific trivial loops in the neighborhood of the plaquette (see eq. \ref{eq:assistgraph}) also emerge from the fusion rules. Notice that the kinetic and potential processes are identical on trivial loops and correspond to verifying the presence of dimers at a specific position.
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.24mm}
While the details of the fusions rules are lattice-specific, the key properties of fusions for the derivation of an effective Hamiltonian are actually quite general. In Appendix \ref{subsec:diagrammatic}, we introduce a general lattice-independent diagrammatic notation in which each connected part of a (disconnected) diagram $\mean{\gd{1}\ds\gd{1}\ldots\gd{1}}$ is generically represented as $\gd{1}$. General fusion rules (see Appendix \ref{subsec:fusion}) produce new connected terms by connecting two or more connected parts. Such terms are generically represented as $\gd{2}$ (fusion of two connected parts). For example, all the rules \eqref{eq:fusexample} lie in the generic class of rules,
\begin{equation}
\mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}}=\mean{\gd{2}}+\mean{\gd{11}}.
\end{equation}
Note that the notation $\mean{.}$ defined in Appendix \ref{subsec:diagrammatic}, conveniently absorbs all combinatorial prefactors. Fusing more connected parts leads to diagrams such as $\mean{\gd{3b}}$ or $\mean{\gd{3a}}$ (fusions of three connected parts). Let us remark that while both terms are connected, these two terms are inequivalent since in the latter case the first and third part do not fuse.
Provided these general fusion rules, one can work out the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$ in a systematic way. It is important to note that $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$ do not contain any potential term. They only emerge by fusing kinetic processes. On the other hand, $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$ contain disconnected kinetic terms and when fusing diagrams we always generate those \textit{non-local} processes as well. Such a non-locality would be physically inconsistent in the resulting
effective Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}=\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2} \hat{\cal H}\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}$. However, {\em all} the non-local terms disappear while deriving $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$ and thus the effective Hamiltonian is \textit{local} as the initial Heisenberg Hamiltonian. As this property, proofed in the next section, is valid at {\em all} orders in $\alpha$, this holds for the exact all-order resumed effective Hamiltonian as well as for any truncated $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$.
\subsubsection{Proof of locality and resummation scheme}
\label{sec:locality}
{\it Locality}. Comparing equations \eqref{eq:ovexpansion} and \eqref{eq:hamexpansion}, the only difference between $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$ is the additional weight $h_g$ for the Hamiltonian. Therefore it is convenient to define a generating function $\Z (\alpha,\beta,\mu)$ (defined as \eqref{eq:gen} in Appendix \ref{subsec:generating}), such that both $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$ can be obtained from it by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\hat{{\cal H}} & = \muzerobetaone[{\dmu[\Z]}], \\
\Ov & = \muzerobetaone[\Z],
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\beta$ and $\mu$ are some internal parameters (for details see section \ref{subsec:generating}). Therefore, $\hat{\cal H}_\text{eff}$ can be recast as
\begin{equation}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \Z[-1/2] \left ( \dmu[\Z] \right ) \Z[-1/2].
\end{equation}
After some standard operator manipulations (see section \ref{subsec:logZ}), one can show, that the last equation is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Heffcommutators}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \sum_{p=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^{2p}} \frac{\left ( \halfcommute[\ln \Z] \right )^{2p}}{\left ( 2 p + 1 \right )!} \dmu[\logZ].
\end{equation}
involving only iterated commutators of $\ln \Z$ on $\dmu[\logZ]$.
Now, supposing that $\ln \Z$ only contains connected terms, it is clear that this cannot be different in $\dmu[\logZ]$. Moreover, the commutator of two connected diagrams cannot be disconnected: (i) either the two diagrams act on disconnected plaquettes and hence commute, (ii) or they lie on neighboring plaquettes (i.e. sharing at least one bond) and they fuse to a single connected diagram. This can also be shown easily using $[A,[A,B]]=\{B,\{A,A\}\}-\{A,\{A,B\}\}$ and the diagrammatic scheme in appendix (\ref{subsec:diagrammatic}).
It turns out, that $\ln \Z$ indeed only contains connected terms, which is an important result both from a conceptual and aesthetic points of view: it shows that ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ is local and therefore provides firm grounds to the consistency of the method. Conversely, producing an effective Hamiltonian with non-local terms would put the whole scheme into question.
The quite technical demonstration of this point is split in several Appendices (\ref{subsec:cumulants} to \ref{sec:linkedcluster}). Let us sketch the arguments. One can establish a linked cluster theorem, i.e. express the logarithm of the generating function as sum of cumulants (see Appendix \ref{subsec:cumulants}). One can then formulate some lattice independent diagrammatic notation (Appendix \ref{subsec:diagrammatic}) and work out general fusion rules (Appendix \ref{subsec:fusion}). Using these rules, we establish equation \eqref{eq:recursion4} showing that every cumulant can be reexpressed as a combination of lower order cumulants.
This allows finally to show by mathematical induction that cumulants represent connected processes and therefore $\ln \Z$ does not contain non-connected terms (appendix \ref{sec:linkedcluster}). As we will see, this generating function formalism is not only useful to establish the effective Hamiltonian locality but also provides a practical framework to resum the
series in $\alpha$ giving the amplitude of dominant terms in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$.
{\it Fully connected diagrams}. A special class of connected diagrams, called \textit{fully connected} diagrams is produced by complete fusion of all parts (i.e every diagram is connected to every other diagram by sharing at least one bond). In the lattice-independent diagrammatic representation, we denote such diagrams as
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.35mm}
\begin{equation*}
\bgd{NFullyConnected}
\end{equation*}
These diagrams are very important for two reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item This class of diagrams includes the most compact terms (i.e. involving short loops) of the effective Hamiltonian that are obtained by fusing identically shaped diagrams exactly at the same place (e.g. the first term in the r.h.s of eq. \eqref{eq:potgraph}). These processes are also the dominant terms in the $\alpha$-expansion of ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$. Indeed, the leading order for a length-${\cal L}$ connected process in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}=\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2} \hat{\cal H}\hat{\cal O}^{-1/2}$ is $\alpha^{{\cal L}-2}$.
\item Their exact weight in $\ln \Z$ is particularly simple to obtain, as explained in appendix (\ref{sec:fullyconnected}) and,
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.24mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:maximal}
\begin{split}
\ln \Z&=-\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^m}{m!} \beta^m \mean{{\overbrace{\left(\bgd{NFullyConnected}\right)}^{m}}_c}\\
&\quad + {\text{less connected terms}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.09mm}
{\it Elementary diagrams \& Resummation}. We define the {\it elementary diagrams} as the set of processes (kinetic or potential) that cannot be cut into two sub-processes. For example,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:elemexample}
\kag{2_1} \text{ and } \kag{3_1}
\end{equation}
are elementary while
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:nonelemexample}
\kag{5_5}
\end{equation}
is not since it can be cut into the two parts \eqref{eq:elemexample}.
Obviously, all elementary graphs appear as fully connected graphs in $\ln \Z$: for example $\hat{\omega}_{g_2}$ given by \eqref{eq:hexpotgraph} is a full connection of $\hat{\omega}_{g_1}$, see \eqref{eq:hexgraph}, with itself. \setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.075mm}Notice that there exist fully connected terms that are not elementary (e.g. \eqref{eq:nonelemexample} is a full connection of \eqref{eq:elemexample}, but is not elementary).
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.35mm}
Generic elementary kinetic and potential diagrams will be represented respectively as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:genericelem}
\bgd{ElemKin} \;\;\;\;\text{ and }\;\;\;\; \bgd{ElemPot}.
\end{equation}
Fusion rules of elementary diagrams, of which \eqref{eq:potgraph} is a typical example, can be compactly written as
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:elemrules}
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\bgd{ElemKin}]{\bgd{ElemKin}} = & \; \bgd{ElemPot} + 2 \; \bgd{ElemKinKin} \label{eq:elemruleskin}\\
\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\bgd{ElemPot}]{\bgd{ElemPot}} = & \; \bgd{ElemPot} + 2 \; \bgd{ElemPotPot} \label{eq:elemrulespot}\\
\frac{1}{2}\acommute[\bgd{ElemKin}]{\bgd{ElemPot}} = & \; \bgd{ElemKin} + \bgd{ElemKinPot} \label{eq:elemrulesmixted}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In order to compute the full weight of elementary diagrams in $\ln \Z$, we need to track all occurrences of these terms in \eqref{eq:maximal}. High order contractions of these processes are typically given by iterating \eqref{eq:elemrules}. But obviously, the last (disconnected) terms of \eqref{eq:elemrules} cannot produce fully connected terms by further iterations. As a consequence, the evaluation of $\ln \Z$ only requires the simple reduced rule,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:reduced}
\bgd{ElemKin}^n =
\begin{cases}
\bgd{ElemKin}& \text{for odd } n,\\
& \\
\bgd{ElemPot}& \text{for even } n.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Since a length-${\cal L}$ elementary process with weight $h$ in the expansion of $\hat{{\cal H}}$ occurs at order $\alpha^{{\cal L}-2}$, its contribution to the generating function is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:elemZ}
\Z = \ldots + \beta \alpha^{{\cal L}-2} e^{\mu h} \; \bgd{ElemKin} + \ldots
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:maximal}, the relevant contribution to $\ln \Z$ is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:elemlogZ}
\ln \Z = \ldots + \sum_{m \geq 1} \beta^m \frac{(-1)^m}{m} \alpha^{m({\cal L}-2)} e^{m \mu h} \; \bgd{ElemKin}^m + \ldots
\end{equation}
which is easily evaluated, using \eqref{eq:reduced}, as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:elemlogZexplicit}
\ln \Z = \ldots &+ \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1+\beta \alpha^{{\cal L}-2} e^{\mu h}}{1-\beta \alpha^{{\cal L}-2} e^{\mu h}}\;\bgd{ElemKin}\\ \nonumber
&+ \frac{1}{2} \ln \left ( 1-\beta^2 \alpha^{2({\cal L}-2)} e^{2 \mu h} \right )\;\bgd{ElemPot}+ \ldots
\end{align}
Evaluating ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ is done using \eqref{eq:Heffcommutators} which requires in turn to compute $\dmu[\logZ]$ and all its iterated commutators with $\ln \Z$. But since, by definition, elementary diagrams cannot be produced by fusing smaller diagrams, the only relevant terms to the amplitude of \eqref{eq:genericelem} in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ produced by orders $p>0$ in \eqref{eq:Heffcommutators}
are (i) commutators of an elementary diagram with itself at the same place or (ii) commutators of two elementary diagrams acting on disconnected places. Obviously such contributions vanish identically. As a direct consequence, only order $p=0$ of \eqref{eq:Heffcommutators} contribute to the amplitude of elementary diagrams in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$. In other words, for any elementary process
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Heffcommutatorselem}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \dmu[\logZ].
\end{equation}
It is then straightforward, using \eqref{eq:elemlogZexplicit}, to evaluate the contribution of elementary diagrams to ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ :
\begin{align}
\label{eq:elemHeff}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} = \ldots &+ h \frac{\alpha^{{\cal L}-2}}{1-\alpha^{2({\cal L}-2)}} \;\bgd{ElemKin}\\ \nonumber
&- h \frac{\alpha^{2({\cal L}-2})}{1-\alpha^{2({\cal L}-2)}}\;\bgd{ElemPot}+ \ldots
\end{align}
where ${\cal L}$ is the length of the elementary (kinetic) diagram and $h$ its ``bare'' energy as appearing in the $\hat{{\cal H}}$ expansion \eqref{eq:hamexpansion}.
\section{Generalized Quantum dimer model for the kagome antiferromagnet}
\label{sec:kagome}
In this section we will apply our scheme to the kagome lattice and consider the nearest neighbor coupling $J_1=J>0$ only.
First, we make a brief review of the current understanding of this model.
\subsection{Current status}
The properties of the QHAF on the Kagome lattice have been actively explored
for the last two decades by analytical and numerical techniques. Although a number of important results have
been obtained, the nature of the groundstate is still a mystery.
Lanczos ED of small
clusters~\cite{lecheminant,sindzingre-99} have clearly revealed an exponentially large number (w.r.t. system size)
of singlets below the first triplet excitation (spin gap), a fact reminiscent of the NNVB basis~\cite{mila,kagomeNNVB}. The accessible cluster
sizes remain however too small
to definitely conclude whether the spin gap survives in the thermodynamic limit~\cite{sindzingre-lhuillier}.
Recent DMRG studies~\cite{dmrg} seem however to support it.
A number of studies have also been devoted more precisely to the nature of the groundstate itself.
For example, an early ED analysis of the four-spin correlations (i.e. dimer-dimer) first pointed towards a {\it short-range} dimer
liquid phase~\cite{leung}.
Alternatively, translation-symmetry breaking VBC, two-dimensional analogs of the Majumdar-Gosh~\cite{mg}
dimerized chain, have been proposed on the basis of various other approaches like large-N SU(N) techniques~\cite{vbc,marston} and
mappings to low-energy effective hamiltonians within the singlet subspace~\cite{maleyev,senthil,auerbach}.
Recent series expansions around the dimer limit~\cite{singh} showed that a 36-site unit cell (i.e. a $2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3}$ supercell
of up-triangles) VBC would be preferred in agreement with Refs.~\onlinecite{marston,senthil}.
However, the interpretation of the ED low-energy singlet spectrum~\cite{misguich-sindzingre} on the 36-site periodic cluster remains problematic
not showing the expected quasi-degenerate VBC groundstates. Therefore, it has been proposed~\cite{sindzingre-lhuillier} that the
Heisenberg model might be within (or in the close vicinity of) a spin liquid phase such as the algebraic spin liquid~\cite{lee-et-al}.
We now turn to the application of our procedure which offers a new versatile scheme to investigate non-magnetic singlet
phases as VBC.
\subsection{Expansion}\label{sec:Heffkagomeexp}
{\it Leading orders}. Table \ref{tab:expansionHO} shows all the contributing terms in $\Ov$ and $\hat{{\cal H}}$ up to order $2\mathrm{n}(g)=10$. Of course, as ${\cal O}_{\varphi,\varphi}=1$ and ${\cal H}_{\varphi,\varphi}=0$, the identity process $\1$, which only contains trivial loops, appears with order $2\mathrm{n}(g)=0$ in $\Ov$ but does not contribute to $\hat{{\cal H}}$. Therefore we define $\Ov=\1+\hat{\cal X}$, where $\hat{\cal X}$ is a short hand notation for all processes in $\Ov$, except the identity.
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.075mm}
\begin{table}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{||c|c|c||c|c|c||}\hline\hline
\text{\bf Processes} & \hat{\cal O} & \hat{\cal H}/J & \text{\bf Processes} & \hat{\cal O} & \hat{\cal H}/J \\ \hline\hline
\kag{2_1} & \alpha ^4 & -3 \alpha ^4 & \kag{5_1} & \alpha ^{10} & -5 \alpha ^{10} \\
\kag{3_1} & \alpha ^6 & -2 \alpha ^6 & \kag{5_2} & \alpha ^{10} & -5 \alpha ^{10} \\
\kag{3_2} & \alpha ^6 & -2 \alpha ^6 & \kag{5_3} & \alpha ^{10} & -5 \alpha ^{10} \\
\kag{3_3} & \alpha ^6 & -2 \alpha ^6 & \kag{5_4} & \alpha ^{10} & 0 \\
\kag{4_1} & \alpha ^8 & -6 \alpha ^8 & \kag{5_5} & \alpha ^{10} & -4 \alpha ^{10} \\
\kag{4_2} & \alpha ^8 & -\alpha ^8 & \kag{5_6} & \alpha ^{10} & -4 \alpha ^{10} \\
\kag{4_3} & \alpha ^8 & -\alpha ^8 & \kag{5_7} & \alpha ^{10} & -4 \alpha ^{10} \\
\kag{4_4} & \alpha ^8 & -\alpha ^8 & \kag{5_8} & \alpha ^{10} & -4 \alpha ^{10} \\ \hline\hline
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\caption{\label{tab:expansionHO} Expansion of $\hat{\cal X}=\hat{\cal O}-\1$ and $\hat{\cal H}$ up to order $2\mathrm{n}(g)=10$.}
\end{table}
Using equation (\ref{eq:nonintpow}) the effective Hamiltonian ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} = \Ov[-1/2] \hat{{\cal H}} \Ov[-1/2]$ can be written as
\begin{align}\label{eq:expbyhand}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} = & \hat{{\cal H}} - \frac{1}{2}\acommute[\hat{\cal X}]{\hat{{\cal H}}} \\
+ & \frac{1}{8}\acommute[\hat{\cal X}]{\acommute[\hat{\cal X}]{\hat{{\cal H}}}} + \frac{1}{8}\acommute[\hat{{\cal H}}]{\acommute[\hat{\cal X}]{\hat{\cal X}}} \nonumber \\
+ & \text{ terms with at least 3 anticommutators.} \nonumber
\end{align}
Thus we can immediately see, that all elementary kinetic processes have, at the lowest order, the same weight in $\hat{{\cal H}}$ and in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ (compare table \ref{tab:expansionHO} with \ref{tab:expansionHeff}). Additionally considering the second term in (\ref{eq:expbyhand}) and with the help of fusion rule (\ref{eq:potgraph}), one can confirm the amplitude of
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.09mm}
\begin{equation*
\kag{2_2}
\end{equation*}
to be $-\alpha ^4(-3 J \alpha ^4)=3 J \alpha ^8$ (see Table \ref{tab:expansionHeff}). Similarly, it is easy to see that the amplitude of
\begin{equation*
\kag{4_1}
\end{equation*}
cancels out to $-2\alpha ^4(-3 J \alpha ^4)+(-6 J \alpha ^8)=0$ which is a direct verification of the general property proved in Section \ref{sec:locality} stating that disconnected graphs do not contribute to the effective Hamiltonian at any order. The leading orders of all the diagrams presented in Table \ref{tab:expansionHeff} can be obtained conveniently using a direct evaluation based on \eqref{eq:expbyhand}.
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.075mm}
\begin{table}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{||c|c|c||c|c|c||}\hline\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\text{\bf Processes}} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{{{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}} / J} & \multirow{2}{*}{\text{\bf Processes}} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{{{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}} / J} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}
& \text{\bf LO} & \infty & & \text{\bf LO} & \infty \\ \hline\hline
\kag{2_1} & -3 \alpha ^4 & -\frac{3 \alpha ^4}{1-\alpha ^8} & \kag{4_2} & - \alpha ^8 & -\frac{\alpha ^8}{1-\alpha ^{16}} \\
\kag{2_2} & 3 \alpha ^8 & \frac{3 \alpha ^8}{1-\alpha ^8} & \kag{4_3} & - \alpha ^8 & -\frac{\alpha ^8}{1-\alpha ^{16}} \\
\kag{3_1} & -2 \alpha ^6 & -\frac{2 \alpha ^6}{1-\alpha ^{12}} & \kag{4_4} & - \alpha ^8 & -\frac{\alpha ^8}{1-\alpha ^{16}} \\
\kag{3_2} & -2 \alpha ^6 & -\frac{2 \alpha ^6}{1-\alpha ^{12}} & \kag{4_6} & \alpha ^{16} & \frac{\alpha ^{16}}{1-\alpha ^{16}} \\
\kag{3_3} & -2 \alpha ^6 & -\frac{2 \alpha ^6}{1-\alpha ^{12}} & \kag{4_7} & \alpha ^{16} & \frac{\alpha ^{16}}{1-\alpha ^{16}} \\
\kag{3_4} & 2 \alpha ^{12} & \frac{2 \alpha ^{12}}{1-\alpha ^{12}} & \kag{4_8} & \alpha ^{16} & \frac{\alpha ^{16}}{1-\alpha ^{16}} \\
\kag{3_5} & 2 \alpha ^{12} & \frac{2 \alpha ^{12}}{1-\alpha ^{12}} & \kag{5_4} & 0 & 0 \\
\kag{3_6} & 2 \alpha ^{12} & \frac{2 \alpha ^{12}}{1-\alpha ^{12}} & \kag{5_16} & 0 & 0 \\ \hline\hline
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\caption{\label{tab:expansionHeff} Elementary processes in ${\cal H}_{\text{eff}}$ at Leading Order (LO) and fully resummed series ($\infty$).}
\end{table}
{\it Higher orders}. Diagrams with larger leading orders (typically enclosing several hexagons) as well has
further renormalizing corrections to low leading order diagrams are more problematic to obtain using simple arguments. Nevertheless, the calculation can be systematically extended to significantly higher orders using the expansion scheme presented in Section \ref{sec:expfuse}. Up to the chosen order, this requires (i) the enumeration of all terms appearing in $\hat{{\cal H}}$, (ii) a careful enumeration of fusion rules that proliferate as the order increases, (iii) the expansion of $\Ov[-1/2]$ and (iv) the evaluation of $\Ov[-1/2] \hat{{\cal H}} \Ov[-1/2]$. Note that
the two last steps explicitly require using the fusion rules obtained in step (ii). The details and results of such a procedure up to order $\alpha^{14}$ are too lengthy to be presented in this article and are therefore provided as supplementary material at (see at the end of the article) in which we include all the relevant fusion rules up to order $\alpha^{14}$ as well as extensions of Tables \ref{tab:expansionHO} and \ref{tab:expansionHeff}.\\
\subsection{Resummation}\label{sec:Heffkagomediscuss}
A simple inspection of Table \ref{tab:expansionHeff} reveals that all the leading processes in the effective Hamiltonian are elementary diagrams in the sense defined in Section \ref{sec:locality}. Indeed, none of the terms enclosing only one hexagon
can be split in sub-processes. This important remark shows that the resummation scheme of elementary diagrams presented above applies directly. In particular the equation \eqref{eq:elemHeff} immediately leads to the resummed amplitudes of the effective Hamiltonian presented in Table \ref{tab:expansionHeff}. The explicit form of ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ is obtained by setting $\alpha=i/\sqrt{2}$ which leads to
\begin{widetext}
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.09mm}
\begin{align}\label{eq:Hefffull}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} / J = &- \frac{4}{5}\kag{2_1} + \frac{1}{5}\kag{2_2} + \frac{16}{63}\left( \kag{3_1} + \kag{3_2} + \kag{3_3} \right) \\
&+ \frac{2}{63} \left( \kag{3_4} + \kag{3_5} + \kag{3_6} \right) - \frac{16}{255} \left( \kag{4_2} + \kag{4_3} + \kag{4_4} \right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{255} \left( \kag{4_6} + \kag{4_7} + \kag{4_8} \right) + 0 \left( \kag{5_4} + \kag{5_16} \right) \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
\subsection{Discussion}\label{sec:Heffkagomeresum}
{\it General remarks}. Note that the kinetic part of this Hamiltonian~\cite{note-sign1,note-sign2} is quite close to the one originally proposed by Zeng \& Elser\cite{zeng-elser} with only small differences in the magnitudes of the processes, differences introduced by
our infinite order resummation scheme. This provides strong evidence that the expansion indeed converges rapidly.
However, very importantly, our Hamiltonian includes also diagonal terms which turn out to play a major role but which were not included in equation (7) of Ref.~\onlinecite{zeng-elser} based on a different expansion scheme~\cite{note-zeng-elser}. Indeed, the low-energy gap presented on figure 3 in Ref.~\onlinecite{zeng-elser}, whose magnitude is approximately $36 \times 0.0055 J \approx J/5$, splits two sectors with $2$ and $1$ flippable hexagon(s) respectively (see figure 4 in the same reference). Yet, this gap value
of $J/5$ is precisely the amplitude of the potential term, disadvantaging flippable hexagons, obtained in the effective Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hefffull}. This strongly suggests that this gap, known to be absent from the exact spectrum of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian\cite{waldtmann}, is an artifact produced by truncating the expansion. As already mentioned (see Section \ref{sec:expfuse} and Table \ref{tab:expansionorders}) the traditional expansion scheme\cite{rokhsar,zeng-elser} as a tendency to push away to higher orders in $\alpha$ the emergence of terms in the effective Hamiltonian. On the contrary, including such a potential term is likely to close this gap
which brings Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hefffull} closer to the actual low-energy phenomenology of the kagome antiferromagnet.
Another important remark is that the amplitude of the kinetic (and potential) pinwheel process,
\setlength{\specdiagwidth}{0.09mm}
\begin{equation*}
\kag{5_4}
\end{equation*}
denoted $J_{12}$ below, exactly vanishes at all orders. As discussed below including a finite $J_{12}$ in the model
lifts a very special degeneracy of the groundstate manifold.
{\it Large scale numerical computation}. In contrast to the case of the frustrated square lattice~\cite{j1j2j3dimer}, for the kagome lattice we obtain an effective model whose leading coefficients have alternating signs
precluding any stochastic approach. However, Lanczos exact diagonalizations can be preformed on relatively large clusters~\cite{qdmkagome} due to the very constrained nature
of the dimer basis that greatly limits the number of states ($2^{\frac{N}{3}+1}$ compared to $2^N$ for SU(2) spin-1/2 models).
Furthermore, group theory techniques can be applied to block-diagonalize the Hamiltonian matrix in each of its irreducible representations (IRREP)
hence further reducing the practical number of degrees
of freedom. For example, for the most interesting clusters with $N=3n^2$ or $9m^2$ sites (which possess all relevant space group symmetries of the
infinite lattice) such as the 36-, 48-, 108- and 144-sites
clusters, the increasing Hilbert space sizes of their smallest (largest) IRREP are roughly of the order of 15 (170), 70 (2$\times 10^3$), 80$\times 10^{6}$ (950$\times 10^{6}$) , 200$\times 10^{9}$ (3$\times 10^{12}$) respectively. Hence, current supercomputers enable to tackle the 108-sites cluster while the larger 144-site cluster might be reachable within a few decades.
{\it Model properties}. The numerical results for Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hefffull} presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{qdmkagome} (corresponding in fact to an earlier extremely close 14-th order estimation of the
model) have been summarized in the phase diagram of Fig.~(\ref{fig:phases}). Here, we have introduced two extra parameters; (i) $\lambda$ to interpolate (linearly) between
the ``Heisenberg point'' \eqref{eq:Hefffull} at $\lambda=1$ and the ``RK-point'' of Ref.~\onlinecite{misguich-RK} (denoted $\hat{{\cal H}}_{RK}$ below) at $\lambda=0$. (ii) A finite pinwheel amplitude $J_{12}$. This double interpolation can be summarized in the two-parameter Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\label{eq:hsim}
\hat{{\cal H}}_{\text{interp.}} (\gamma,J_{12})
&= \gamma {\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} + (1-\gamma) \hat{{\cal H}}_{RK} \\
&+ \left ( J_{12} +\frac{1}{4} (\gamma-1) \right ) \kag{5_4},\nonumber
\end{align}
where $J=1$ and the RK-Hamiltonian has been defined in Ref.~\onlinecite{misguich-RK} with $\Gamma=-1/4$~\cite{note-sign1}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{./Figures/PhaseDiag}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:phases} (Color online). Semi-quantitative phase diagram of the extended GQDM for the Kagome lattice as a function of the
pinwheel resonance amplitude $J_{12}$ and the parameter $\gamma$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:hsim}). The two dashed blue lines represent (i) an interpolation $\lambda {\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} + (1-\lambda) \hat{{\cal H}}_{RK}$ between
the RK model and the effective model for the Heisenberg quantum antiferromagnet and (ii) a cut at $\gamma=1$ along $J_{12}$,
and correspond to the simulations performed in reference~\onlinecite{qdmkagome}. Red lines are qualitative phase transitions. Note that for $\gamma > 0.9$ a finite $J_{12}$ lifts the degeneracy between two VBC's with identical 36-site unit cells
but opposite parities $P_{\pm}$ of their resonating pinwheels (in yellow). }
\end{figure}
In agreement with series expansions~\cite{singh} and earlier work~\cite{marston,senthil} on the QHAF, the GS of our corresponding effective model (\ref{eq:Hefffull}) is found to be a VBC with a $2\sqrt{3}\times2\sqrt{3}$ supercell of up-triangles (carrying 36 sites) whose underlying dimerization pattern corresponds to an honeycomb-lattice arrangement of the resonating ``perfect'' hexagons (colored in blue in Fig.~(\ref{fig:phases})). Because $J_{12}=0$ the Heisenberg effective model (\ref{eq:Hefffull})
is also characterized by a degeneracy of the even and odd resonating pinwheels of the motive (colored in yellow in Fig.~(\ref{fig:phases})).
As pointed out in Ref.~\onlinecite{singh} this leads to an extra Ising-like degeneracy. Remarkably, the numerical results show also that the
``Heisenberg point'' lies very close to the critical line which separate the VBC phase from an extended dimer liquid phase similar to
the one at the ``RK point''. Interestingly, a general field-theoretic framework~\cite{sachdev-QCP} based on a double Chern-Simons theory
correctly describes such a Quantum Critical Point: one considers the spectrum of visons (i.e. topological defects) in the dimer (so-called $\mathbb{Z}_2$) liquid phase,
and studies how they condense -- the condensation of visons leads VBC order. Our approach applied to the Kagome lattice as well as other
numerical studies of a generic QDM on the triangular lattice~\cite{triangular-condensation} strongly supports such a scenario. Even though the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ phase has no broken symmetry, it does have a topological order. In principle, the topological
order can co-exist with the VBC, and so their vanishing at a common critical point without fine-tuning, can be considered as
a non-LGW (Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson) transition~\cite{non-LGW}.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{sec:conclusion}
In summary, a systematic non-perturbative method has been developed to describe quantitatively the low-energy physics of frustrated QHAF. Provided that the latter
is governed by fluctuations of (short-range) singlets (which is believed to happen in many cases), this method is fairly general and can be applied in principle to any lattice geometry.
The low-energy effective model takes the form of a Generalized Quantum Dimer Model which is proven to be local, a physical requirement.
Complete practical formalism is presented as well as other important general results.
It is also shown that the expansion scheme can be pursued up to high orders and the most relevant terms can be resummed.
As a practical implementation of the method, we have considered the much debated Kagome QHAF where a fully resummed parameter-free GQDM
can be obtained. Although, the resulting model bears a sign problem (e.g. could not be simulated by QMC techniques), ED results up to
clusters with 108 sites can be performed~\cite{qdmkagome} showing strong evidence in favor of a large supercell VBC.
Also, it turns out that, in some extended parameter space, the effective model of the Kagome antiferromagnet lies in the close vicinity
of a critical line towards a topological quantum dimer liquid phase, somehow clarifying the low-energy puzzle of the original spin model.
Let us recall that a similar approach has also been applied to the frustrated square lattice~\cite{j1j2j3dimer}.
This shows that effective GQDM can efficiently describe the most frustrated quantum magnets and greatly help to understand their properties on larger (smaller) length (energy) scales compared e.g. to standard ED techniques. It could be used also in 3 dimensions
to tackle the quantum antiferromagnet e.g. on the hyper-kagome lattice.
A number of Hamiltonian extensions could easily be included in the following approach like (i) other SU(2)-invariant terms as multiple exchange or
longer-range exchange interactions, (ii) doping with static or mobile holes~\cite{holons} and (iii) the inclusion of spinons~\cite{spinons} and triplets.
In the case of the Kagome lattice, it is important whether small non-SU(2) terms like Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction could also be inserted
in a realistic way. All these issues are left for future studies.
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.23mm}
\section{Appendices}
\label{sec:appendices}
\subsection{Dimers, overlaps and sign conventions}
\label{subsec:signs}
In this appendix we recall some of the most important basic properties of VB states and two
orientation conventions that are suitable for the derivation scheme proposed in this article, respectively for bipartite and non-bipartite lattices.
{\it Overlaps}. Let us consider a Valence Bond (VB) wavefunction
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:VB}
\ket{\varphi} = \prod_{k=1}^{N/2} [i_k,j_k],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SU2Dimer}
[i,j]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( \ket{\uparrow_{i} \downarrow_{j}} - \ket{\downarrow_{i} \uparrow_{j}} \right )
\end{equation}
is the SU(2) dimer wavefunction on sites $i$ and $j$. Two arbitrary VB states $\ket{\varphi}$ and $\ket{\psi}$ are non-orthogonal and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:overlap}
\sca{\varphi}{\psi} = \eta \left ( \varphi,\psi \right ) 2^{n_l \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )-N/2}
\end{equation}
where $n_l$ is the number of loops of the overlap diagram (see figure \ref{fig:overlap}) and $\eta \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )$ is a sign that depends on the chosen convention for orientating SU(2) dimers.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./Figures/Conventions}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:signs} Explicit bosonic ($\varepsilon=+1$) and fermionic ($\varepsilon=-1$) conventions for the 15 VB states on 6 sites.}
\end{figure}
The question of orientating dimers in order to fix the form of $\eta_{\varphi,\psi}$ is determined in turn by two parameters: (i) the nature (bipartite or non-bipartite) of the lattice on which the dimers are constructed and (ii) the constraints one puts on the type of dimers considered (arbitrary long range dimers, arbitrary long range dimers with a bipartite constraint, nearest neighbor dimers,\ldots). In the perspective of performing an expansion of the overlap matrix as powers of a small parameter it is essential to choose conventions where the sign in the power law of equation (\ref{eq:overlap}) can be systematically absorbed:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:overlap2}
\sca{\varphi}{\psi} = \alpha^{N-2 n_l \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )}
\end{equation}
The only two possible conventions denoted $b$ (bosonic) and $f$ (fermionic) for which
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bf}
\eta_{f}^{b} \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )=(\pm 1)^{n_l(\varphi,\psi)-N/2},
\end{align}
correspond to $\alpha_b = 1 / \sqrt{2}$ and $\alpha_f = i /\sqrt{2}$. These two representations, widely discussed in the literature (see for example Ref.~\onlinecite{read}), originate from the fact that dimer wavefunctions can be constructed out of a vacuum by applying bosonic or fermionic operators resulting in different statistic and hence sign conventions. In the following paragraph we willfully choose to present these two conventions without any direct reference to bosonic or fermionic operators, emphasizing the fact it can be directly understood as a conventional orientation of dimers, as made explicit in Figure~\ref{fig:signs} for 6 sites.
{\it Bosonic convention on a bipartite lattice}. In this convention, the set of $N$ sites is divided into two $N/2$-site subsets $\cal A $ and $\cal B$, and dimers $[i,j]$ are oriented such as $i\in {\cal A}$ and $j \in {\cal B}$. As a direct consequence of this orientation, arrows are diverging from all $\cal A$ sites and converging to all $\cal B$ sites in the overlap diagram. The contribution of each loop is thus $+2$ and $\alpha=1/\sqrt{2}$.
Note that this convention can also be used on non-bipartite lattices, provided an arbitrary bond orientation is specified. However, this generally produces a sign in the overlaps that cannot absorbed such as in \eqref{eq:overlap2}.
{\it Fermionic convention}.
Choosing an arbitrary numbering of sites, we start from a reference configuration,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ref}
\ket{\varphi_0} = [1,2] [3,4] \ldots [N-1,N].
\end{equation}
Here on a non-bipartite lattice, in the bosonic representation of the dimers
we need to specify the sign of each dimer following some prescription.
Therefore, by convention, we write the dimer wave function (\ref{eq:SU2Dimer}) such as $i_k < j_k$.
In the expression
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ordre}
{\prod_{k=1}^{N/2}}^{*} [i_k,j_k],
\end{equation}
the symbol $*$ means that $i_k < j_k$.
Any state (\ref{eq:ordre}) can be obtained from $\ket{\varphi_0}$ by applying a {\it unique} permutation $\pi$ acting on site numbers
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:perm}
\pi = \left (
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & 2 & \ldots & N-1 & N \\
i_1 & j_1 & \ldots & i_{N/2} & j_{N/2} \\
\end{array}
\right ).
\end{equation}
Then we define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:orientation}
\ket{\varphi} = \sigma(\pi) {\prod_{k=1}^{N/2}}^{*} [i_k,j_k],
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(\pi)$ is the signature of the permutation $\pi$ :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:signature}
\sigma(\pi)= \sum_{i<j} \frac{\pi(i) - \pi(j)}{i-j}.
\end{equation}
Note that (\ref{eq:orientation}) is in fact independent of the prescription to order the individual
dimers but depends only on the ordering of the sites in the reference state (\ref{eq:ref}).
An explicit example of this convention (as well as the bosonic convention) is given on figure \ref{fig:overlap}. Let us remark that if $\vert \varphi \rangle$ and $\vert \psi \rangle$ denote two states deduced from the reference state (\ref{eq:ref}) by applying the permutations $\pi_\varphi$ and $\pi_\psi$ then their relative sign according to (\ref{eq:orientation}) is $\sigma(\pi)$ where $\pi=\pi_\varphi \pi_\psi$.
We are going to show that convention (\ref{eq:orientation}) indeed implies $\eta \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )=(- 1)^{n_l(\varphi,\psi)-N/2}$ in (\ref{eq:overlap}). Let us compute $\langle \varphi \vert P_l \vert \chi \rangle$ where $\hat{P}_l$ is the permutation operator on the bond $l=(i,j)$. As shown on figure \ref{fig:boucles}, three cases can occur:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\it a.}] The bond $l$ connects two sites lying at an odd distance on the same loop. The total number of loops of the overlap diagram remains unchanged and a sign change occurs: $\langle \varphi \vert P_l \vert \chi \rangle = - \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle $.
\item[{\it b.}] The bond $l$ connects two distinct loops. Two loops are merged into a single one in the overlap diagram and no sign change occurs: $\langle \varphi \vert P_l \vert \chi \rangle = +2 \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle $.
\item[{\it c.}] The bond $l$ connects two sites lying at an even distance on the same loop. One loop is created in the overlap diagram by slicing one loop into two and a no sign change occurs: $\langle \varphi \vert P_l \vert \chi \rangle = +1/2 \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle $.
\end{enumerate}
Obviously, the state $P_l \vert \chi \rangle$ violates the convention (\ref{eq:orientation}) since it is deduced by applying a 2-site permutation on a conventional state without being multiplied by the factor $\sigma(P_l)=-1$. The corresponding conventional state is thus $\vert \psi \rangle = -\vert \chi \rangle$ and the three cases considered above become:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\it a.}] $\langle \varphi \vert \psi \rangle = \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle $.
\item[{\it b.}] $\langle \varphi \vert \psi \rangle = (-2) \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle$.
\item[{\it c.}] $\langle \varphi \vert \psi \rangle = (-1/2) \langle \varphi \vert \chi \rangle$.
\end{enumerate}
The group structure of the permutations ensures that (i) the signs of all states (\ref{eq:orientation}) can be consistently generated from the reference state (\ref{eq:ref}) and (ii) a change $\Delta n_l$ in the number of loops comes with a sign change $(-1)^{\Delta n_l}$. This indeed implies $\eta \left ( \varphi,\psi \right )=(- 1)^{n_l(\varphi,\psi)-N/2}$.
\subsection{Operators and Generating function}
\label{subsec:generating}
In this appendix, we introduce the generating function $\Z$. As explained in Section \ref{sec:expfuse}, the Hamiltonian and Overlap operators can be expanded in powers of $\alpha$ as linear superpositions
of dimer flipping processes~$\hat{\omega}_g$:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:HOexp0}
\begin{align}
\hat{{\cal H}} & = \sum_{g} \alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} h_g \hat{\omega}_g, \label{eq:Hexp0} \\
\Ov & = \sum_{g} \alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} \hat{\omega}_g. \label{eq:Oexp0}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here $2\mathrm{n}(g)$ denotes the \textit{order} of the \textit{graph} $g$ representing the process. Note that $\hat{\omega}_g$ is a shortcut notation for an implicit summation over all the lattice of all plaquettes with the shape $g$. By definition $\hat{\omega}_0=\1$ and $h_0=0$.
The \textit{degree} $\mathrm{dg}(g)$ of a graph $g$ is the number of its connected parts. By definition, if $\hat{\omega}$ is a \textit{connected graph} then $\mathrm{dg}(\hat{\omega})=1$.
By convention, $\mathrm{dg}(\1)=0$ where $\1$ is the identity operator. For some examples, see Table \ref{tab:expansionorders}.
By introducing the $\hat{X}_g$ operators defined as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Xg}
\hat{X}_g = e^{\mu \hg} \hat{\omega}_g,
\end{equation}
such as $\muzero[{\dmu[\hat{X}_g]}] = h_g \hat{\omega}_g$ and $\muzero[\hat{X}_g] = \hat{\omega}_g$, one can express $\hat{{\cal H}}$ and $\Ov$ as
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:HOexp2}
\begin{align}
\hat{{\cal H}} & = \muzerobetaone[{\dmu[\Z]}], \label{eq:Hexp2} \\
\Ov & = \muzerobetaone[\Z], \label{eq:Oexp2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
using the generating operator $\Z$ defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gen}
\Z (\alpha,\beta,\mu)= \sum_{g} \alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} \beta^{\mathrm{dg}(g)} \hat{X}_g.
\end{equation}
In turn, the effective Hamiltonian,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff0}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} = \Ov[-1/2] \, \hat{{\cal H}} \, \Ov[-1/2],
\end{equation}
is rewritten as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff1}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \Z[-1/2] \left ( \dmu[\Z] \right ) \Z[-1/2].
\end{equation}
\subsection{${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ as a function of $\ln \Z$}
\label{subsec:logZ}
The purpose of this Appendix is to explicit the transformation by which ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ given by \eqref{eq:Heff1} is rewritten
using only $\ln \Z$, see \eqref{eq:Heffcommutators}, as announced in \ref{sec:locality}
We use the general result,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:derive0}
\partial \left ( e^{F} \right )= \int_{0}^{1} e^{(1-s)F} \left ( \partial F \right ) e^{s F}\,{\text{d}}s,
\end{equation}
for $ F = \ln \Z $ to express ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff2}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \Z[-s] \left ( \dmu[\logZ] \right ) \Z[s] \,{\text{d}}s.
\end{equation}
We now use the Hadamard formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hadamard}
e^{A} B e^{-A} = e^{\halfcommute[A]} B \equiv B + \commute[A]{B} + \frac{1}{2!} \commute[A]{\commute[A]{B}} + \ldots
\end{equation}
with $A = s \ln \Z $ and $B = \dmu[\logZ] $ to rewrite \eqref{eq:Heff2} as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff3}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \left ( \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} e^{-s \halfcommute[\ln \Z]} \,{\text{d}}s \right ) \dmu[\logZ].
\end{equation}
Other equivalent forms are,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff4}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} 2 \frac{\sinh \left ( \frac{1}{2} \halfcommute[\ln \Z] \right )}{\halfcommute[\ln \Z]} \dmu[\logZ]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff5}
{\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}} \underset{\substack{\mu = 0 \\ \beta=1}}{=} \sum_{p=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^{2p}} \frac{\left ( \halfcommute[\ln \Z] \right )^{2p}}{\left ( 2 p + 1 \right )!} \dmu[\logZ].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Cumulants}
\label{subsec:cumulants}
In this appendix we derive the expression of $\ln \Z$ entering in (\ref{eq:Heff3}), (\ref{eq:Heff4}) and (\ref{eq:Heff5}) as a $\beta$ expansion of non-commutative cumulants.
Let us introduce the collection of all $\alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} \hat{X}_g$ of same degree $d$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Xd}
\cZ[d] = \sum_{\substack{g {\text{ such as}}\\ \mathrm{dg}(g)=d}} \alpha^{2\mathrm{n}(g)} \hat{X}_g.
\end{equation}
$\cZ[1]$ involves \textit{all} simply connected graphs, $\cZ[2]$ all graphs of degree 2, etc and $\cZ[0]=\1$. Combining (\ref{eq:gen}) and (\ref{eq:Xd}) leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:X}
\Z=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \beta^n \cZ[n],
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logz0}
\ln \Z = -\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n} \left ( \halfacommute[-\frac{\Z-\1}{2}] \right )^n \1.
\end{equation}
Let us call $\Set[n]{m}$ the set of all sequences $s=\{s_i\}$ made of strictly positive integers $s_i$ such as $\text{Card}(s)=n$ and $\sum_{i \in s} s_i = m$. Notice that considering non-vanishing integer sequences, the minimal value of $\sum_{i \in s} s_i$ for $s \in \Set[n]{m}$ is $n$ and therefore $\Set[n]{m}$ is non-empty only for $m\geq n$. Moreover, $\Set[0]{m}$ is the empty set for all $m$. Using this notation,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logz1}
\ln \Z = -\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{m=n}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^n}{n\,2^n} \beta^m \sum_{s \in \Set[n]{m}} \left ( \prod_{i=1}^{n} \halfacommute[{\cZ[s_i]}] \right ) \1,
\end{equation}
which, by inverting summations, can be written in turn as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logz2}
\ln \Z = \sum_{m=1}^\infty \beta^m \Zc[m],
\end{equation}
where the order-$m$ {\em non-commutative cumulant} $\Zc[m]$ is defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cn0}
\Zc[m]=-\sum_{n=1}^m \frac{(-1)^n}{n\,2^n} \sum_{s \in \Set[n]{m}} \left ( \prod_{i=1}^{n} \halfacommute[{\cZ[s_i]}] \right ) \1,
\end{equation}
for $m>0$. By definition $\Zc[0]=\1$.
The explicit expressions of the first $\Zc[m]$ are:
\begin{align}\label{eq:cn_explicit0}
\Zc[1] &= \cZ[1] \\
\Zc[2] &= \cZ[2]-\frac{1}{4}\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[1]} \nonumber \\
\Zc[3] &= \cZ[3]-\frac{1}{2}\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[2]}+\frac{1}{12} \acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[1]}} \nonumber \\
\Zc[4] &= \cZ[4]-\frac{1}{2}\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[3]}-\frac{1}{4}\acommute[{\cZ[2]}]{\cZ[2]} \nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{6} \acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[2]}} +\frac{1}{12} \acommute[{\cZ[2]}]{\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[1]}} \nonumber \\
&- \frac{1}{32} \acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\acommute[{\cZ[1]}]{\cZ[1]}}} \nonumber
\end{align}
Interestingly, these expressions of $\Zc[m]$ in terms of $\cZ[n]$ can be inverted using the fact $\Z = \exp ( \ln (\Z))$. In the spirit of (\ref{eq:logz0}) and (\ref{eq:logz1}),
\begin{align}\label{eq:inv_logz0}
\Z &= \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{m!} \left ( \halfacommute[\frac{\ln \Z}{2}] \right )^m \1 \\
&= \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \frac{\beta^n}{m!\,2^m} \sum_{s \in \Set[m]{n}} \left ( \prod_{i=1}^{n} \halfacommute[{\cZ[s_i]}] \right ) \1 \\
&= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \beta^n \sum_{m=0}^{n} \frac{1}{m!\,2^m} \sum_{s \in \Set[m]{n}} \left ( \prod_{i=1}^{n} \halfacommute[{\cZ[s_i]}] \right ) \1.
\end{align}
This last expression allows to identify,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cn_explicit}
\cZ[n] = \sum_{m=1}^{n} \frac{1}{m!\,2^m} \sum_{s \in \Set[m]{n}} \left ( \prod_{i=1}^{n} \halfacommute[{\Zc[s_i]}] \right ) \1.
\end{equation}
Here is the explicit form of the first terms,
\begin{align}\label{eq:cn_explicit1}
\cZ[1] &= \Zc[1] \\
\cZ[2] &= \Zc[2]+\frac{1}{4}\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[1]} \nonumber\\
\cZ[3] &= \Zc[3]+\frac{1}{2}\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[2]}+\frac{1}{24} \acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[1]}} \nonumber\\
\cZ[4] &= \Zc[4]+\frac{1}{2}\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[3]}+\frac{1}{4}\acommute[{\Zc[2]}]{\Zc[2]}\nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{12} \acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[2]}} +\frac{1}{24} \acommute[{\Zc[2]}]{\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[1]}} \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{192} \acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\acommute[{\Zc[1]}]{\Zc[1]}}} \nonumber
\end{align}
\subsection{Diagrammatic notation}
\label{subsec:diagrammatic}
This Appendix is devoted to the introduction of a lattice-independent diagrammatic notation. Let us introduce the following diagrammatic notation :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diag_d}
\underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{n} = n! \, \cZ[n],
\end{equation}
and its cumulant counterpart,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diag_c}
\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m} = m! \, \Zc[m],
\end{equation}
Defining, for any $s = \{ s_1,\ldots, s_m\} \in \Set[m]{n}$, the combinatorial factor
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:combinatorial}
\comb{s} = \frac{1}{m!} \frac{\left ( \sum_{p=1}^{m} s_p \right )!}{\prod_{p=1}^m s_p !},
\end{equation}
we rewrite equations (\ref{eq:cn0}) and (\ref{eq:cn_explicit}) as,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:zdiag1}
&\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}}= \\
& \sum_{n=1}^{m} (-1)^{n-1} (n-1)! \sum_{s \in \Set[n]{m}} \comb{s} \mean{\underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{s_1} \times \ldots \times \underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{s_n}} \nonumber\\
&\mean{\underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{n}}= \\
\label{eq:zdiag2}
& \sum_{m=1}^{n} \sum_{s \in \Set[m]{n}} \comb{s} \mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{s_1} \times \ldots \times \underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{s_m}} \nonumber,
\end{align}
where the brackets $\langle . \rangle$ notation stands for:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:brackets}
\left \langle \prod_{i=1}^{n} \hat{o}_i \right \rangle = \frac{1}{2^n} \left ( \prod_{i=1}^{n} \left \{ \hat{o}_i, \right . \right ) \1.
\end{equation}
The diagrammatic counterparts of equations (\ref{eq:cn_explicit0}) and (\ref{eq:cn_explicit1}) are respectively
\begin{align}\label{eq:cn_explicit0_diag}
\mean{\gdc{1}} &= 0! \, \comb{1} \mean{\gd{1}} \\
\mean{\gdc{11}} &= 0! \, \comb{2} \mean{\gd{11}} \nonumber \\
&- 1! \, \comb{1,1} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}} \nonumber \\
\mean{\gdc{111}} &= 0! \, \comb{3} \mean{\gd{111}} \nonumber \\
&- 1! \, \comb{1,2} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{11}} \nonumber \\
&- 1! \, \comb{2,1} \mean{\gd{11}\times\gd{1}} \nonumber \\
&+ 2! \, \comb{1,1,1} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}\times\gd{1}}\nonumber \\
\mean{\gdc{1111}} &= 0! \, \comb{4} \mean{\gd{1111}} \nonumber \\
&- 1! \, \comb{1,3} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{111}} \nonumber \\
&- 1! \, \comb{3,1} \mean{\gd{111}\times\gd{1}} \nonumber \\
&- 1! \, \comb{2,2} \mean{\gd{11}\times\gd{11}} \nonumber \\
&+ 2! \, \comb{1,1,2} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}\times\gd{11}} \nonumber \\
&+ 2! \, \comb{1,2,1} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{11}\times\gd{1}} \nonumber \\
&+ 2! \, \comb{2,1,1} \mean{\gd{11}\times\gd{1}\times\gd{1}} \nonumber \\
&- 3! \, \comb{1,1,1,1} \mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}\times\gd{1}\times\gd{1}}\nonumber
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:cn_explicit1_diag}
\mean{\gd{1}} &= \comb{1} \mean{\gdc{1}} \\
\mean{\gd{11}} &= \comb{2} \mean{\gdc{11}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,1} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}} \nonumber \\
\mean{\gd{111}} &= \comb{3} \mean{\gdc{111}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,2} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{11}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{2,1} \mean{\gdc{11}\times\gdc{1}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,1,1} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}}\nonumber \\
\mean{\gd{1111}} &= \comb{4} \mean{\gdc{1111}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,3} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{111}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{3,1} \mean{\gdc{111}\times\gdc{1}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{2,2} \mean{\gdc{11}\times\gdc{11}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,1,2} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}\times\gdc{11}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,2,1} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{11}\times\gdc{1}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{2,1,1} \mean{\gdc{11}\times\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}} \nonumber \\
&+ \comb{1,1,1,1} \mean{\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}\times\gdc{1}}\nonumber
\end{align}
\subsection{Fusion rules}
\label{subsec:fusion}
While the details of each fusion rule between diagrams (see equations \eqref{eq:fusexample} in Section \ref{sec:expfuse}) is lattice-specific, important and general fusion properties can be described using the lattice-independent diagrammatic notation introduced in Appendix \ref{subsec:diagrammatic}. Indeed, as shown in Appendix \ref{sec:linkedcluster}, these lattice-independent fusion rules are sufficient conditions to demonstrate that any cumulant \eqref{eq:zdiag1} is connected, hence proving that ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$ is local.
When computing products, diagrams can fuse together by producing {\em all possible} contractions of terms $\contraction[0.5ex]{}{\bgd{1}}{\ds}{\bgd{1}}\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1}$
{\em between dinstinct blocks} $\gd{NDisconnected}\times\ldots\times\gd{NDisconnected}$. Fusions inside blocks $\contraction[0.5ex]{(\bgd{1}\ds}{\bgd{1}}{\bgd{Dot}}{\bgd{1}}(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1}\bgd{Dot}\bgd{1})$
are {\em not allowed}.
As as an example, let us apply these rules to the products appearing in $\mean{\gdc{11}}$ and $\mean{\gdc{111}}$.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:contraction1}
\contraction{\mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}}=\mean{\gd{11}}+\langle}{\gd{1}}{\times}{\gd{1}}%
\mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}}&=\mean{\gd{11}}+\langle\gd{1}\times\gd{1}\rangle\\
&=\mean{\gd{11}}+\mean{\gd{2}}\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:contraction2}
&\mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{11}}=\mean{\gd{111}}\\
\contraction{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1}\ds}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction[2ex]{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1}\ds}{\bgd{1}}
&+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\rangle\nonumber\\
&=\mean{\gd{111}}+2\mean{(\bgd{2}\ds\bgd{1})}+\mean{\gd{3a}}\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:contraction3}
&\mean{\gd{11}\times\gd{1}}=\mean{\gd{111}}\\
\contraction{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{\ds\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction[2ex]{+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{\ds\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
&+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle\nonumber\\
&=\mean{\gd{111}}+2\mean{(\bgd{2}\ds\bgd{1})}+\mean{\gd{3a}}\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:contraction4}
&\mean{\gd{1}\times\gd{1}\times\gd{1}}=\mean{\gd{111}} \\
\contraction{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
&+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\nonumber\\
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
&+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\nonumber\\
\contraction{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction[2ex]{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction[2ex]{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
&+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\nonumber\\
\contraction{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
\contraction[2ex]{+\langle(}{\bgd{1}}{)\times(\bgd{1})\times(}{\bgd{1}}
&+\langle(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\times(\bgd{1})\rangle\nonumber\\
&=\mean{\gd{111}}+3\mean{(\bgd{2}\ds\bgd{1})}+3\mean{\gd{3a}}+\mean{\gd{3b}}\nonumber
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{eq:contraction1}), (\ref{eq:contraction2}),(\ref{eq:contraction3}) and(\ref{eq:contraction4}) with
(\ref{eq:cn_explicit0_diag}) leads to:
\begin{align}\label{eq:cn_explicit0_contracted}
\mean{\gdc{1}} &= \mean{\gd{1}} \\
\mean{\gdc{11}} &= -\mean{\gd{2}}\nonumber \\
\mean{\gdc{111}} &= 3\mean{\gd{3a}}+2\mean{\gd{3b}}\nonumber
\end{align}
\subsection{Linked cluster theorem}
\label{sec:linkedcluster}
In this section we demonstrate the results suggested in (\ref{eq:cn_explicit0_contracted}): {\em only connected diagrams contribute to $\mean{\gdc{NDisconnected}}$.}
The proof will be given in two steps. First, we show that $\mean{\gdc{NDisconnected}}$ can be reexpressed as (\ref{eq:unconstraint}) by relaxing the constraint on internal contractions. In the second part we use (\ref{eq:unconstraint}) to establish (\ref{eq:recursion4}) which shows that cumulants of any given order can be reexpressed with lower order cumulants hence providing a demonstration of the above mentioned result by direct induction.
\subsubsection{Relaxing internal contractions}
The demonstration uses the key fact that internal contractions
\begin{equation*}
\contraction[0.5ex]{(\bgd{1}\ds}{\bgd{1}}{\bgd{Dot}}{\bgd{1}}(\bgd{1}\ds\bgd{1}\bgd{Dot}\bgd{1})
\end{equation*}
are {\em not allowed} when evaluating $\mean{\gdc{NDisconnected}}$.
Let us relax this constraint and introduce $\mean{\gdc{NDisconnected}}^{*}$ whose definition
is the same as $\mean{\gdc{NDisconnected}}$ but evaluated with {\em at least one internal contraction}. Obviously, the sum
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Omega}
\hat{\Omega}_m=\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}}+\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}}^{*}
\end{equation}
corresponds to a fully unrestricted evaluation where both internal and external contractions are allowed. In that case each term of equation (\ref{eq:zdiag1}) produces the same set of terms by contraction since all partitions become equivalent when the distinction between internal and external contractions is suppressed. Thus, the corresponding weight can be obtained by the formal identification $\gd{NDisconnected} \leftrightarrow 1$ into equation (\ref{eq:zdiag1}) or, according to (\ref{eq:diag_d}), $\cZ[n] \leftrightarrow (1/n!)$ into equation (\ref{eq:X}). The later implies $\Z \leftrightarrow \exp(\beta)$ and $\ln \Z \leftrightarrow \beta$. This shows that $\hat{\Omega}_1 =\mean{\gd{1}}$ and $\hat{\Omega}_m = 0$ for $m>1$ which leads to,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:unconstraint}
\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}}=
\begin{cases}
-\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}}^{*}& \text{if $m>1$}, \\
\mean{\gd{1}} & \text{for $m=1$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Cumulant order reduction}
The proof of the result will be given by mathematical induction. We suppose the result to be true up to rank $m-1$.
For $m>1$,
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:recursion_0}
\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}}\\
\shoveleft{\quad=\sum_{n=1}^{m-1} (-1)^n (n-1)! \times} \\
\sum_{s \in \Set[n]{m}} \comb{s} \mean{\underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{s_1} \times \ldots \times \underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{s_n}}^{*}.
\end{multline}
Notice that the sum over $n$ has been truncated up to $m-1$ since the $n=m$ term contains only size-1 blocks and can obviously not produce any internal contraction. This equation can be made explicit as,
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:recursion1}
\mean{\underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{s_1} \times \ldots \times \underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{s_n}}^{*}\\
\shoveleft{\quad =-\mean{\underbrace{\gd{NDisconnected}}_{m}}}\\
\shoveleft{\quad +\sum_{g_1=1}^{s_1} \ldots \sum_{g_n=1}^{s_n} \sum_{\gamma_{1} \in \Set[g_1]{s_1}} \ldots \sum_{\gamma_{n} \in \Set[g_n]{s_n}}
\prod_{p=1}^{n} \frac{s_p !}{g_p ! \prod_{q=1}^{g_p} \gamma_{p}^{q} !} } \\
\mean{
(\overset{\gamma_{1}^{1}}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\gamma_{1}^{2}}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\gamma_{1}^{g_1}}{\bgd{1f}})
\times \ldots \times (\overset{\gamma_{n}^{1}}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\gamma_{n}^{2}}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\gamma_{n}^{g_n}}{\bgd{1f}})}
\end{multline}
where $\overset{\gamma}{\bgd{1f}}$ denotes the result of all connected contractions between $\gamma$ operators $\bgd{1}$. Note that the presence of the first term on the r.h.s of equation (\ref{eq:recursion1}) takes into account that at least one internal contraction has to be performed.
For $\gamma_{p} \in \Set[g_p]{s_p}$ with $p=1,\ldots,n$ and $s \in \Set[n]{m}$ we have $\sum_{p=1}^{n} s_p = \sum_{p=1}^{n} \sum_{q=1}^{g_p} \gamma_{p}^{q}$ and thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:combinatorialidentity}
\comb{s} \prod_{p=1}^{n} \frac{s_p !}{g_p ! \prod_{q=1}^{g_p} \gamma_{p}^{q} !} = \comb{\{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}} \comb{\gamma_1\cup\ldots\cup\gamma_n}.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq:combinatorialidentity}) and combining (\ref{eq:recursion_0}) and (\ref{eq:recursion1}) leads to,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:recursion2a}
&\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}} = \\
&\sum_{n=1}^{m-1} (-1)^n (n-1)! \sum_{s \in \Set[n]{m-1}} \sum_{g_1=1}^{s_1} \ldots \sum_{g_n=1}^{s_n} \sum_{\gamma_{1} \in \Set[g_1]{s_1}} \ldots \sum_{\gamma_{n} \in \Set[g_n]{s_n}}
\comb{\{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}} \comb{\gamma_1\cup\ldots\cup\gamma_n} \mean{
(\overset{\gamma_{1}^{1}}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\gamma_{1}^{2}}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\gamma_{1}^{g_1}}{\bgd{1f}})
\times \ldots \times (\overset{\gamma_{n}^{1}}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\gamma_{n}^{2}}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\gamma_{n}^{g_n}}{\bgd{1f}})}, \nonumber
\end{align}
where summations over $s$ have been restricted to $s \in \Set[n]{m-1}$ to ensure that at least one internal contraction occurs. Next, a simple change of variables from $\gamma$ to $\mu$ and a sum inversion gives,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:recursion2b}
\begin{split}
\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}} & = \sum_{n=1}^{m-1} (-1)^n (n-1)! \sum_{G=n}^{m-1} \sum_{g \in \Set[n]{G}} \sum_{\mu \in \Set[G]{m}} \comb{g} \comb{\mu} \mean{
\underbrace{(\overset{\mu_1}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\mu_2}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\mu_{g_1}}{\bgd{1f}})}_{g_1}
\times \ldots \times \underbrace{(\bgd{1f}\ds\bgd{1f}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\mu_G}{\bgd{1f}})}_{g_n}} \\
& = \sum_{G=1}^{m-1}\sum_{\mu \in \Set[G]{m}} \comb{\mu} \sum_{n=1}^{G} (-1)^n (n-1)! \sum_{g \in \Set[n]{G}} \comb{g} \mean{
\underbrace{(\overset{\mu_1}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\mu_2}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\mu_{g_1}}{\bgd{1f}})}_{g_1}
\times \ldots \times \underbrace{(\bgd{1f}\ds\bgd{1f}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\mu_G}{\bgd{1f}})}_{g_n}} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
This last expression involves explicitly the cumulants (\ref{eq:zdiag1}) and as a result, the order-$m$ cumulant can be expressed as a combination of lower order cumulants:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:recursion3}
\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}} = -\sum_{G=1}^{m-1}\sum_{\mu \in \Set[G]{m}} \comb{\mu} \mean{
\underbrace{(\overset{\mu_1}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\mu_2}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\mu_{G}}{\bgd{1f}})_c}_{G}}
\end{equation}
The demonstration can be readily extended to the case where the operators in the l.h.s. of (\ref{eq:recursion3}) are arbitrary connected operators $\overset{\tau_p}{\bgd{1f}}$. With $\Gamma=\sum_{p=1}^{m} \tau_p$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:recursion4}
\mean{\underbrace{(\overset{\tau_1}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\tau_2}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\tau_{m}}{\bgd{1f}})_c}_{m}} = -\sum_{G=1}^{m-1}\sum_{\mu \in \Set[G]{\Gamma}} \comb{\mu} \mean{
\underbrace{(\overset{\mu_1}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{\mu_2}{\bgd{1f}}\bgd{Dot}\overset{\mu_{G}}{\bgd{1f}})_c}_{G}},
\end{equation}
which concludes the recursion proof.
Using (\ref{eq:recursion3}), one easily recovers (\ref{eq:cn_explicit0_contracted}):
\begin{align}\label{eq:cn_explicit1_contracted}
\mean{\gdc{1}} &= \mean{\gd{1}} \\
\mean{\gdc{11}} &= -\comb{2} \mean{(\overset{2}{\bgd{1f}})_c} = -\mean{\gd{2}} \\
\mean{\gdc{111}} &= -\comb{3} \mean{(\overset{3}{\bgd{1f}})_c} \\
&- \comb{1,2} \mean{(\overset{1}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{2}{\bgd{1f}})_c} - \comb{2,1} \mean{(\overset{2}{\bgd{1f}}\ds\overset{1}{\bgd{1f}})_c} \nonumber\\
&= - \left ( \mean{\gd{3b}} + 3\mean{\gd{3a}} \right ) \nonumber \\
&+2\times\frac{3}{2} \left ( 2 \mean{\gd{3a}}+ \mean{\gd{3b}}\right ) \nonumber \\
&= 3\mean{\gd{3a}}+2\mean{\gd{3b}} \nonumber
\end{align}
\subsection{Fully connected diagrams}\label{sec:fullyconnected}
In practice the class of {\em fully connected diagrams},
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.35mm}
\begin{equation*}
\bgd{NFullyConnected}
\end{equation*}
\setlength{\abstractdiagwidth}{0.23mm}
where each part $\bgd{1}$ is connected to the others plays a very important role when computing $\ln \Z$. Indeed, they lead to the spatially most compact and prominent terms in ${\hat{{\cal H}}}_{\text{eff}}$, as explained in Section \ref{sec:locality}. The aim of this appendix is to compute the weight $w_m$ of this diagram in the order-$m$ cumulant:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:maximal0}
\begin{split}
\mean{\underbrace{\gdc{NDisconnected}}_{m}} &= w_m \mean{{\overbrace{\left(\bgd{NFullyConnected}\right)}^{m}}_c}\\
&\quad + {\text{less connected terms}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Noticing that the way to connect two fully connected diagrams into a single fully connected one is unique, the recursion relation for $w_m$ is readily given by (\ref{eq:recursion3}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:maximal1}
w_m = -\sum_{p=1}^{m-1} w_p \sum_{\mu \in \Set[p]{m}} \comb{\mu}.
\end{equation}
Solving this recursive relation with $w_1=1$ leads to,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:maximal2}
w_m=(-1)^{m-1} (m-1)!
\end{equation}
Finally, the contribution to $\ln \Z$, obtained by replacing (\ref{eq:maximal2}) into (\ref{eq:logz2}), is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:maximal3}
\begin{split}
\ln \Z&=-\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^m}{m!} \beta^m \mean{{\overbrace{\left(\bgd{NFullyConnected}\right)}^{m}}_c}\\
&\quad + {\text{less connected terms}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
}
\includepdf[pages={1-17,{}}]{./Figures/Effective.pdf}
\includepdf[pages={1-8}]{./Figures/EPAPS.pdf}
\incl{%
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
In the standard theory of pulsar spin-up, a neutron star (NS) in a binary system accretes matter from its companion star. This serves to transfer angular momentum to the NS, increasing the spin frequency of the pulsar \citep[e.g.,][]{acrs82}. The type and duration of mass transfer onto the pulsar determines the final spin period and depends a great deal on the nature and evolution of the system
\citep[for reviews of binary pulsar systems and their evolution; e.g.,][]{bv91,pk94,sta04a,tv06corr}.
The measured mass distribution of NSs in pulsar binary systems is more diverse than previously thought. Observations show that many pulsars have masses which lie significantly outside the oft-cited statistical average of $1.35\pm0.04\,\,M_{\odot}$ \citep{tc99}. This highlights the need to invoke a variety of evolutionary scenarios in order to explain the collection of observed pulsar binary systems. Most double-neutron-star (DNS) binary systems are thought to have undergone common-envelope (CE) evolution, in which the neutron star resulting from the first supernova spirals into the envelope of the companion star; the CE is subsequently expelled from the system \citep[e.g.,][]{tv06corr}. That this mass-transfer stage in the evolution of these systems is short-lived is evidenced in part by the relatively long $\sim 10-100$-ms pulsar spin periods observed in DNS binaries.
The majority of known neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) binaries have pulsars that spin with millisecond periods ($<10$\,ms) and have very low eccentricities. Such short rotation periods indicate that the pulsars have undergone a relatively long, stable period of accretion of material from the companions' outer envelopes, during which they are seen as low-mass X-ray binaries \citep{bv91,wv98,asr+09}. In the process, the matter-donating stars lose an appreciable amount of mass. This conclusion is supported by the relatively low masses of the WDs found in these binaries, referred to as low-mass binary pulsar (LMBP) systems \citep[e.g.,][]{tv06corr}.
In contrast to the LMBP binaries are the intermediate-mass binary pulsar class \citep[IMBPs;][]{cnst96,eb01a}. These systems are characterized by pulsar spin periods of tens of milliseconds, massive carbon-oxygen (CO) or oxygen-neon-magnesium (O-Ne-Mg) WD companions ($\gtrsim 0.4\,\,M_{\odot}$), and orbital eccentricities which, while still small, are significantly larger than those of LMBP systems.
\input{table_obs.astroph}
Several formation scenarios have been suggested to explain the existence of IMBPs \citep[e.g.,][]{li02corr}. One idea is that, as with DNS binaries, the NS spirals into the envelope of its companion to form a CE which is then promptly ejected from the system \citep[e.g.,][]{vdh94}. This is supported by the short orbital periods ($P_b$) seen in many of the IMBP systems. It has also been proposed, however, that a neutron star within the envelope of its companion will be forced to undergo hypercritical accretion, becoming a black hole and thus rendering the system unobservable \citep[e.g.,][hereafter B01]{che93,bro95,blpb01}.
\citet{tvs00} argued that systems with heavy CO WD companions and orbits with $3 \lesssim P_b \lesssim 70$ days can undergo, and survive, a short-lived phase of highly super-Eddington mass transfer to the NS. Here, the inspiral that results in a CE is avoided if the re-radiated accretion energy is great enough to evaporate most of the transferred material before it approaches the NS too closely \citep[see also][]{tkr00}. Still, this scheme does not work for IMBPs with $P_b \lesssim 3$ days, suggesting the need to invoke CE evolution to explain their existence. B01 put forward a possible alternate formation scenario in which the two progenitors are main sequence stars of similar mass, which evolve to form two helium cores. This is similar to a related scenario for the evolution of close DNS binaries \citep{bro95}, the difference being that to form an IMBP, one of the stars would be just below the mass threshold for NS formation, becoming a WD instead. It is clear that the evolution of IMBPs remains an open question.
There are now sixteen known IMBP systems. Until now, only one of these, PSR~J0621+1002, has a pulsar with a measured mass \citep[$m_1=1.70^{+0.10}_{-0.16}\,\,M_{\odot}$;][]{nsk08}, which is somewhat larger than the range of masses seen in well-measured DNS systems \citep[e.g.,][]{sta08}. Here we present results from timing of \psr{1802}, another member of the class of IMBPs, discovered in the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey \citep{fsk+04}. In the case of \psr{1802}, its heavy companion led us to believe that the system would be a good candidate for measuring the Shapiro delay of the pulses in the gravitational potential of the white dwarf. We were, in fact, able to measure such an effect, enabling us to determine the individual masses of each member of the binary system. In this article, we discuss these measurements and their implications for reconstructing the formation and evolutionary histories of this system and others like it\footnote{A preliminary version of these results was reported in \citet{fer08}}.
\section{Observations}
We used three observatories to collect pulsar data. In what follows, we describe the instruments used and the data obtained at each of these telescopes. A summary of the observing details is found in Table~\ref{tab:obs_1802}.
\subsection{Parkes}
We have added to the data set presented by \citet{fsk+04} using the 64-m Parkes telescope in Australia. Observations were carried out at regular intervals using a $2 \times 512 \times 0.5$-MHz filterbank centered at 1390\,MHz, each typically 20 minutes in duration. The data from each channel were detected and the two polarizations summed in hardware before 1-bit digitization every $80-250\,\mu$s. The data were recorded to tape and subsequently folded off-line. Parkes data used for this work were collected at 106 epochs over 6.3 years. This long timing baseline was particularly useful for measurements of astrometric parameters. Discovery and some initial timing data were taken with a different filterbank (3-MHz channels) and were excluded from our analysis.
\subsection{Green Bank}
We also used the 100-m Robert C.~Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia. Data-taking at the GBT was performed with the Green Bank Astronomical Signal Processor \citep[GASP;][]{dem07}. GASP is a flexible baseband system, which performs 8-bit Nyquist sampling of the incoming data stream at $0.25 \mu$s intervals in both orthogonal polarizations. The signal was divided into $16$ or $24 \times 4$-MHz channels\footnote{The number of channels used occasionally varied due to radio frequency interference and available computing resources.} centered near 1400\,MHz. The incoming data stream was then coherently dedispersed \citep{hr75} in software. After this, the signals were folded at the pulse period to form pulse profiles, typically representing 3-minute integration times. These were usually flux-calibrated in each polarization by using as a reference the signal from a noise diode source that was injected at the receiver. When calibration data were not available, we normalized the profile data in each polarization by the root-mean-square (rms) value of the corresponding off-pulse signal. The data were finally summed over both polarizations and across all frequency channels to give the total power signal \citep[for further details on GASP operation and data reduction, see][]{dem07,fer08}.
Using the GBT, we obtained a total of 42 epochs of data that span more than 4 years. Ten of these observations consisted of observing sessions between 6 and 8 hours long. These were scheduled so as to sample as fully as possible the orbit of the system, of particular importance for the detection of Shapiro delay. The rest of the data consisted of approximately 1-2 hours of observing. These GBT observations comprised the vast majority of our data set ($65\%$ by time, $97\%$ by weight).
\subsection{Nan\c{c}ay}
We included in our data set observations of \psr{1802} taken by the 94-m circular-dish equivalent Nan\c{c}ay telescope in France. These data were recorded with the Berkeley-Orl\'{e}ans-Nan\c{c}ay (BON) pulsar backend, a sister system to the GASP instrument at the GBT. The BON instrument is also a baseband recorder, which performs coherent dedispersion on the incoming data stream in real time. The data originally consisted of $16 \times 4$-MHz channels, and since 2008 July 25 has been increased to include 32 frequency channels, centered at 1398\,MHz in both cases. As with the GASP backend, the data were detected and folded after signal dedispersion was performed. Flux calibration was not available for the Nan\c{c}ay data, and so we normalized each hand of polarization by its off-pulse rms signal before obtaining total power pulse profiles. This is acceptable since Nan\c{c}ay is a meridian-style telescope, and observed \psr{1802} for approximately 1 hour per day; during this time, the telescope gain was not expected to change significantly. In all, we collected data at 26 epochs over 1.7 years. The output profiles represent summation across the observing bandwidth with a typical integration time of 14 minutes, or approximately 4 scans per observing day. Although the Nan\c{c}ay data set is small compared with that of the GBT data, it proved useful in filling an observational gap between 2007 April 18 and 2007 October 2007, during which time the GBT was undergoing track repair.
\section{Timing Analysis}
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{figs-astroph/1802_templates.png}
\caption{Template profile for PSR~J1802$-$2124. {\it Top}: High signal-to-noise profile created by all useable data taken at the GBT with the GASP pulsar backend instrument. {\it Bottom}: Profile created by fitting multiple Gaussians to the PSR~J1802$-$2124 pulse profile.
\label{fig:std_prof}}
\end{figure}
In order to determine the pulse times-of-arrival (TOAs), we constructed a template profile for \psr{1802}. This was done by first aligning in phase all individual GBT-derived 1400-MHz pulse profiles, then computing a simple summation of the data, weighted by the noise in the off-pulse regions of the input profiles. Finally, we performed a multiple-Gaussian fit to this high signal-to-noise profile, obtaining a zero-noise reference template \citep{kwj+94,kra94}, shown in Figure \ref{fig:std_prof}. This method allowed us to eliminate low-level ($\lesssim1\%$ of the peak height) structure that was seen to either side of the main pulse in the cumulative profile; we suspect that this was likely due to aliasing that occurs when the channel filters do not cut off sharply at the Nyquist frequency \citep[see, e.g.,][]{shr97}. This noise-free template was then used to calculate TOAs from both GBT and Nan\c{c}ay data, as their hardware configuration and output profile data format are similar. The same template was also applied to the Parkes data, but was first computed with 256 bins, then convolved with a top-hat function representing the in-channel dispersive smearing at 1390 MHz, then reduced to 64 bins. This was done using the {\tt psrchive} software \citep{hvm04}.
Pulse TOAs were then calculated by cross-correlating each pulse profile with the reference template profile in the frequency domain \citep{tay92}. The time offset corresponding to each of the phase shifts found in the correlation was then added to the time-stamp recorded for each profile, resulting in a TOA that represents a time very close to the midpoint of each particular integration. In total, we measured 2446 TOAs: 106 from Parkes data, 2233 from GBT data, and 107 from Nan\c{c}ay data.
A model ephemeris was then fitted to the topocentric TOAs, using the \texttt{tempo} software package\footnote{\texttt{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/tempo}}. Included in this model is the motion of the Earth, calculated using the JPL DE405 Solar System model \citep{sta04b}. To account for any instrumental and standard template profile differences, we fit for arbitrary time offsets for the Parkes and Nan\c{c}ay-derived TOAs, with reference to those from the GBT. For the GBT and Parkes data sets, corrections were also made to account for offsets between the clock readings from each observatory and UTC time, obtained using data from the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. In the case of Nan\c{c}ay data, recorded times are derived for UTC directly from GPS, and thus no additional clock corrections were needed.
To obtain a best-fit value for dispersion measure (DM), we averaged the GBT-derived pulse profiles into five center-frequency bins (1348, 1364, 1384, 1404, and 1424 MHz). We performed timing on this subset of the total data set using the best-fit solution derived from all telescope data, allowing DM and its derivative to vary, while holding fixed all other system parameters. We arrived at a value for DM ($149.6258\pm0.0006$\,pc\,cm$^{-3}$) that we then held fixed for the timing analysis on the entire data set. We have also found evidence for the existence of a dispersion measure derivative, which we include in our timing model (see Table~\ref{tab:1802_params}). In one observation (2006 December 13), excess time delay was observed because the pulsar-Earth line-of-sight passed near the Sun, causing a temporary increase in electron column density \citep[e.g.,][]{sns+05,yhc+07}. To account for this, we included an arbitrary time offset for this day as a parameter to be fit in the timing analysis.
The effects of orbital motion on the pulse arrival times were taken into account using the {\sc ell1} timing model \citep{lcw+01}, due to the near-circularity of the pulsar's orbit. This model parametrizes the eccentricity $e$ and longitude of periastron $\omega$ in terms of the two parameters $\eta \equiv e\sin\omega$ and $\kappa \equiv e\cos\omega$, which are used in the timing fit. It also replaces the time of periastron passage $T_0$ with the time of ascending node $T_\mathrm{asc}$ as the reference epoch to be fit in the timing model.
In addition to the basic Keplerian parameters, we fitted for the Shapiro delay of the pulsed emission as it traversed the gravitational potential well of the companion star. This effect is described in the timing model in terms of the so-called ``range''($r$) and ``shape''($s$) parameters; the delay in the pulse arrival times for small-eccentricity orbits is given by:
\begin{equation}
\Delta t = -2r\ln\left\{1-s\sin\left[\frac{2\pi}{P_b}(t-T_{\mathrm{asc}})\right]\right\},
\end{equation}
where $t$ is the pulse TOA. Unless the orbit is close to edge-on, the Shapiro delay cannot be disentangled from the arrival time delay due to orbital motion \citep[see][appendix]{lcw+01}. Figure \ref{fig:shapiro_resids} shows the timing residuals over orbital phase, resulting from various fits to the TOAs. The effect of Shapiro delay is still very evident when fitting for the Keplerian orbital parameters, which absorb some, but not all, of the Shapiro delay signal. Once the $r$ and $s$ parameters are measured, they can be converted into the companion mass $m_2$ and inclination angle $i$. This is done through the following relations \citep{dd86}:
\begin{eqnarray}
r & = & \frac{G\,M_{\odot} m_2}{c^3} \\
s & = & \sin i {\rm .}
\end{eqnarray}
where the relation for $r$ assumes that general relativity (GR) is the correct description of gravity, with $m_2$ expressed in solar masses.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{figs-astroph/1802_shapiro_residuals_256_bins.png}
\caption{GBT-derived timing residuals for the PSR~J1802$-$2124 system, plotted against orbital phase relative to ascending node passage. For clarity, we have averaged the residuals into 256 orbital phase bins. {\it Top}: The full effect of Shapiro delay. Here, the Shapiro delay $r$ and $s$ parameters were excluded from the fit, with the best-fit orbital and other parameters held fixed. {\it Middle}: Once again, the Shapiro delay terms were left out of the fit, but in this case the Keplerian orbital parameters were left to vary as free parameters. Some of the Shapiro delay signal is absorbed into these parameters. However, the effect of Shapiro delay is still very evident in these residuals. {\it Bottom}: All parameters, including Shapiro delay, were included in the timing model fit.\label{fig:shapiro_resids}}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:1802_mjd_resids} shows the timing residuals from each instrument over time. In obtaining a best-fit model using these values, the scatter in the resulting residuals, while very close to having a random Gaussian distribution about zero, was larger than most of the errors on the individual data points, which were derived from the template profile cross-correlations. This resulted in an overall value of $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom $\nu$ that is greater than one ($\chi^2/\nu = 1.18$ for Parkes and GBT data, and $1.47$ for Nan\c{c}ay). This was almost certainly due to an underestimation of the TOA uncertainties that resulted from the profile cross-correlation process, or from lower-quality profiles that arose because of signal contamination by radio frequency interference, or perhaps coarse signal quantization as the data were sampled. To compensate, we have calculated an amount to add in quadrature to
the original uncertainties in the TOAs, so that $\chi^2/\nu = 1.0$ for each telescope data set. The GBT TOAs had errors that required very little correction, and dominated the data set. We thus, unless otherwise noted, report the uncertainties directly output by {\tt tempo} as $68\%$ confidence limits on the fit parameters, shown in Table~\ref{tab:1802_params}. The individual weighted rms values of the post-fit timing residuals for this pulsar are $6.1\,\mu$s from Parkes data, $2.2\,\mu$s from the GBT data, and $3.6\,\mu$s from the Nan\c{c}ay data. The combined value for the weighted rms of the residuals is $2.3\,\mu$s.
Another compensation method that is used to arrive at $\chi^2/\nu = 1.0$ involves the multiplication of the TOA uncertainties by calculated scaling factors. In doing this, we find a weighted rms of the post-fit residuals of $2.2\,\mu$s, an approximately $5\%$ lower value. However, we report the slightly more conservative parameter measurements found by using the former method; these can be found in Table~\ref{tab:1802_params}.
It should be noted that we obtain significant measurements of several spin frequency derivatives from our timing analysis (see Table~\ref{tab:1802_params}). This may be attributed to intrinsic pulsar timing instability, though this is not typically seen in recycled pulsars---including those few with similar rotation periods and surface magnetic fields to \psr{1802} (e.g., PSRs J0900$-$3144 and J1804$-$2717; see \citet{bjd+06} and \citet{hlk+04}, respectively)---with some exceptions \citep[e.g.,][]{ktr94,mte97,vbc+09}. It may also be due to unmodeled effects from the interstellar medium along the direction of \psr{1802}, or from intervening material within the Solar System that is detectable as a result of the low ecliptic latitude of this pulsar. While fitting for these higher-order frequency derivatives \citep[so-called ``polynomial whitening''; see, e.g.,][]{lk05} may affect the measurement of astromteric parameters such as position and proper motion (reflected in Table~\ref{tab:1802_params} by quoting $2\sigma$ uncertainties), this long-term trend did not have a significant effect on our measurements of the orbital parameters, which is our focus in this work.
\input{table_params.astroph}
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{figs-astroph/1802_residuals.png}
\caption{Timing residuals for the PSR~J1802$-$2124 system plotted as a function of time (Modified Julian Date). Parkes, GBT, and Nan\c{c}ay data are represented by open squares, filled circles, and open diamonds, respectively.\label{fig:1802_mjd_resids}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
In order to ensure that the measured system masses represent the best model fit, we probed the $\chi^2$ over a fine grid of values, evenly distributed in $\left|\cos{i}\right|-m_2$ space, and allowing all other timing parameters to vary. (We use the absolute value of $\cos{i}$ since we cannot distinguish $i < 90\,^\circ$ from $i > 90\,^\circ$.) The resulting confidence contours mapped by the $\chi^2$ values within our grid are shown in Figure \ref{fig:1802_contour}. Overlaid are curves of constant pulsar mass $m_1$, which is calculated through the Keplerian mass function, given by:
\begin{equation}
f(m_1,m_2,i) \equiv \frac{(m_2\sin i)^3}{(m_1 + m_2)^2} = x^3\left(\frac{2\pi}{P_b}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{T_{\odot}}\right){\rm ,}
\end{equation}
where $x\equiv a\sin{i}/c$ is the projected semi-major axis of the pulsar's orbit, and $T_{\odot} \equiv G\,M_{\odot}/c^3 = 4.925490947\times 10^{-6}\,$s is the mass of the Sun in units of seconds. The mass function $f$ and system masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are expressed in units of solar mass.
The most probable pulsar mass, companion mass, and $\left|\cos i\right|$ were found by calculating their respective marginalized probability density functions (PDFs). Details of the method can be found in \citet[][appendix]{sna+02}. The intervals representing the $68\%$ uncertainty in these quantities were calculated by determining the parameter values to either side of which the tails of each PDF cover $16\%$ of the total area under the respective functions. We find that the best-fit median pulsar and companion masses are $1.24\pm0.11\,M_{\odot}$ and $0.78\pm0.04\,M_{\odot}$, respectively. This represents the second-most precise timing measurement to date of a pulsar in a NS-WD binary, after PSR~J1909$-$3744 \citep{jhb+05}. We note that the weighted rms of the post-fit timing residuals varies by less than $10\%$ when the system masses and inclination angle are fixed at $\pm 3\sigma$ from their best-fit values.
We have also measured the right-ascension component of the system's proper motion to be $\mu_{\alpha}=-0.85\pm0.10\,\mathrm{mas\,yr}^{-1}$ ($95\%$ uncertainty). The pulsar's small ecliptic latitude has made it difficult to measure its proper motion in declination with the current data set. We thus quote a $95\%$ upper limit of $4.8\,\mathrm{mas\,yr}^{-1}$ for this quantity. However, we can calculate a one-dimensional space velocity based on our measurement of $\mu_{\alpha}$ and estimated distance of 2.94 kpc, based on the NE2001 Galactic free electron distribution model \citep{cl02}, given the measured pulsar DM. We find that the pulsar velocity in the right ascension direction $v_\alpha = $12 km\,s$^{-1}$, suggesting a relatively low velocity compared with those of other millisecond and binary pulsars \citep[see, e.g.,][]{tsb+99,lkn+06}. See \S 7 for further discussion of the pulsar velocity.
\section{Evolution of the PSR~J1802$-$2124 system}
The timing results from observations of PSR~J1802$-$2124 over the past six and a half years show that it is in a relatively compact binary system with a massive WD. It is also a light pulsar; along with others such as \psr{1141} \citep{bokh03} and \psr{1713} \citep{sns+05} for example, it is among the least massive known NSs with WD companions. This mass measurement represents the first made for what we refer to as \emph{short orbital-period} IMBPs ($P_b < 3\,$days; see Table~\ref{tab:imbp}).
We find that several NS-WD binary formation scenarios cannot explain the observed parameters of the \psr{1802} system. The usual LMBP mass transfer scenario, which would invoke an extended, stable period of accretion of matter onto the NS surface, is difficult to reconcile with our measurements of the pulsar and WD companion masses; it also seems to be incompatible with the measured pulsar rotation period, which is significantly longer than those typically found in LMBP systems. The highly super-Eddington accretion scenario outlined earlier \citep{tvs00} also does not appear to be able to produce the \psr{1802} system---while the companion is likely to be a CO WD ($0.4 \lesssim m_2 \lesssim 0.9\,\,M_{\odot}$), the 16.8-hour orbital period is significantly less than the $\sim3$-day minimum period produced in this scenario. The double-He core progenitor scheme of B01, used to explain the formation of PSR~B0655+64, assumes that the progenitors of the NS and WD have similar masses. However, the NS mass in the \psr{1802} system differs significantly from that of the WD companion. This probably indicates a corresponding disparity in mass for their progenitors, making this theory difficult to apply in this case. This leads us to believe that the most viable formation scenario for the \psr{1802} system is that it had survived a phase of CE evolution. This is supported by the compactness of the orbit, the large WD mass, and moderately slow spin rate. Our mass measurements indicate that the pulsar probably had little time to accrete matter from the companion star before the envelope was ejected \citep[$\sim10^3$ years; e.g.,][]{tv06corr}, as its mass is similar to those of recycled pulsars in DNS systems \citep[e.g.,][]{nsk08, sta08}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{1.}
\plotone{figs-astroph/1802_contours.png}
\caption{68\% (center), 95\%, and 99.7\% confidence contours for PSR~J1802$-$2124 in orbital inclination--companion mass space. Curves of constant pulsar mass are plotted over the contours.\label{fig:1802_contour}}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{Common-envelope survival rate of IMBPs}
Although we believe the evolution of the PSR~J1802$-$2124 system to be generally understood, the precise histories of this system and other short orbital-period IMBPs can only be elucidated through detailed binary stellar evolution simulations, which are well beyond the scope of this paper. We now briefly discuss in broad terms several potential contributions to the discordance between the theorized and observed population of IMBPs.
\subsection{Observational clues}
Using the population synthesis results of \citet{py98}, as well as evolution analysis by \citet{bb98b}, B01 argue that, within a factor of two, the ratio of the birthrate of short orbital-period IMBPs (i.e., those which have passed through a CE phase in their evolution) to that for the young eccentric NS-massive WD binaries is expected to be $\sim1$. Only two of the latter class have been observed \citep{std85,vk99,klm+00}. B01 also argue that due to their longer visible lifetimes (due to their approximately two orders of magnitude weaker surface magnetic fields), we should observe a factor of $\sim50-100$ more short orbital-period IMBPs, while only four or five have so far been seen. According to this argument, hypercritical accretion-induced collapse of most CE-embedded NSs into black holes is responsible for this observational discrepancy.
We also note that through evolutionary model analysis, \citet{bkb02} find that roughly two-thirds of NS systems can survive hypercritical accretion for a maximum NS mass greater than $2\,M_{\odot}$. However, we find a relatively low mass for \psr{1802}, indicating that this pulsar (as well as those in the precisely-measured pulsars in DNS systems) has not accreted a significant amount of matter, regardless of the specific formation mechanism undergone by these systems.
The wide range of observed 1400-MHz luminosities for both short orbital-period IMBPs and eccentric NS-WD systems make a rigorous comparison of the expected and observed populations difficult without exploring an array of population synthesis models \citep[e.g.,][]{kklw04,kkl+05} or considering the various survey selection effects, some of which we now outline.
\input{table_imbp.astroph}
\subsection{Selection effects}
We present here two important selection effects against the observation of IMBPs that have been neglected by B01. Firstly, for a given luminosity and DM, a shorter spin period will render the pulsar more prone to the observational effects of dispersive smearing. This is because, in faster-rotating pulsars, the pulse will become smeared to a greater extent as a fraction of the spin period. This applies here, since IMBPs show an overall spin period distribution that is substantially shorter than in the eccentric NS-WD binaries (see Table~\ref{tab:imbp}). Indeed, \psr{1802} has a spin period-to-DM ratio that is approximately a factor of 40 smaller than, for example, \psr{1141} ($P_{\mathrm{spin}}/\mathrm{DM} \sim 0.084$ and $3.4$, respectively). To further illustrate this point, we have calculated the observed fractional pulse width as a function of DM for two pulsars at 1400 MHz, assuming 3-MHz channels. This is similar to the search observation setup for the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey \citep[e.g.,][]{mlc+01}. An eccentric NS-WD binary pulsar like PSR~J1141$-$6545 \citep[$P_{\rm spin}=394\,$ms;][]{klm+00} has a fractional pulse width that would never be smeared by more than $2\%$ of the pulse period, out to a DM $\gtrsim 1200\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$, near the limit of the known pulsar population; hence dispersion smearing is negligible for this class of pulsars. In contrast, an IMBP like PSR~J1802$-$2124 ($P_{\rm spin}=12.6\,$ms) has a observed fractional pulse width that grows to more than one-sixth of a pulse period, making the pulsar relatively difficult to detect, at DM $\sim190\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ or larger. This implies that the eccentric young-pulsar binaries can be discovered to much larger volumes than the IMBPs. The largest DM to which an IMBP has thus far been discovered is PSR~J1810$-$2005, at $240.2\,{\rm pc\,cm^{-3}}$ \citep{clm+01}, which has a spin period approximately three times that of \psr{1802}.
To quantify the relative detectability and survey volume due to propagation effects, we performed the following simple Monte Carlo population using the freely available {\tt psrpop} pulsar population modelling package \citep{lfl+06}. We generated model galaxies containing pulsars with periods and pulse widths identical to \psr{1802} and PSR~J1141$-$6545. Each model population is distributed in Galactocentric radius according to the best-fit distribution found by \citet{lfl+06}. To test whether there is any dependence on the dispersion above the Galactic plane, we generated models with exponential $z$-height distributions with means in the range 300--500~pc. Since we are only interested in propagation effects on the relative detections of the two pulsars, we assign each model pulsar a radio luminosity of 100~mJy~kpc$^2$. For each population, we then record the number of detected pulsars in the detailed model of the Parkes Multibeam Pulsar Survey described by \citet{lfl+06}. Regardless of the assumed $z$-scale height, the ratio of detections of PSR~J1141$-$6545 to \psr{1802} is always $\sim 2.2$. In other words, due to propagation effects alone, the effective volume of the Galaxy surveyed by the Parkes Multibeam Survey for \psr{1802}-like objects is only half that of pulsars similar to PSR~J1141$-$6545.
It should be noted that this simulation does not take account of any beaming corrections which are likely to be significant given that longer period pulsars generally have smaller beams than their shorter period counterparts \citep[e.g.,][]{tm98}. To quantify this, using the \citet{tm98} beaming model, we estimate that the beaming fraction of \psr{1802} is four times larger than that of \psr{1141}. When combined with the above simulations, this would imply that for populations of comparable sizes, one might expect only half as many objects that are \psr{1141}-like compared to those that are similar to \psr{1802}.
Future surveys that use narrower-channel instruments should expect to find a larger number of higher-DM IMBPs compared to eccentric NS-WD binaries.
We also note that pulsar acceleration would cause further signal spread in the Fourier search domain, to a larger extent for IMBPs than for young pulsars in similar orbits \citep[e.g.,][]{hrs+07}. Although difficult to quantify, this is an important additional selection effect against discovery of IMBPs relative to the eccentric NS-WD binaries.
While the discrepancy in the observed ratio of these two system types pointed out by B01 may still be supported by the available data on IMBPs, we emphasize again that a more precise estimation of observable numbers of short orbital-period IMBPs will only come with further population synthesis studies, as well as accounting carefully for survey selection effects.
\section{Future measurements and studies}
A more precise measurement of the full proper motion will help us to constrain the space velocity of this system. This will further our understanding of IMBP formation history. For example, it would allow us to test the apparently low scale height of IMBPs compared to LMBPs, presumably due to the larger combined mass of IMBP progenitor systems, as suggested by \citet{clm+01}. The low transverse velocity that is hinted at by the measured proper motion in the right ascension direction supports this theory. Within five years, we expect to obtain a significant measurement of proper motion in declination. This will enable us to calculate a more reliable value for the transverse velocity of \psr{1802}.
Based on the measured orbital parameters, the GR prediction for orbital decay $\dot{P}_b^{\mathrm{GR}} = -3.1\times10^{-14}$ s\,s$^{-1}$ for the \psr{1802} system, and we expect to significantly measure $\dot{P}_b$ in the near future. This has only been achieved in four NS-WD systems: in the case of PSR~J1141$-$6545 \citep{klm+00a,bokh03,bbv08} and PSR~J0751+1807 \citep{nss+05,nsk08}, the $\dot{P}_b$ intrinsic to the system is measured; in the PSR~J1012+5307 system \citep{lwj+09}, the intrinsic $\dot{P}_b$ is not yet significantly determined, however the contribution to the measured value from kinematic effects is of the same order as the quadrupolar GR prediction; and in PSR~J0437$-$4715 \citep{vbs+08}, the measured $\dot{P}_b$ is attributed predominantly to contamination by apparent acceleration due to the system space velocity, as the measured $\dot{P}_b$ is four orders of magnitude greater than the value predicted by GR for that system.
For \psr{1802}, we anticipate an intrinsic $\dot{P}_b$ measurement which, when combined with the Shapiro delay measurements, will overdetermine the system mass values and allow for a check on the relativistic analysis of the kinematics of the system.
The difference in self-gravities between \psr{1802} and its WD companion is predicted to cause a deviation in $\dot{P}_b$ from the quadrupolar GR prediction according to some scalar-tensor theories of gravity \citep[e.g.,][]{esp05corr}. A limit to this departure from the GR value could be used to constrain the existence of dipolar radiation from this system, or to set a limit to the variation of the gravitational constant, $\dot{G}$ \citep{nor90,dt91,lwj+09}. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent the kinematic corrections \citep{dt91,nt95} may affect our ability to use this measurement for any of these purposes.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have described the observations and timing analysis of \psr{1802}. These have provided updated system parameters and precise measurements of the pulsar and companion WD masses, which we find to be $1.24\pm0.11\,M_{\odot}$ and $0.78\pm0.04\,M_{\odot}$, respectively. In particular, this determination was made possible by the detection of Shapiro delay on the pulse arrival times. The result is of particular significance for this class of pulsar, since it is only the second such mass measurement for an IMBP system, and the first for a short orbital-period IMBP ($P_b \lesssim 3\,$days). The mass measurements of the \psr{1802} system highlight the dependence of the final system configuration on the specific mass-transfer history and particular evolution of the system in question. The similarity between the properties of this system to those of recycled DNS pulsars hints that the evolutionary paths of these two system types may be analogous, probably involving a CE/inspiral phase.
It is clear that to arrive at a definitive picture of IMBP evolution, and more generally, the evolution of the many observed binary system types, we must discover more systems with measurable masses, and several recent and future surveys \citep[e.g.,][]{vls04,cfl+06,lsf+06} are expected to find many such systems for study.
\acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the referee for the constructive comments. We thank Caltech, Swinburne University, and NRL pulsar groups for use of the CGSR2 cluster at Green Bank. We wish to thank M.~Bailes for providing flux density information on those pulsars noted in Table~\ref{tab:imbp}. We would also like to thank J.~Verbiest, M.~Bailes, and B.~Jacoby for helping our understanding the GBT clock history, and to J.~Verbiest for useful discussions about timing stability. Thanks as well to W.~van Straten for his help with the \texttt{psrchive} software. RDF was partially funded by a UBC UGF award. IHS held an NSERC UFA during part of this work, and also acknowledges sabbatical support from the ATNF Distinguished Visitor program and from the Swinburne University of Technology Visiting Distinguished Researcher Scheme. Pulsar research at UBC is supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant. GASP is funded by an NSERC RTI-1 grant to IHS and by US NSF grants to DCB (AST 9987278, 0206044) and DJN (AST 0647820). MAM and DRL are supported by WVEPSCoR via a Research Challenge Grant. PBD is a Jansky Fellow of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. The Parkes radio telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the U.S. National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. The Nan\c{c}ay radio telescope is part of the Paris Observatory, associated with the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and partially supported by the R\'{e}gion Centre in France.
|
\section{Introduction and main results}
\subsection{Cluster algebras}
Cluster algebras were introduced in \cite{cluster1} in order to design a combinatorial framework for studying total positivity in algebraic groups and canonical bases in quantum groups. It is expected, and proved in some cases, that a cluster algebra has distinguished linear bases providing combinatorial models for canonical or semicanonical bases in quantum groups \cite{cluster1,GLS:KMgroups,Nakajima:cluster, Lampe:Kronecker}. Besides this question, cluster algebras have shown interactions with various areas of mathematics like Lie theory, combinatorics, Teichm\"uller theory, Poisson geometry or representation theory of algebras. This last connection with representation theory was particularly fruitful for the construction of linear bases in a large class of cluster algebras \cite{CZ,CK1,Cerulli:A21,Dupont:BaseAaffine,DXX:basesv3,GLS:KMgroups,GLS:generic}.
In full generality, a (coefficient-free) \emph{cluster algebra} can be associated to any pair $(Q,\mathbf x)$ where $Q=(Q_0,Q_1)$ is a quiver and $\mathbf x=(x_i|i \in Q_0)$ is a $Q_0$-tuple of indeterminates over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. By a quiver $Q=(Q_0,Q_1)$, we always mean an oriented graph such that $Q_0$ is the (finite) set of vertices and $Q_1$ is the (finite) set of arrows. Moreover, we always assume that a quiver $Q$ does not contain any loops or 2-cycles. Given such a pair $(Q,\mathbf x)$, we denote by $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ the corresponding cluster algebra.
$\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ is a subalgebra of the algebra ${\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$ of Laurent polynomials in the $x_i$ with $i \in Q_0$. It is equipped with a distinguished set of generators called \emph{cluster variables}, gathered into possibly overlapping sets of fixed cardinality called \emph{clusters}, generated by a recursive process called \emph{mutation}. Monomials in variables belonging all to a same cluster are called \emph{cluster monomials} and we denote by $\mathcal M(Q,\mathbf x)$ the set of all cluster monomials in $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$.
A \emph{${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis} in the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ is a free generating set of $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ viewed as a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module. If $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ has finitely many cluster variables, then the set $\mathcal M(Q,\mathbf x)$ of cluster monomials is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis in $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ \cite{CK1}. If $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ has infinitely many cluster variables it was observed that cluster monomials do not span the cluster algebra as a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module \cite{shermanz}. However, it is conjectured in full generality, and proved in several cases (see for instance \cite{GLS:KMgroups,Plamondon:ClusterAlgebras}), that cluster monomials are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. The aim of this article is to provide, for a wide class of cluster algebras, a general construction of a distinguished family of elements in ${\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$ containing naturally the set of cluster monomials in $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ and which is expected to form a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis in the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$.
\subsection{Triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau realisations}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category over an algebraically closed field ${\mathbf{k}}$ such that cluster-tilting subcategories in ${\mathcal{C}}$ determine a cluster structure in the sense of \cite{BIRS} (see Section \ref{ssection:clusterstructures} for details). Let $T$ be a cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. It is known that the set of indecomposable rigid objects which are reachable from $T$ is in bijection with the set of cluster variables in $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$ where $Q_{T}$ is the ordinary quiver of the so-called \emph{2-Calabi-Yau tilted} algebra ${\rm{End}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T)^{{\rm{op}\,}}$ \cite{BIRS} (see Section \ref{section:preliminaires} for details). This bijection can be made explicit using the so-called \emph{cluster character}
$$X^{T}_?:{\rm{Ob}}({\mathcal{C}}) {\longrightarrow}\, {\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$$
introduced in \cite{Palu} whose definition is recalled in Section \ref{ssection:characters}.
When ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is the cluster category of an acyclic quiver and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ is the canonical cluster-tilting object, the cluster character $X^{T}_?$ coincides with the \emph{Caldero-Chapoton map} $CC$ introduced in \cite{CC,CK2}. In \cite{Dupont:genericvariables}, the author introduced and studied generic values of restrictions of the Caldero-Chapoton map to representation spaces under the name of \emph{generic variables}. It is known that these generic variables form a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis in the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ \cite{Dupont:BaseAaffine, DXX:basesv3,GLS:generic}. In this article, we generalise this construction to cluster algebras which can be realised with triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau categories and we conjecture that it still provides a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear basis of the corresponding cluster algebra.
\subsection{Main results}
If ${\mathbf{k}}$ is the field of complex numbers and ${\mathcal{C}}$ has constructible cones with respect to ${\rm{add}}\, T$-morphisms (see Section \ref{ssection:constructibility} for details), we associate to any element $\gamma \in K_0({\rm{add}}\, T)$ a Laurent polynomial $X(\gamma)$ by taking the character of the cone of a generic morphism in ${\rm{End}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T)^{{\rm{op}\,}}$-mod with $\delta$-vector $\gamma$ in the sense of \cite{DF:generalpresentations}. The set
$$\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})=\ens{X(\gamma)|\gamma \in K_0({\rm{add}}\, T)} \subset {\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$$
is called the set of \emph{generic characters associated to $T$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$}.
Theorem \ref{theorem:clustermonomials} asserts that the set $\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ of generic characters contains naturally the set of cluster monomials (and thus of cluster variables) in the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$.
If ${\mathcal{C}}$ has finitely many indecomposable objects, we prove that the set $\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ coincides with the set $\mathcal M(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$ and thus that provides a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear basis of the finite type cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$ (Theorem \ref{theorem:finitetype} and Corollary \ref{corol:basetypefini}).
When ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ is the canonical cluster-tilting object, we prove that $\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ satisfies multiplicative properties compatible with the virtual generic decomposition of \cite{IOTW} (Theorem \ref{theorem:multvirtual}).
In this case, we also prove that the set $\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ coincides with the set $\mathcal G(Q)$ of generic variables introduced in \cite{Dupont:BaseAaffine}. In particular, it provides a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis in the acyclic cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$ (Proposition \ref{prop:XetCC} and Corollary \ref{corol:acyclic}).
\subsection{Organisation of the paper}
In Section \ref{section:preliminaires}, we recall the necessary background concerning triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau realisations of cluster algebras, cluster structures, cluster characters and constructibility of cones. In Section \ref{section:genericcharacters}, we define generic cluster characters in full generality and connect this construction to general presentations of modules introduced in \cite{DF:generalpresentations}. In Section \ref{section:monomials} we prove that the set of generic cluster characters naturally contains the cluster monomials of the corresponding cluster algebra. In the sequel, we focus on the case of cluster categories associated to acyclic quivers. In Section \ref{section:index}, we relate indices and dimension vectors in cluster categories in order to describe a natural parametrisation of generic characters using $\mathbf g$-vectors. In Section \ref{section:genericdcp}, we prove the compatibility of generic characters with the virtual generic decomposition of \cite{IOTW}. In Section \ref{section:XetCC}, we prove that this construction indeed generalises the construction of generic variables given in \cite{Dupont:genericvariables} and provides a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis for acyclic cluster algebras. Section \ref{section:example} presents a detailed example in a cluster category of type $A_3$ and finally, Section \ref{section:conjectures} states conjectures and questions relative to this construction.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{section:preliminaires}
Throughout the article, ${\mathbf{k}}$ is the field of complex numbers.
\subsection{Triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau categories}\label{ssection:2CY}
Without other specification, ${\mathcal{C}}$ will always denote a ${\mathbf{k}}$-linear triangulated category with suspension functor $[1]$ which is assumed to be~:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Hom-finite}~: ${\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,N)<\infty$ for any objects $M,N$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$~;
\item \emph{2-Calabi-Yau}~: there is a bifunctorial isomorphism
$${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,N) \simeq D{\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(N,M[2])$$
for any two objects $M,N$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ where $D = {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{k}}}(-,{\mathbf{k}})$ is the standard duality.
\item with split idempotents.
\end{itemize}
A \emph{cluster-tilting subcategory} in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a full additive subcategory $\mathcal T$ of $\mathcal C$ which is stable under direct factors and such that~:
\begin{itemize}
\item the functors ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(X,-):\mathcal T {\longrightarrow}\, {\mathbf{k}}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$ and ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(-,X):\mathcal T^{{\rm{op}\,}} {\longrightarrow}\, {\mathbf{k}}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$ are finitely presented for any object $X$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$~;
\item an object $X$ in $\mathcal C$ belongs to $\mathcal T$ if and only if ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{\mathcal C}(T,X)=0$ for any object $T$ in $\mathcal T$.
\end{itemize}
A \emph{cluster-tilting object} $T$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a basic object such that ${\rm{add}}\, T$ is a cluster-tilting subcategory of $\mathcal C$. Equivalently, $T$ is a cluster-tilting object if it is basic, rigid (that is, without self-extension) and such that for any $X$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T,X)=0$ implies $X \in {\rm{add}}\, T$.
Throughout the article, we always assume that ${\mathcal{C}}$ contains a cluster-tilting object $T$ with $n$ distinct indecomposable summands. We denote by $Q_{T}$ the ordinary quiver of the 2-Calabi-Yau-tilted algebra $B_{T}={\rm{End}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T)^{{\rm{op}\,}}$ and by $\mathcal T$ the additive category ${\rm{add}}\, T$. Any two cluster-tilting objects giving rise to the same cluster-tilting subcategory are isomorphic and thus, up to isomorphism, the quiver $Q_T$ only depends on $\mathcal T$ and we will sometimes denote it by $Q_{\mathcal T}$.
\begin{exmp}
Let $Q$ be an acyclic quiver and let ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ be the \emph{cluster category of $Q$} introduced in \cite{BMRRT} (see also \cite{CCS1} for quivers of Dynkin type $\mathbb A$). Then ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ satisfies all the above hypotheses. Moreover, the path algebra $\mathbf{k}Q$ of $Q$ can be identified with a cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ and it is called the \emph{canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$}.
\end{exmp}
\begin{exmp}
Let $(Q,W)$ be a quiver with potential in the sense of \cite{DWZ:potentials}. Assume that $(Q,W)$ is Jacobi-finite, that is, the corresponding Jacobian algebra $\mathcal J_{(Q,W)}$ is finite dimensional. Then the \emph{generalised cluster category} ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$ introduced in \cite[\S 3]{Amiot:clustercat} satisfies all the above hypotheses. Moreover, it contains a cluster-tilting object $T$ such that the corresponding 2-Calabi-Yau-tilted algebra is isomorphic to $\mathcal J_{(Q,W)}$.
\end{exmp}
\subsection{$\mathcal T$-morphisms}\label{ssection:Tmorphisms}
\begin{defi}
A \emph{$\mathcal T$-morphism} in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a morphism $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ for some objects $T_0,T_1$ in $\mathcal T$.
\end{defi}
We denote by $F_{T}$ the functor
$$F_{T}={\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T,-): {\mathcal{C}} {\longrightarrow}\, B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$$
inducing an equivalence of categories
$${\mathcal{C}}/(T[1]) \xrightarrow{\sim} B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$$
where $B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$ is the category of finitely generated left $B_{T}$-modules \cite{BMR1,KR:clustertilted}. Note that projective $B_{T}$-modules are given by the $F_{T}M$ where $M$ runs over $\mathcal T$.
We denote by $K_0(\mathcal T)$ the Grothendieck group of the additive category $\mathcal T$ and for any object $M$ in $\mathcal T$, we denote by $[M]$ its class in $K_0(\mathcal T)$.
As shown in \cite{KR:acyclic}, for any object $M$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, there exist (non-unique) triangles
$$T_1^M {\longrightarrow}\, T_0^M {\longrightarrow}\, M {\longrightarrow}\, T_1^M[1],$$
$$M {\longrightarrow}\, T_M^0[2] {\longrightarrow}\, T_M^1[2] {\longrightarrow}\, M[1]$$
with $T_i^M,T^i_M$ in $\mathcal T$ for any $i \in \ens{1,2}$.
Following \cite{Palu}, the \emph{index} of $M$ (with respect to $\mathcal T$) is
$${\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)=[T_0^M]-[T_1^M]$$
and the \emph{coindex} of $M$ (with respect to $\mathcal T$) is
$${\rm{coind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)=[T^0_M]-[T^1_M].$$
Note that the index and the coindex of $M$ are well-defined elements in $K_0(\mathcal T)$ in the sense that they do not depend on the choice of the above triangles \cite[Lemma 2.1]{Palu}. In particular, the map $T_0^M {\longrightarrow}\, M$ (resp. $M {\longrightarrow}\, T^M_0[2]$) is not necessarily a minimal right $\mathcal T$-approximations (resp. left $\mathcal T[2]$-approximation).
\subsection{Cluster structures}\label{ssection:clusterstructures}
The notion of cluster structure was first introduced in \cite{BIRS} in order to design a framework for cluster mutations in 2 Calabi-Yau triangulated categories. We thus say that \emph{cluster-tilting subcategories of $\mathcal C$ determine a cluster structure on $\mathcal C$} if~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each cluster-tilting subcategory $\mathcal T'$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and each indecomposable object $M$ of $\mathcal T'$, there is a unique (up to isomorphism) indecomposable $M^*$ not isomorphic to $M$ such that the additive subcategory $\mu_M(\mathcal T')$ of $\mathcal C$ with set of indecomposables ${\rm{ind}}(\mathcal T' \setminus \ens {M}) \sqcup \ens{M^*}$ is a cluster-tilting subcategory, called \emph{mutation of $\mathcal T'$ at $M$}.
\item In the above situation, there are triangles
$$M^* \xrightarrow f E \xrightarrow g M \rightarrow M^*[1] \textrm{ and } M \xrightarrow{f'} E' \xrightarrow{g'} M^* \rightarrow M[1]$$
where $f,f'$ are minimal left $\mathcal T' \cap \mu_M(\mathcal T')$-approximations and $g,g'$ are minimal right $\mathcal T' \cap \mu_M(\mathcal T')$-approximations.
\item For any cluster-tilting subcategory $\mathcal T'$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$, the quiver $Q_{\mathcal T'}$ has no loops or 2-cycles.
\item For any cluster-tilting subcategory $\mathcal T'$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and any indecomposable object $M$ in $\mathcal T'$, we have $Q_{\mu_M(\mathcal T')}=\mu_M(Q_{\mathcal T})$.
\end{enumerate}
The \emph{mutation} of a cluster-tilting object $T'$ in such a category ${\mathcal{C}}$ is defined via the mutation of the corresponding cluster-tilting subcategory ${\rm{add}}\, T'$. We say that a cluster-tilting subcategory $\mathcal T'$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is \emph{reachable from $T$} if it can be obtained from ${\rm{add}}\, T$ by a finite number of mutations. An arbitrary object $M$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is called \emph{reachable from $T$} if it belongs to a cluster-tilting subcategory of ${\mathcal{C}}$ which is reachable from $\mathcal T$. In particular, an object reachable from $T$ is always rigid.
\begin{exmp}
If $Q$ is an acyclic quiver, ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is the cluster category of $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$, then it is known that cluster-tilting subcategories determine a cluster structure on $\mathcal C$ and that every rigid object is reachable from $T$ \cite{BMRRT,BMR2}.
\end{exmp}
\begin{exmp}
If $(Q,W)$ is a Jacobi-finite quiver with potential which is non-degenerate, then the cluster-tilting subcategories of ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$ form a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$ \cite{Amiot:clustercat}. Moreover, if $(Q,W)$ comes from an unpunctured surface in the sense of \cite{ABCP}, then every rigid object is reachable from any cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$ \cite{BZ:clustercatsurfaces}.
\end{exmp}
\subsection{Constructible cones}\label{ssection:constructibility}
Given a morphism $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,N)$ with $M,N$ objects in ${\mathcal{C}}$, the \emph{cone} of $f$ is the unique (up to isomorphism) object ${\rm{Cone}}\,(f)$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ such that there exists a triangle
$$M \xrightarrow{f} N {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{Cone}}\,(f) {\longrightarrow}\, M[1].$$
For the geometric considerations in this article we will moreover always assume that the category ${\mathcal{C}}$ has \emph{constructible cones with respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms}. This notion is a weak analogue to the constructibility of the cones first introduced in \cite{Palu:multiplication}. We recall it here.
Let $\Alin 4$ be the quiver $1{\longrightarrow}\, 2{\longrightarrow}\, 3{\longrightarrow}\, 4$. For any ${\mathbf d}=(d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^4$, a \emph{${\mathbf d}$-dimensional matrix representation} of $\Alin 4$ in $B_T$-mod is given by~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a left $B_T$-module structure on ${\mathbf{k}}^{d_i}$ for every $1 \leq i \leq 4$~;
\item a $B_T$-linear map ${\mathbf{k}}^{d_i} {\longrightarrow}\, {\mathbf{k}}^{d_{i+1}}$ for any $1 \leq i \leq 3$.
\end{enumerate}
The set of ${\mathbf d}$-dimensional representations in $B_T$-mod of $\Alin 4$ form an affine variety, denoted by $\repBA{{\mathbf d}}$. The group $GL({\mathbf d}) = \prod_{i=1}^4 GL(d_i,{\mathbf{k}})$ acts by base change and the set of orbits is denoted by $\repBA{{\mathbf d}}/GL({\mathbf d})$.
Let $T_0$ and $T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$. Let
$${\mathbf d}_0 = ({\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} F_T T_1, {\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} F_TT_0, {\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} F_T T_0 -{\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} F_T T_1, {\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} F_TT_1[1])$$
and let $\Phi_{T_1,T_0}$ be the map from ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ to
$$
\coprod_{{\mathbf d}\leq {\mathbf d}_0} \repBA{{\mathbf d}}/GL({\mathbf d})
$$
sending a morphism $T_1 \xrightarrow f T_0$ to the orbit of the exact sequence of $B_T$-modules
$$F_T T_1 \xrightarrow{F_T f} F_T T_0 \xrightarrow{F_T p} F_T {\rm{Cone}}\,(f) \xrightarrow{F_T \epsilon} F_T T_1[1]$$
where $T_1 \xrightarrow{f} T_0 \xrightarrow{p} {\rm{Cone}}\,(f) \xrightarrow{\epsilon} T_1[1]$ is a triangle in ${\mathcal{C}}$. If the map $\Phi_{T_1,T_0}$ lifts to a constructible map
$$\phi_{T_1,T_0} : {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0) {\longrightarrow}\, \coprod_{{\mathbf d}\leq {\mathbf d}_0} \repBA{{\mathbf d}}$$
for any objects $T_1$ and $T_0$ in $\mathcal T$, then we say that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has \emph{constructible cones with respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms}.
\begin{exmp}
Let $(Q,W)$ be a Jacobi-finite quiver with potential, let ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$ be the associated generalised cluster category and let $T$ be any cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$. Then a direct adaptation of \cite[\S 2.5]{Palu:multiplication} shows that ${\mathcal{C}}_{(Q,W)}$ has constructible cones with respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms. If in particular $Q$ is acyclic and $T$ is any cluster-tilting object in the cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$, then ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ has constructible cones with respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms.
\end{exmp}
\subsection{Cluster characters}\label{ssection:characters}
From now on, $\mathbf x=(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ denotes a $n$-tuple of indeterminates over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ where $n$ is still the number of indecomposable direct summands of the considered cluster-tilting object $T$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$. We use the short-hand notation ${\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$ for the ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[x_1^{\pm 1}, \ldots, x_n^{\pm 1}]$ of Laurent polynomials in the variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$.
Given a $B_{T}$-module $M$ and $\mathbf e \in K_0(B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,})$, we denote by ${\rm{Gr}}_{\mathbf e}(M)$ the variety of sub-$B_{T}$-modules of $M$ whose class in $K_0(B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ equals $\mathbf e$. This is a projective variety and we denote by $\chi({\rm{Gr}}_{\mathbf e}(M))$ its Euler-Poincar\'e characteristic with respect to the singular cohomology with rational coefficients.
Let $\<-,-\>$ be the bilinear form on the split Grothendieck group $K_0(B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,})^{{\rm{split}}}$ induced by
$$\<M,N\>={\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} {\rm{Hom}}_{B_{T}}(M,N)-{\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} {\rm{Ext}}^1_{B_{T}}(M,N)$$
for any two $B_T$-modules $M$ and $N$. It is well-defined on the Grothendieck group $K_0(B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ if $B_{T}$ is hereditary but not in general.
For any $i \in \ens{1, \ldots, n}$, let $S_i$ be the simple $B_{T}$-module associated to $i$. Then the linear form
$$\<S_i,-\>_a:M \mapsto \<S_i,M\>-\<M,S_i\>$$
is well-defined on $K_0(B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ \cite[Lemma 1.3]{Palu}.
\begin{defi}[\cite{Palu}]
The \emph{cluster character associated to $T$} is the map
$$X^{T}_?: {\rm{Ob}}({\mathcal{C}}) {\longrightarrow}\, {\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$$ defined as follows.
If $M$ is indecomposable in ${\mathcal{C}}$ then
$$X^{T}_M=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
x_i \textrm{ if } M \simeq T_i[1]~; \\
\displaystyle \sum_{\mathbf e \in K_0(B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,})} \chi({\rm{Gr}}_{\mathbf e}(F_{T}M)) \prod_{i=1}^n x_i^{\<S_i,\mathbf e\>_a-\<S_i,F_{T}M\>} \textrm{ otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
and for any two objects $M_1,M_2$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, we set
$$X^T_{M_1 \oplus M_2} = X^T_{M_1}X^T_{M_2}.$$
\end{defi}
If cluster-tilting subcategories in ${\mathcal{C}}$ determine a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$, it is proved in \cite{FK} that the set of $X^{T}_M$ where $M$ runs over the isoclasses of indecomposable rigid objects in ${\mathcal{C}}$ which are reachable from $T$ equals the set of cluster variables in $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$ and moreover,
$$\ens{X^{T}_M\, |\, M \textrm{ is rigid and reachable from $T$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$}}=\mathcal M(Q_{T},\mathbf x).$$
\section{Generic cluster characters for 2-Calabi-Yau triangulated categories}\label{section:genericcharacters}
\subsection{Generic characters}
In \cite{Dupont:genericvariables}, we observed that the Caldero-Chapoton map takes generic values on the representation varieties associated to $Q$. For an arbitrary triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category ${\mathcal{C}}$, there is in general no obvious ``nice'' geometry on ${\rm{Ob}}({\mathcal{C}})$. However, since ${\mathcal{C}}$ is ${\mathbf{k}}$-linear and Hom-finite, Hom-spaces in ${\mathcal{C}}$ are finite dimensional ${\mathbf{k}}$-vector spaces and in particular, they are irreducible affine varieties. Thus, for geometric statements, it is more convenient to consider morphisms instead of objects. This philosophy was for instance already suggested in \cite{IOTW,DF:generalpresentations}.
\begin{defi}
For any objects $T_0,T_1$ in $\mathcal T$ and $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$, we set
$$X:\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
{\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0) & {\longrightarrow}\, & {\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]\\
f & \mapsto & X^{T}_{{\rm{Cone}}\,(f)}
\end{array}\right.$$
\end{defi}
The group ${\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_0)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1)$ acts on ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ by
$$(g_0,g_1).f=g_0 f g_1$$
and the map $X$ is invariant under this action.
If $M$ is a rigid object in ${\mathcal{C}}$, consider a triangle
$$T^M_1 \xrightarrow{f} T^M_0 {\longrightarrow}\, M {\longrightarrow}\, T^M_1[1]$$
with $T^M_0,T^M_1$ in $\mathcal T$. Then, it follows from \cite[\S 2.1]{DK:2CY} that the orbit of $f$ under this action is a dense open subset in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T^M_1,T^M_0)$ so that $X$ is constant over a dense open subset of ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T^M_1,T^M_0)$. The following lemma proves that such a dense open subset actually exists for any two objects $T_0,T_1$ in $\mathcal T$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Xgen}
Let $T_0,T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$. Then there exists a unique Laurent polynomial $X(T_1,T_0) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$ such that $X$ is constant equal to $X(T_1,T_0)$ on a Zariski dense open subset $U_{(T_1,T_0)} \subset {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $T_0,T_1 \in \mathcal T$ and let $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$. With the assumption on the constructibility of the cones, it follows from \cite[Corollary 6]{Palu:multiplication} that for any $\mathbf e \in K_0(B_T{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ the map $\lambda_{\mathbf e} : f \mapsto \chi({\rm{Gr}}_{\mathbf e}(F_T {\rm{Cone}}\,(f)))$ is constructible. Thus, there exists a non-empty open subset $U_{\mathbf e}$ in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ such that $\lambda_{\mathbf e}$ is constant on $U_{\mathbf e}$. Since ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ is a finite dimensional vector space, it is an irreducible affine variety and thus $U_{\mathbf e}$ is dense in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$. Set $U_{{\rm{Gr}}} = \bigcap_{\mathbf e} U_{\mathbf e}$ where $\mathbf e$ runs over the (finite) set of elements in $K_0(B_T{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ such that ${\rm{Gr}}_{\mathbf e}(F_T{\rm{Cone}}\,(f))$ is non-empty. Then $U_{{\rm{Gr}}}$ is open and dense in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$.
Also, since $\mathcal C$ has constructible cones with respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms, it follows from \cite[Corollary 8]{Palu:multiplication} that $\iota:f \mapsto (\<S_i,F_T {\rm{Cone}}\,(f)\>)_{i=1, \ldots n}$ is constructible. Thus, there exists a dense open subset $U_\iota \subset {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_0,T_1)$ such that $\iota$ is constant on $U_\iota$.
We finally set $U_{(T_1,T_0)} = U_\iota \cap U_{{\rm{Gr}}}$. It is a dense open subset in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ and the map $X: f \mapsto X(f)$ is constant over $U_{(T_1,T_0)}$, which proves the existence of a generic value. Unicity follows from the irreducibility of ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Stabilisation maps and cluster characters}
Let $T_0,T_1,T_0',T_1'$ be objects in $\mathcal T$. Then $[T_0]-[T_1]=[T_0']-[T_1']$ in $K_0(\mathcal T)$ if and only if there exists $T,T' \in \mathcal T$ such that $T_0 \oplus T= T_0' \oplus T'$ and $T_1 \oplus T= T_1' \oplus T'$. We define on $\mathcal T$ a structure of right-filter by setting $T' \leq T''$ if and only if there exists $T^{(3)} \in \mathcal T$ such that $T''=T' \oplus T^{(3)}$.
\begin{defi}
Let $T_0,T_1$ be in $\mathcal T$ and $T' \leq T''$ be in $\mathcal T$ as above. The \emph{stabilisation map} from ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1 \oplus T',T_0 \oplus T')$ to ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1 \oplus T'',T_0 \oplus T'')$ is
$${\rm{St}}_{T',T''}:\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
{\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1 \oplus T',T_0 \oplus T') & {\longrightarrow}\, & {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1 \oplus T'',T_0 \oplus T'')\\
f & \mapsto & f \oplus {\text{id}}_{T^{(3)}}.
\end{array}\right.$$
We set ${\rm{St}}_{T'}={\rm{St}}_{0,T'}$ the stabilisation map ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0) {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1 \oplus T', T_0 \oplus T')$ sending $f$ to $f \oplus {\text{id}}_{T'}$.
\end{defi}
Given an element $\gamma \in K_0(\mathcal T)$, there exists a unique pair $(T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma), T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$ of objects in $\mathcal T$ such that
$$\gamma=[T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)]-[T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)]$$ and such that $T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)$ and $T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)$ have no common direct factor.
\begin{rmq}
Let $T',T_0,T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$ and $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$. The triangles
$$
T_1 \xrightarrow{f} T_0 {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{Cone}}\,(f) {\longrightarrow}\, T_1[1]
\textrm{ and }
T' \xrightarrow{{\text{id}}_{T'}} T' {\longrightarrow}\, 0 {\longrightarrow}\, T'[1]
$$
give rise to
$$T_1 \oplus T' \xrightarrow{f \oplus {\text{id}}_{T'} } T_0\oplus T' {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{Cone}}\,(f) {\longrightarrow}\, T_1[1] \oplus T'[1]$$
so that ${\rm{Cone}}\,(f \oplus {\text{id}}_{T'}) \simeq {\rm{Cone}}\,(f)$ and thus $X(f \oplus {\text{id}}_{T'})=X(f)$. Thus, $X$ is invariant under stabilisation.
Note that if $f$ is generic in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$, the image of its ${\rm{Aut}}(T_0)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}(T_1)$-orbit under a stabilisation map is a Zariski dense open subset in the image of ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ under this stabilisation map.
\end{rmq}
\begin{theorem}[Stability Theorem]\label{theorem:stability}
Let $T_0, T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$ and $\gamma=[T_0]-[T_1] \in K_0(\mathcal T) $. Then a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ is isomorphic to an element in the image of the stabilisation map ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)) {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the same as \cite[Theorem 5.2.2]{IOTW}. We recall it for completeness. Let $T_0, T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$ and $\gamma=[T_0]-[T_1] \in K_0(\mathcal T) $. Then, there exists some $T \in \mathcal T$ such that $T_0=T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma) \oplus T$ and $T_1=T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma) \oplus T$. Let $\phi \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ be a generic element. We now prove that there exists $(g_0,g_1) \in {\rm{Aut}}(T_0 \oplus T)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}(T_1 \oplus T)$ such that $\phi=(g_0,g_1).{\rm{St}}_T(\phi^{{\rm{min}\,}})$ where $\phi^{{\rm{min}\,}} \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$.
The element $\phi \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ can be viewed as a $2 \times 2$ matrix
$$\phi=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
f & h \\
g & r
\end{array}\right]$$
with $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$, $g \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T)$, $h \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T,T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$ and $r \in {\rm{End}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T)$. Since $\phi$ is generic, it has maximal rank and in particular $r$ has full rank so that it is invertible. Thus, we get
$$\phi=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
f & h \\
g & r
\end{array}\right]
=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1_{T_0} & hr^{-1} \\
0 & 1_{T}
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
f-hr^{-1}g & 0 \\
0 & 1_{T}
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1_{T_1} & 0\\
g & r
\end{array}\right]
$$
so that
$$\phi=(g_0,g_1)\left[\begin{array}{cc}
f-hr^{-1}g & 0 \\
0 & 1_{T}
\end{array}\right]
=
(g_0,g_1){\rm{St}}_T(\phi^{{\rm{min}\,}})$$
where $$g_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1_{T_0} & hr^{-1}\\
0 & 1_{T}
\end{array}\right] \in {\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_0 \oplus T)^{{\rm{op}\,}},$$
$$g_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1_{T_1} & 0\\
g & r
\end{array}\right] \in {\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1 \oplus T)$$
and $\phi^{{\rm{min}\,}}=f-hr^{-1}g \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$. This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{corol}\label{corol:K0param}
For any $T_0,T_1 \in \mathcal T$, the Laurent polynomial $X(T_1,T_0)$ only depends on $[T_0]-[T_1] \in K_0(\mathcal T)$.
\end{corol}
\begin{proof}
Let $T_0,T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$ and set $\gamma =[T_0]-[T_1]$. It follows from the stability theorem that $X(T_1,T_0)=X({\rm{St}}_T(\phi^{{\rm{min}\,}}))$ where $\phi^{{\rm{min}\,}}$ is a generic element in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$. In particular, $X(T_1,T_0)=X(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$ only depends on $\gamma$.
\end{proof}
\begin{defi}
For any $\gamma \in K_0(\mathcal T)$, a \emph{generic morphism of index $\gamma$} is a morphism in the dense open subset $U_{(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))} \subset {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$.
\end{defi}
If $T_0, T_1$ are objects in $\mathcal T$ such that $\gamma=[T_0]-[T_1] \in K_0(\mathcal T)$, we will sometimes abuse terminology and view a generic morphism of index $\gamma$ as an element of ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ by considering its image under the stabilisation map.
We now define the generic characters as the images under $X$ of the generic morphisms.
\begin{defi}
For any $\gamma \in K_0(\mathcal T) $, the \emph{generic character of index $\gamma$ is}
$$X(\gamma)=X(T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$$
defined in Lemma \ref{lem:Xgen}.
The set
$$\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})=\ens{X(\gamma) | \gamma \in K_0(\mathcal T) }$$
is called the set of \emph{generic characters} associated to $T$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
\end{defi}
\subsection{Generic morphism and general presentations in $B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$}\label{section:generalpresentations}
The classical generic variables introduced in \cite{Dupont:BaseAaffine} for an acyclic quiver $Q$ were closely related to the generic representation theory of the finite dimensional hereditary ${\mathbf{k}}$-algebra ${\mathbf{k}} Q$ developed in \cite{Kac:infroot1,Kac:infroot2,Schofield:generalrepresentations}. In general, a 2-Calabi-Yau tilted algebra $B_{T}$ is a basic finite dimensional ${\mathbf{k}}$-algebra but is not hereditary. In \cite{DF:generalpresentations}, the authors develop a generic representation theory for any finite dimensional basic ${\mathbf{k}}$-algebra. This is done by replacing the usual notion of generic representation by the notion of generic presentation. We recall briefly this notion.
Given a finite dimensional basic ${\mathbf{k}}$-algebra $B$, we denote by $\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n$ a maximal set of primitive idempotents of $B$. The indecomposable projective $B$-modules are $_BP_i=B\epsilon_i$ for $i \in \ens{1, \ldots, n}$. We denote by $K_0(B{\textrm{-proj}\,})$ the Grothendieck group of the additive category $B{{\textrm{-proj}\,}}={\rm{add}}\,(_BP_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus {_BP_n})$ and for any $B$-module $M$, we denote by $[M]$ its class in $K_0(B{\textrm{-proj}\,})$.
For any projective $B$-modules $M_1,M_0$ and any morphism $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{B}(M_1,M_0)$, the \emph{$\delta$-vector} of $f$ is $[M_0]-[M_1]$. Note that, identifying $K_0(B{\textrm{-proj}\,})$ with ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ by sending each $[_BP_i]$ to the $i$-th vector $\alpha_i$ of the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$, the above definition coincides with the one provided in \cite{DF:generalpresentations}.
The group ${\rm{Aut}}_B(M_0)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}_B(M_1)$ acts on ${\rm{Hom}}_B(M_1,M_0)$ by $(g_0,g_1).f=g_0fg_1$. A morphism $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_B(M_1,M_0)$ is called \emph{generic} if its ${\rm{Aut}}_B(M_0)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}_B(M_1)$-orbit is a Zariski dense open subset in ${\rm{Hom}}_B(M_1,M_0)$. Such a generic morphism is called a \emph{general presentation} in $B$-mod.
\begin{rmq}
As it was observed in \cite[Example 6.4]{DF:generalpresentations}, a minimal presentation of a $B$-module $M$ may not be a general presentation. Also, not every $B$-module admits a projective presentation which is a general presentation. A counterexample will for instance be provided in Remark \ref{rmq:cexgeneralpres}.
\end{rmq}
We now prove that, under the functor $F_{T}:{\mathcal{C}} {\longrightarrow}\, B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$, generic $\mathcal T$-morphisms in the category ${\mathcal{C}}$ correspond to general presentations in $B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:genericpresentation}
For any $T_0,T_1$ in $\mathcal T$ and any $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$, the following are equivalent~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ is a generic $\mathcal T$-morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$~;
\item $F_{T}f$ is a general presentation in ${\rm{Hom}}_{B_{T}}(F_{T}T_1,F_{T}T_0).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We recall that the functor $F_{T}={\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T,-)$ induces a ${\mathbf{k}}$-linear equivalence of categories $F_{T} : {\mathcal{C}}/\mathcal T[1] \xrightarrow{\sim} B_{T}{\textrm{-mod}\,}$. Let $T_0,T_1$ be objects in $\mathcal T$. Since $T$ is a cluster-tilting object, for any $X$ in $\mathcal T[1]$, ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,X)=0$ so that there are no morphisms from $T_1$ to $T_0$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ factorising through $\mathcal T[1]$. In particular, $F_{T}$ induces an isomorphism of ${\mathbf{k}}$-vector spaces
$${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0) \simeq {\rm{Hom}}_{B_{T}}(F_{T}T_1,F_{T}T_0)$$
and this isomorphism is compatible with the actions of both ${\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_0)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1)$ and ${\rm{Aut}}_B(F_T T_0)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}_B(F_T T_1)$. Thus, $f$ is generic in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ if and only if $F_{T}f$ is generic ${\rm{Hom}}_{B_{T}}(F_{T}T_1,F_{T}T_0)$
\end{proof}
\begin{corol}\label{corol:presentation}
A presentation of $B_{T}$-modules is generic if and only if it is the image under $F_{T}$ of a generic $\mathcal T$-morphism.
\end{corol}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Lemma \ref{lem:genericpresentation} and the fact that the projective $B_{T}$-modules are the $F_{T}M$ where $M$ runs over the non-zero objects in $\mathcal T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmq}\label{rmq:deltavector}
Note that for any $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$, the $\delta$-vector of $F_{T}f$ is $[F_{T}T_0]-[F_{T}T_1] \in K_0(B{\textrm{-proj}\,})$. Thus, using the above identifications of the Grothendieck groups $K_0(\mathcal T)$ and $K_0(B{\textrm{-proj}\,})$ with ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$, we have~:
$$\delta(F_{T}f)=[F_{T}T_0]-[F_{T}T_1]=[T_0]-[T_1]={\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}({\rm{Cone}}\,(f)).$$
Thus $F_{T}$ induces a 1-1 correspondence between generic $\mathcal T$-morphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and general presentations in $B_{T}$-mod and under this correspondence, a generic $\mathcal T$-morphism of index $\gamma$ corresponds to a general presentation of $\delta$-vector $\gamma$.
\end{rmq}
\section{Cluster monomials and generic characters}\label{section:monomials}
In this section, we assume that cluster-tilting subcategories of ${\mathcal{C}}$ determine a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$ (see Section \ref{ssection:clusterstructures}).
We now prove that cluster monomials in $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$ are generic cluster characters. We will see in Corollary \ref{corol:acyclic} that the converse is not true in general.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:clustermonomials}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category with a cluster-tilting object $T$ and whose cones are constructible which respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms. Assume that cluster-tilting subcategories determine a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then $$\mathcal M(Q_{T},\mathbf x) \subset \mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}}).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a rigid object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and $T_1^M \xrightarrow{f_M} T_0^M {\longrightarrow}\, M {\longrightarrow}\, T_1^M[1]$ be a triangle in ${\mathcal{C}}$ with $T_0^M,T_1^M \in {\rm{add}}\, T$ such that $T_0^M {\longrightarrow}\, M$ is a minimal right ${\rm{add}}\, T$-approximation. Set $\gamma={\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)=[T_0^M]-[T_1^M]$. Since $M$ is rigid in ${\mathcal{C}}$, the objects $T_0^M$ and $T_1^M$ have no common direct summands \cite[Proposition 2.2]{DK:2CY} so that $T_0^M=T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)$ and $T_1^M=T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)$. Moreover, the ${\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_0^M)^{{\rm{op}\,}} \times {\rm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^M)$-orbit of $f_M$ is open and dense in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^M,T_0^M)$ \cite[\S 2.1]{DK:2CY}. It follows that $X(f_M)$ is the generic value of $X$ on ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^M,T_0^M)$. Since ${\rm{Cone}}\,(f_M) \simeq M$, it follows from the definition of $X$ that $X(f_M)=X^{T}_M$ and thus $X^{T}_M=X({\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)) \in \mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$.
As cluster-tilting subcategories form a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$, it follows from \cite{FK} that the cluster character $X^{T}_?$ induces a surjection from the set of reachable rigid objects to cluster monomials in $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$. It thus follows from the above discussion that $\mathcal M(Q_{T},\mathbf x) \subset \mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$.
\end{proof}
We have actually proved the more precise statement~:
\begin{prop}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category with a cluster-tilting object $T$ and whose cones are constructible which respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms. Assume that cluster-tilting subcategories determine a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then the following hold~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $M$ is a rigid object in ${\mathcal{C}}$, then $X^{T}_M=X({\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M))$~;
\item If $M$ is a rigid object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ which is reachable from $T$, then $X({\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M))$ is a cluster monomial in $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$~;
\item If $M$ is an indecomposable rigid object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ which is reachable from $T$, then $X({\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M))$ is a cluster variable in $\mathcal A(Q_{T},\mathbf x)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:clustermonomials}.
\end{proof}
We now prove that in finite type, the set of generic characters coincides with the set of cluster monomials~:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:finitetype}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category with a cluster-tilting object $T$ and whose cones are constructible which respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms. Assume that cluster-tilting subcategories determine a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$. Assume moreover that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has finitely many indecomposable objects up to isomorphisms. Then
$$\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}}) = \mathcal M(Q_{T},\mathbf x).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The cluster character $X^T_?$ induces a surjection from the set of reachable indecomposable rigid objects in ${\mathcal{C}}$ to the set of cluster variables in $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$. If ${\mathcal{C}}$ has finitely many indecomposable objects, it follows that $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$ has finitely many cluster variables and thus $Q_T$ is mutation-equivalent to a Dynkin quiver $Q$. It thus follows from \cite{KR:acyclic} that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is triangle-equivalent to the cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ of $Q$. In this case, for any $\gamma \in K_0({\rm{add}}\, T)$ there exists a rigid object $M_\gamma$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ such that ${\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M_\gamma) = \gamma$. Thus, as in the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:clustermonomials}, $X(\gamma) = X(f_{M_\gamma})=X^T_{M_\gamma}$ where $f_{M_\gamma}$ is a minimal right-${\rm{add}}\, T$-approximation of $M_\gamma$ and thus $X(\gamma) \in \mathcal M(Q_T,\mathbf x)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corol}\label{corol:basetypefini}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category with a cluster-tilting object $T$ and whose cones are constructible which respect to $\mathcal T$-morphisms. Assume that cluster-tilting subcategories determine a cluster structure on ${\mathcal{C}}$. Assume moreover that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has finitely many indecomposable objects up to isomorphisms. Then $\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis in $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$.
\end{corol}
\begin{proof}
We saw in the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:finitetype} that under these hypotheses $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$ is of finite type. It thus follows from \cite[Corollary 3]{CK1} that $\mathcal M(Q_T,\mathbf x)$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear basis of $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$. The corollary is hence a consequence of Theorem \ref{theorem:finitetype}.
\end{proof}
\section{Indices and dimension vectors in cluster categories}\label{section:index}
From now on, we assume that ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ with vertices $\ens{1, \ldots, n}$ and that $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ is the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$. We recall that the cluster category is the orbit category in $D^b(\mathbf{k}Q{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ of the functor $\tau^{-1}[1]$ where $[1]$ is the suspension functor in the bounded derived category $D^b(\mathbf{k}Q{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ and $\tau$ is the Auslander-Reiten translation. It is a canonically triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category \cite{K} with constructible cones with respect to ${\rm{add}}\, T$-morphisms \cite{Palu:multiplication}.
For any $i \in Q_0$, we denote by $S_i$ the simple $\mathbf{k}Q$-module at vertex $i$ and by $P_i$ its projective cover. The set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable objects in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ can be identified with the disjoint union of the set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable $\mathbf{k}Q$-modules and of shifts of indecomposable projective modules. The canonical cluster-tilting object $T$ can thus be written as $T=\mathbf{k}Q=\bigoplus_{i=1}^nP_i$.
\subsection{Dimension vectors and indices}
We shall now compare the notion of index in the cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ to the notion of dimension vector in the module category $\mathbf{k}Q$-mod.
For any $\mathbf{k}Q$-module $M$, the \emph{dimension vector} of $M$ is the element ${\mathbf{dim}\,} M=({\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} {\rm{Hom}}_{\mathbf{k}Q}(P_i,M))_{1 \leq i \leq n} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$. Let $K_0(\mathbf{k}Q{\textrm{-mod}\,})$ denote the Grothendieck group of ${\mathbf{k}} Q$-mod. It is known that ${\mathbf{dim}\,}$ induces an isomorphism of abelian groups $K_0(kQ{\textrm{-mod}\,}) \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ sending the isoclass of the simple $S_i$ to the $i$-th vector $\alpha_i$ of the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ for any $i \in Q_0$.
Since $Q$ is acyclic, the path algebra $\mathbf{k}Q$ is finite dimensional and hereditary so that the bilinear form $\<-,-\>$ is well defined on ${\mathbb{Z}}^n \simeq K_0(\mathbf{k}Q{\textrm{-mod}\,})$. The \emph{Euler matrix} of $Q$ is thus the matrix $E \in M_n({\mathbb{Z}})$ of the (non-symmetric) bilinear form $\<-,-\>$ on $K_0(\mathbf{k}Q{\textrm{-mod}\,})$. We refer the reader to \cite[\S III.3]{ASS} for classical properties of $E$.
As usual, we identify $\mathbf{k}Q$-mod with the category ${\rm{rep}}(Q)$ of finite dimensional representations of $Q$ over ${\mathbf{k}}$. We recall that a \emph{representation} $M$ of $Q$ is a pair $M=((M(i))_{i \in Q_0},(M(\alpha))_{\alpha \in Q_1})$ such that each $M(i)$ is a finite dimensional ${\mathbf{k}}$-vector space and each $M(\alpha)$ is a ${\mathbf{k}}$-linear map $M(i) {\longrightarrow}\, M(j)$ where $\alpha:i {\longrightarrow}\, j \in Q_1$. Note that ${\mathbf{dim}\,} M=({\rm{dim}_{\mathbf{k}}} M(i))_{i \in Q_0}$ for any representation $M$ of $Q$.
For any $\mathbf d \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, we denote by ${\rm{rep}}(Q,\mathbf d)$ the set of representations $M$ of $Q$ such that ${\mathbf{dim}\,} M=\mathbf d$ which is identified with the irreducible affine variety
$${\rm{rep}}(Q,\mathbf d)=\prod_{\alpha: i {\longrightarrow}\, j \in Q_1} {\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{k}}^{d_i},{\mathbf{k}}^{d_j}),$$
called \emph{representation space of dimension $\mathbf d$}.
We define the \emph{dimension vector} ${\mathbf{dim}_{{\mathcal{C}}}\,} M$ of an object $M$ in the cluster category by
$${\mathbf{dim}_{{\mathcal{C}}}\,} M =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbf{dim}\,} M & \textrm{ if $M$ is an indecomposable $\mathbf{k}Q$-module~;}\\
- (E^t)^{-1} {\mathbf{dim}\,} S_i & \textrm{ if } M \simeq P_i[1]~;\\
{\mathbf{dim}_{{\mathcal{C}}}\,} M_1 + {\mathbf{dim}_{{\mathcal{C}}}\,} M_2 & \textrm{ if $M=M_1 \oplus M_2$.}
\end{array}\right.$$
Since ${\mathbf{dim}_{{\mathcal{C}}}\,} M={\mathbf{dim}\,} M$ for any $\mathbf{k}Q$-module $M$, we will simply write ${\mathbf{dim}\,} M$ for the dimension vector of an arbitrary object $M$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
\begin{rmq}
Note that our convention for dimension vectors of objects in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$ agrees with the one considered in \cite{IOTW} but differs from the one considered \cite{CK2,Dupont:genericvariables}. Indeed, in \cite{CK2,Dupont:genericvariables}, the dimension vector of $P_i[1]$ was set to $-{\mathbf{dim}\,} S_i$. This was more accurate from the point of view of denominator vectors of the corresponding cluster characters (see for instance \cite[Theorem 3]{CK2} and \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Dupont:genericvariables}). Nevertheless, as we shall see, it appears that the convention of \cite{IOTW} we use here is more natural from the point of view of indices, $\mathbf g$-vectors, virtual generic decompositions and generic characters.
\end{rmq}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:explicitindex}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ be the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$. Let $T={\mathbf{k}} Q$ be the canonical cluster tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and $\mathcal T={\rm{add}}\, T$. Then for any $\mathbf{k}Q$-module $M$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, we have
$${\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)=E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} M,$$
$${\rm{coind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)=E {\mathbf{dim}\,} M.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $M$ is indecomposable. Then it follows from \cite[Lemma 2.3]{Palu} that ${\rm{ind}}_{\mathcal T}(M) = (\<M,S_i\>)_{i \in Q_0} = ({\mathbf{dim}\,} M^t E \alpha_i)_{i \in Q_0} = E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} M$ and ${\rm{coind}}_{\mathcal T}(M) = (\<S_i,M\>)_{i \in Q_0} = (\alpha_i E {\mathbf{dim}\,} M)_{i \in Q_0} = E {\mathbf{dim}\,} M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmq}
Note that if $M \simeq P_i[1]$, then ${\rm{ind}}_{{\mathcal {T}}}(M) = -[P_i] = -\alpha_i = E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} P_i[1]$ but ${\rm{coind}}_{{\mathcal {T}}}(M) = -[P_i] = - \alpha _i \neq E {\mathbf{dim}\,} P_i[1]$ so that Lemma \ref{lem:explicitindex} only holds for $\mathbf{k}Q$-modules.
\end{rmq}
\subsection{Presentation spaces and index}
Following the approach in \cite{IOTW}, we will consider presentation spaces in $\mathbf{k}Q$-mod instead of representations spaces in ${\rm{rep}}(Q)$.
Given an element $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, a \emph{projective decomposition} of $\alpha$ is a pair $(\gamma_0,\gamma_1) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n \times {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$ such that $E^t \alpha=\gamma_0 - \gamma_1$. It is called \emph{minimal} if $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_1$ have disjoint support. A minimal projective decomposition of a given element $\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$ is unique.
For any $\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, we set $P(\gamma)=\bigoplus_{i \in Q_0} P_i^{ \gamma_i}$. For any $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, the \emph{presentation space} associated to a projective decomposition $(\gamma_0,\gamma_1)$ of $\alpha$ is
$$R(\gamma_0,\gamma_1)={\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathbf{k}} Q}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0)).$$
The \emph{minimal presentation space} $R^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\alpha)$ is the representation space associated to the minimal projective decomposition of $\alpha$.
Let $\alpha$ be an element in ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$, which shall be thought as a dimension vector of an object in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$. Then, by Lemma \ref{lem:explicitindex}, $\gamma = E^t \alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ may be thought as the index of an object in ${\mathcal{C}}_Q$. Let $(\gamma_0,\gamma_1)$ be a projective decomposition of $\alpha$ then $\gamma=\gamma_0 - \gamma_1=[P(\gamma_0)]-[P(\gamma_1)]$. The objects $T_0=P(\gamma_0)$ and $T_1=P(\gamma_1)$ belong to $\mathcal T={\rm{add}}\, \mathbf{k}Q=\mathbf{k}Q{\textrm{-proj}\,}$ and the representation space $R(\gamma_0,\gamma_1)$ is thus isomorphic to ${\rm{Hom}}_{\mathbf{k}Q}(T_1,T_0)$ which is isomorphic to ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1,T_0)$ since $T_1$ is a projective $\mathbf{k}Q$-module \cite{BMRRT}.
If $(\gamma^{{\rm{min}\,}}_0, \gamma^{{\rm{min}\,}}_1)$ is the minimal projective decomposition of $\alpha$, we have $T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)=P(\gamma_0^{{\rm{min}\,}})$ and $T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma)=P(\gamma_1^{{\rm{min}\,}})$. Thus, the minimal presentation space $R^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\alpha)$ is isomorphic to the space of $\mathcal T$-morphisms ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma),T_0^{{\rm{min}\,}}(\gamma))$. In particular, the generic morphism of index $\gamma$ can be viewed as a generic element of the minimal presentation space $R^{{\rm{min}\,}}((E^t)^{-1}\gamma)$ .
\subsection{$\mathbf g$-vectors}
Generic variables introduced in \cite{Dupont:genericvariables} were naturally parametrised by their denominator vectors. We now prove that generic characters we just introduced are naturally parame\-trised by their $\mathbf g$-vectors. For details concerning $\mathbf g$-vectors, we refer the reader to \cite{cluster4} in general and \cite{FK} for $\mathbf g$-vectors in the context of cluster characters.
Given an object $M$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, we set $\mathbf g_M = -{\rm{coind}}_{\mathcal T}(M)$. Given $\gamma \in K_0({\rm{add}}\, T)$, we define the \emph{$\mathbf g$-vector of $X(\gamma)$} as $\mathbf g_{X(\gamma)} = \mathbf g_{{\rm{Cone}}\,(f)}$ for some generic morphism of index $\gamma$ (it follows from the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Xgen} that this is well-defined). Usually, the $\mathbf g$-vector is only defined for cluster variables in cluster algebras with coefficients but our terminology is motivated by the fact that, under certain assumptions on the coefficient system of the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$, if $M$ is a rigid object in ${\mathcal{C}}$, then $\mathbf g_M$ is indeed the $\mathbf g$-vector of the cluster variable $X_M$ \cite[Theorem 6.3]{FK}.
We denote by $C=-E^tE^{-1}$ the \emph{Coxeter matrix} of the path algebra $\mathbf{k}Q$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:gvector}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ be the canonical cluster-tilting object. Then for any $\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ such that the cone of a generic morphism of index $\gamma$ is a $\mathbf{k}Q$-module, we have
$${\bf{g}}_{X(\gamma)}=C^{-1}\gamma.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ and let $M$ be the cone of a generic morphism of index $\gamma$ which is a $\mathbf{k}Q$-module by hypothesis. By Lemma \ref{lem:explicitindex}, we have $\gamma={\rm{ind}}_{T}(M)=E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} M$. Now, by definition, $\mathbf g_{M}=-{\rm{coind}}_{T}(M)$ and thus, Lemma \ref{lem:explicitindex} implies that $-{\rm{coind}}_{T}(M)=-E {\mathbf{dim}\,} M$.
It follows that $\gamma = E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} M = E^t (-E^{-1}) \mathbf g_{M} = C \mathbf g_M$ so that $\mathbf g_{X(\gamma)}=\mathbf g_M=C^{-1}\gamma$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmq}
Note that for any $i \in Q_0$, we have $X(-\alpha_i) = X^T_{T_i[1]} = x_i$ so that $\mathbf g_{x_i} = -\alpha_i = -\alpha_i \neq C^{-1} \alpha_i$. Thus, Proposition \ref{prop:gvector} does not hold if the cone of a generic morphism of index $\gamma$ is not a $\mathbf{k}Q$-module.
\end{rmq}
\begin{corol}
Let $M$ be a $\mathbf{k}Q$-module, and $P_0^M \xrightarrow{f_M} P_1^M {\longrightarrow}\, M {\longrightarrow}\, 0$ be a projective presentation of $\mathbf{k}Q$-modules. Then,
$$\delta(f_M)=C\mathbf g_M.$$
\end{corol}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Remark \ref{rmq:deltavector} that $\delta(f_M)={\rm{ind}}_{T}({\rm{Cone}}\,(f_M))={\rm{ind}}_{T}(M)=E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} M=C\mathbf g_M$.
\end{proof}
\section{Generic cluster characters and virtual generic decomposition}\label{section:genericdcp}
In this section, we still assume that ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ is the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and that $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ is the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Following \cite{Schofield:generalrepresentations}, given two elements $\beta,\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, we say that the extension ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{\mathbf{k}Q}(\beta,\gamma)$ \emph{vanishes generally} if there exist Zariski dense open subsets $O_\beta \subset {\rm{rep}}(Q,\beta)$, $O_{\gamma} \subset {\rm{rep}}(Q,\gamma)$ such that ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{\mathbf{k}Q}(M_\beta,M_\gamma)=0$ for any $M_\beta \in O_\beta$ and $M_\gamma \in O_\gamma$.
Given an element $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, Kac proved in \cite{Kac:infroot1} the existence of a unique decomposition
$$\alpha=\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k$$
such that~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{\mathbf{k}Q}(\beta_i,\beta_j)$ vanishes generally if $i \neq j$~;
\item each $\beta_i$ is a Schur root of $Q$.
\end{enumerate}
This decomposition is called the \emph{generic (or canonical) decomposition of $\alpha$}.
This was generalised in \cite{IOTW} to arbitrary elements in ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$. Namely, for any $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ there exists a unique decomposition
$$\alpha=\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k - (E^t)^{-1}\gamma$$
such that~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_k,\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$~;
\item $\beta_i$ and $\gamma$ have disjoint support for all $i$~;
\item ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{\mathbf{k}Q}(\beta_i,\beta_j)$ vanishes generally if $i \neq j$~;
\item each $\beta_i$ is a Schur root of $Q$.
\end{enumerate}
This decomposition is called the \emph{virtual generic decomposition of $\alpha$}. Note that if $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, generic and virtual generic decomposition coincide.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:multvirtual}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ be the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Let $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with virtual generic decomposition
$$\alpha=\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k - (E^t)^{-1}\gamma.$$
Then,
$$X(E^t\alpha)=X(E^t \beta_1) \cdots X(E^t\beta_k)X(-\gamma).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with virtual canonical decomposition $\alpha=\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k - (E^t)^{-1}\gamma$. For any $i=1, \ldots, k$, let $M_i$ be a generic representation in ${\rm{rep}}(Q,\beta_i)$. For any $i=1, \ldots, k$, we denote by $p_{M_i}$ the so-called \emph{canonical projective presentation} of $M_i$:
$$0 {\longrightarrow}\, P^{M_i}_1 \xrightarrow{p_{M_i}} P^{M_i}_0 {\longrightarrow}\, M {\longrightarrow}\, 0$$
where $$P^{M_i}_1 = \bigoplus_{u {\longrightarrow}\, v \in Q_1} P_v^{ \beta_i(u)} \textrm{ and } P^{M_i}_0 = \bigoplus_{v \in Q_0} P_v^{ \beta_i(v)}$$
and let $0_{\gamma}$ be the zero map $0_{\gamma}:P(\gamma) {\longrightarrow}\, 0$. Then, it follows from \cite[Theorem 6.3.1]{IOTW} that $$X(E^t\alpha) = X\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^k p_{M_i} \oplus 0_{\gamma}\right) = \prod_{i=1}^k X(p_{M_i}) X(0_{\gamma}).$$
Each $p_{M_i}$ is generic so that $X(p_{M_i})=X({\rm{ind}}_{T}(M_i))=X(E^t {\mathbf{dim}\,} M_i)=X(E^t \beta_i)$ and also, $0_{\gamma}$ is generic so that $X(0_\gamma)=X({\rm{ind}}_{T}(P_{\gamma}[1]))=X(-\gamma)$. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Generic cluster characters and classical generic variables}\label{section:XetCC}
In this section, ${\mathcal{C}}$ still denotes the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ is the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. In this case, the cluster character $X^{T}_?$ coincides with the Caldero-Chapoton map $CC:{\rm{Ob}}({\mathcal{C}}) {\longrightarrow}\, {\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$ introduced in \cite{CC,CK2}.
In \cite{Dupont:genericvariables}, the author introduced a family of Laurent polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$, called \emph{generic variables}, by considering generic values of the restriction of the Caldero-Chapoton map to representation spaces. We shall now see that generic characters coincide with these generic variables when ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$. First, we briefly review the construction of \cite{Dupont:genericvariables}.
\subsection{Generic variables in acyclic cluster algebras}
For any $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, there exists a unique Laurent polynomial $CC(\alpha)$ such that $CC$ is constant equal to $CC(\alpha)$ on a dense open subset $U_{\alpha} \subset {\rm{rep}}(Q,\alpha)$ \cite[Corollary 2.4]{Dupont:genericvariables}.
More generally, if $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, let $\alpha_{0},\alpha_1 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$ having disjoint support such that $\alpha=\alpha_0 - \alpha_1$ and set
$$CC(\alpha)=CC(\alpha_0)\mathbf x^{\alpha_1}=CC(\alpha_0)CC(P(\alpha_1)[1]).$$
The set
$$\mathcal G(Q)=\ens{CC(\alpha)\, |\, \alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n}$$
is called the set of \emph{generic variables} in $\mathcal A(Q)$ and for any $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, $CC(\alpha)$ is called the \emph{generic variable of dimension $\alpha$}.
Let $\alpha, \beta \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ such that $\alpha=\alpha_0 - \alpha_1$ (resp. $\beta=\beta_0 - \beta_1$) where $\alpha_1,\alpha_0$ (resp. $\beta_1,\beta_0$) have disjoint support. Following \cite{Dupont:genericvariables}, we say that ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{C}}}(\alpha,\beta)$ \emph{vanishes generally} if there exists $M_\alpha \in {\rm{rep}}(Q,\alpha_0), M_\beta \in {\rm{rep}}(Q,\beta_0)$ such that
$${\rm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{C}}}(M_\alpha \oplus P(\alpha_1)[1],M_\beta \oplus P(\beta_1)[1])=0.$$
Generic variables are multiplicative if there are no generic extensions in the cluster category in the sense that $$CC(\alpha+\beta)=CC(\alpha)CC(\beta).$$
if ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{C}}}(\alpha,\beta)$ vanishes generally \cite[Lemma 3.5]{Dupont:genericvariables}. In particular, they are compatible with Kac's generic decomposition in the sense that for $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$, if
$$\alpha=\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k$$
is the generic decomposition of $\alpha$, then
$$CC(\alpha)=CC(\beta_1) \cdots CC(\beta_k).$$
We recall that if $L$ is a Laurent polynomial in ${\mathbb{Z}}[\mathbf x^{\pm 1}]$, its \emph{denominator vector} is the unique vector $\mathbf d \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ such that there exists a polynomial $P(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ not divisible by any $x_i$ such that $L=P(x_1, \ldots, x_n)/\mathbf x^{\mathbf d}$. Generic variables are parametrised by denominator vectors in the sense that for $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, the denominator vector of $CC(\alpha)$ is $\alpha$.
\subsection{Generic variables and generic characters}
We now prove that the set of generic variables coincides with the set of generic characters. The philosophy underlying the proof of this fact is that these two sets are naturally parametrised by ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$. The set $\mathcal G(Q)$ of generic variables is naturally parametrised by denominator vectors which essentially correspond to dimension vectors of $\mathbf{k}Q$-modules. The set $\mathcal G^{\mathbf{k}Q}({\mathcal{C}}_Q)$ is parametrised using the index in the corresponding cluster category. Going from one parametrisation to the other correspond to the base change induced by the matrix $E^t$ between the two natural bases of the lattice ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$, the first one consisting of dimension vectors of simple modules, the second one of dimension vectors of indecomposable projective modules. Nevertheless, due to the fact that we do not use the same convention for dimension vectors of shifts of indecomposable modules as in \cite{Dupont:genericvariables}, the change of parametrisation between $\mathcal G(Q)$ and $\mathcal G^{\mathbf{k}Q}({\mathcal{C}}_Q)$ will be slightly more complicated.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:XetCCpositif}
For any $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$,
$$X(E^t\alpha)=CC(\alpha).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$. For any projective decomposition $E^t\alpha=\gamma_0-\gamma_1$, $X(E^t\alpha)=X(f)$ for some generic element $f \in {\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0))$. We can thus assume that $E^t\alpha=\gamma_0-\gamma_1$ is the projective canonical decomposition of \cite{IOTW}. Consider the triangle
$$P(\gamma_1) \xrightarrow{f} P(\gamma_0) {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{Cone}}\,(f) {\longrightarrow}\, P(\gamma_1)[1].$$
Applying $F_{T}$, we get
$$P(\gamma_1) \xrightarrow{F_{T}f} P(\gamma_0) {\longrightarrow}\, F_{T}({\rm{Cone}}\,(f)) {\longrightarrow}\, 0$$
so that $X(f)=X^{T}_{{\rm{Cone}}\,(F_{T}(f))}=X^{T}_{{\rm{Coker}} F_{T}(f)}.$ According to Corollary \ref{corol:presentation}, $F_{T}f$ is generic in ${\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0))$. Thus, we get
$$X(f)=X^{T}({\rm{Cone}}\, f)=CC({\rm{Coker}} F_{T} f).$$
Consider the map $\kappa: g \mapsto {\rm{Coker}} g$ on ${\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0))$. For any morphism $g \in {\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0))$, we have ${\mathbf{dim}\,} {\rm{Coker}}(g)={\mathbf{dim}\,} P(\gamma_0) - {\mathbf{dim}\,} P(\gamma_1)=(E^t)^{-1}(\gamma_0 - \gamma_1)=\alpha$ so that $\kappa$ is a map
$$\kappa:{\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0)) {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{rep}}(Q,\alpha).$$
Now, it follows from \cite[Proposition 4.1.7]{IOTW} that there exists a Zariski dense open subset $\mathcal U \subset {\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0))$ such that $\kappa_{|\mathcal U}:\mathcal U {\longrightarrow}\, {\rm{rep}}(Q,\alpha)$ is algebraic and injective. Thus, ${\rm{dim}\,} \kappa(\mathcal U) \geq {\rm{dim}\,} \mathcal U > 0$ and thus $\kappa(\mathcal U) \cap U_{\alpha} \neq \emptyset$ where $U_{\alpha}$ denotes, as before, the Zariski dense open subset for the Caldero-Chapoton map.
It follows that $\kappa^{-1}(U_{\alpha})$ is a Zariski dense open subset in ${\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma_1),P(\gamma_0))$ and we can thus assume that the generic element $f$ belongs to $\kappa^{-1}(U_{\alpha})$. It follows that
$$X(E^t\alpha)=X(f)=CC({\rm{Coker}} F_{T}f)=CC(\alpha)$$
which proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:XetCCnegatif}
For any $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}^n$,
$$X(\alpha)=CC(\alpha).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$ such that $\alpha=-\gamma$. Consider the morphism $0_{\gamma}: {\rm{Hom}}_{kQ}(P(\gamma),0)$. We have the triangle
$$P(\gamma) \xrightarrow{0_{\gamma}} 0 {\longrightarrow}\, P(\gamma)[1] \xrightarrow{\sim} P(\gamma)[1]$$
so that $$X(0_{\gamma})=X^{T}_{P(\gamma)[1]}=CC(P(\gamma)[1])=CC(-\gamma)=CC(\alpha).$$
Now, by definition, $X(f)$ is the generic character of index $\alpha$, that is, $X(\alpha)=X(0_{\gamma})=CC(\alpha)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:XetCC}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ be the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ be the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Let $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with virtual generic decomposition
$$\alpha=\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k - (E^t)^{-1}\gamma.$$
Then,
$$X(E^t\alpha)=CC(\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k - \gamma).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
According to Theorem \ref{theorem:multvirtual}, we have
$$X(E^t\alpha)=X(E^t\beta_1)\cdots X(E^t\beta_k)X(-\gamma).$$
For any $i=1, \ldots, k$, it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:XetCCnegatif} that $X(E^t\beta_i)=CC(\beta_i)$. Also, it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:XetCCnegatif} that $X(-\gamma)=CC(-\gamma)$. Now, $\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k$ is the (classical) generic decomposition of $\sum_{i=1}^k \beta_i$
so that
$$CC(\beta_1)\cdots CC(\beta_k)=CC(\beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_k).$$
Moreover, $\beta_i$ and $\gamma$ have disjoint support for any $i \in \ens{1, \ldots, k}$ so that $\gamma$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k \beta_i$ have disjoint support and ${\rm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathcal{C}}}(\sum_{i=1}^k \beta_i,-\gamma)$ vanishes generally.
Thus, $$CC(\sum_{i=1}^k \beta_i)CC(-\gamma)=CC(\sum_{i=1}^k \beta_i-\gamma)$$
which proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:generalisation}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ be the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ be the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then,
$$\mathcal G(Q)=\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}}).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
$E^t$ is an invertible matrix so $E^t\alpha$ runs over ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ when $\alpha$ runs over ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$. It thus follows from Proposition \ref{prop:XetCC} that $\mathcal G(Q) \supset \mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$.
Conversely, if $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, we can write $\alpha=\alpha_0 - \alpha_1$ where $\alpha_0,\alpha_1 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$ have disjoint supports. Let $M$ be the generic representation in ${\rm{rep}}(Q,\alpha_0)$ and let $p_M$ be its canonical projective presentation. Then $CC(\alpha_0) = CC(M) = X(p_M) = X(E^t\alpha_0)$. Let $0_{\alpha_1}$ be the zero morphism $P(\alpha_1) {\longrightarrow}\, 0$. Then
$$X(E^t\alpha_0-\alpha_1) = X(p_M \oplus 0_{\alpha_1}) = X(p_M)X(0_\alpha) = CC(C)CC(P(\alpha_1)[1]) = CC(\alpha)$$
so that $\mathcal G^T({\mathcal{C}}) \subset \mathcal G(Q)$. This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmq}\label{rmq:cexgeneralpres}
We now observe that there may exist indecomposable modules over finite-dimensional algebras which admit no generic projective presentations. Consider for instance the quiver
$$\xymatrix@-3ex{
&& 2 \ar[rd] \\
Q: & 1 \ar[ru] \ar[rr] && 3
}$$
and the indecomposable (non-rigid) representation
$$\xymatrix@-3ex{
&& {\mathbf{k}} \ar[rd]^0 \\
M: & {\mathbf{k}} \ar[ru]^1 \ar[rr]_1 && {\mathbf{k}}.
}$$
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the cluster category of $Q$ and $T$ be the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. If $M$ admits a generic projective presentation $P_1^M \xrightarrow{f_M} P_0^M$ in $\mathbf{k}Q$-mod, then it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:genericpresentation} that $f_M$ induces a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(P_1^M,P_0^M)$ and thus $X_M = X^{T}_{{\rm{Cone}}\,(f_M)} = X(f_M) \in \mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ but it is known that $X_M \not \in \mathcal G(Q)$ (see the proof of \cite[Lemma 5.4]{Dupont:genericvariables} for details on this last fact).
\end{rmq}
\subsection{Generic bases in acyclic cluster algebras}
Combining with known results on classical generic variables, we get~:
\begin{corol}\label{corol:acyclic}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ be the cluster category of an acyclic quiver $Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$ be the canonical cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then $\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}})$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear basis in $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$.
\end{corol}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q$ be an acyclic quiver, ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_Q$ and $T=\mathbf{k}Q$. In \cite{GLS:generic} (see also \cite{Dupont:BaseAaffine,DXX:basesv3} for affine quivers) the authors proved that $\mathcal G(Q)$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis in $\mathcal A(Q,\mathbf x)$. The corollary thus follows from Theorem \ref{theorem:generalisation}.
\end{proof}
\section{An explicit example}\label{section:example}
Consider the quiver $Q: 1 {\longrightarrow}\, 2 {\longrightarrow}\, 3$ and let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the cluster category of $Q$. The Auslander-Reiten quiver of ${\mathcal{C}}$ can be depicted as follows~:
$$\xymatrix@-3ex{
&& P_1[1] \ar[rd] && *+[F]{P_1} \ar[rd] && P_3[1] \ar[rd] && *+[F]{P_3} \ar[rd] \\
& P_2[1] \ar[ru] \ar[ru] \ar[rd]&& P_2 \ar[ru] \ar[ru] \ar[rd]&& I_2 \ar[ru]\ar[rd] && P_2[1] \ar[ru] \ar[rd] && P_2 \ar[rd] \\
P_3[1] \ar[ru] && *+[F]{P_3} \ar[ru] && S_2 \ar[ru] && *+[F]{S_1} \ar[ru] && P_1[1] \ar[ru] && *+[F]{P_1}
}$$
We choose a cluster-tilting object $T=\mu_{P_2}(\mathbf{k}Q)=P_3 \oplus S_1 \oplus P_1$ and we denote by $T_1=P_3$, $T_2=S_1$ and $T_3=P_1$ its indecomposable summands. The quiver $Q_T$ of the cluster-tilted algebra ${\rm{End}}_{\mathcal C}(T)^{{\rm{op}\,}}$ is thus the following~:
$$\xymatrix@-3ex{
&& T_2 \ar[ld] \\
Q_T : &T_3 \ar[rr] && T_1. \ar[lu]
}$$
Let $\gamma\in K_0({\rm{add}}\, T)$. Identifying $K_0({\rm{add}}\, T)$ with ${\mathbb{Z}}^3$, we write $\gamma=(a,b,c)$ for $a,b,c \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. It follows from Theorem \ref{theorem:stability} that in order to compute $X(\gamma)$ we have to compute the image under $X$ of the cone of a generic morphisms in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^{a_1} \oplus T_2^{b_1} \oplus T_3^{c_1}, T_1^{a_0} \oplus T_2^{b_0} \oplus T_3^{c_0})$ where $\gamma_1=(a_1,b_1,c_1)$ and $\gamma_0=(a_0,b_0,c_0)$ have disjoint support and $\gamma = \gamma_0 - \gamma_1$. Thus, we have to the following cases~:
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(a,b,c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(0,T_1^a \oplus T_2^b \oplus T_3^c)=0$. Thus, the cone of the (generic) zero morphism is $T_1^a \oplus T_2^b \oplus T_3^c$. It follows that $X(a,b,c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{T_1}, X^T_{T_2}, X^T_{T_3}}$ of $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(-a,-b,-c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a \oplus T_2^b \oplus T_3^c,0)=0$. Thus, the cone of the (generic) zero morphism is $T_1^a[1] \oplus T_2^b[1] \oplus T_3^c[1]$. It follows that $X(a,b,c)$ is a cluster monomial in the initial cluster $\ens{x_1, x_2, x_3}$ of $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(-a,-b,c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a \oplus T_2^b, T_3^c)$. Let $f$ be a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a \oplus T_2^b, T_3^c)$. Note that there are no morphisms from $T_2 \simeq S_1$ to $T_3 \simeq P_1$ in $\mathcal C$ so that we only have to compute the cone of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a, T_3^c) \simeq {\rm{Hom}}_{\mathbf{k}Q}(P_3^a, P_1^c)$. A generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{\mathbf{k}Q}(P_3^a, P_1^c)$ has a zero kernel if $a \leq c$ and has a kernel isomorphic to $P_3^{a-c}$ if $c \leq a$. Similarly, the cokernel is isomorphic to $I_2^c$ if $c \leq a$ and $I_2^c \oplus P_1^{c-a}$ if $a \leq c$. We know that the cone of a morphism $g$ of $\mathbf{k}Q$-modules in $\mathcal C$ is given by ${\rm{Ker}} (g) [1] \oplus {\rm{Coker}}(g)$. Thus, if $g$ is a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{\mathbf{k}Q}(P_3^a, P_1^c)$, we get the triangles
$$P_3^a \xrightarrow{g} P_1^c {\longrightarrow}\, I_2^a \oplus P_1^{c-a} {\longrightarrow}\, P_3^a[1] \textrm{ if } a \leq c,$$
and
$$P_3^a \xrightarrow{g} P_1^c {\longrightarrow}\, I_2^c \oplus P_3^{a-c}[1] {\longrightarrow}\, P_3^a[1] \textrm{ if } c \leq a$$
Since $S_1[1] \simeq \tau S_1 \simeq S_2$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, we obtain the following triangles in the cluster category ${\mathcal{C}}$~:
$$P_3^a \oplus S_1^b \xrightarrow{[g,0]} P_1^c {\longrightarrow}\, I_2^a \oplus P_1^{c-a} \oplus S_2^b {\longrightarrow}\, P_3^a[1] \oplus S_2^b \textrm{ if } a \leq c,$$
and
$$P_3^a \oplus S_1^b \xrightarrow{[g,0]} P_1^c {\longrightarrow}\, I_2^c \oplus P_3^{a-c}[1] \oplus S_2^b {\longrightarrow}\, P_3^a[1] \oplus S_2^b \textrm{ if } c \leq a$$
and $[g,0]$ is generic in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a \oplus T_2^b, T_3^c)$.
Thus, $X(-a,-b,c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_1},X^T_{I_2},X^T_{S_2}}$ if $a \leq c$ and in the adjacent cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_3[1]},X^T_{I_2},X^T_{S_2}}$ if $c \leq a$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(-a,b,-c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a \oplus T_3^c, T_2^b)$. As before, we compute that the cone of such a generic morphism $f$ is given by~:
$${\rm{Cone}}\,(f) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
P_3^a[1] \oplus P_2^c[1] \oplus S_1^{b-c} & \textrm{ if } c \leq b, \\
P_3^a[1] \oplus P_2^b[1] \oplus P_1^{c-b}[1] & \textrm{ if } b \leq c.
\end{array}\right.$$
So that $X(-a,b,-c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_3[1]},X^T_{P_2[1]},X^T_{S_1}}$ if $c \leq b$ and in the adjacent cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_3[1]},X^T_{P_2[1]},X^T_{P_1[1]}}$ if $b \leq c$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(a,-b,-c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_2^b \oplus T_3^c, T_1^a)$. The cone of such a generic morphism $f$ is given by~:
$${\rm{Cone}}\,(f) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
P_1^c[1] \oplus P_2^b \oplus P_3^{a-b} & \textrm{ if } b \leq a, \\
P_1^c[1] \oplus P_2^a \oplus S_2^{b-a} & \textrm{ if } a \leq b.
\end{array}\right.$$
So that $X(a,-b,-c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_1[1]},X^T_{P_2},X^T_{P_3}}$ if $b \leq a$ and in the adjacent cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_1[1]},X^T_{P_2},X^T_{S_2}}$ if $a \leq b$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(-a,b,c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_1^a, T_2^b \oplus T_3^c)$. The cone of such a generic morphism $f$ is given by~:
$${\rm{Cone}}\,(f) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
S_1^b \oplus I_2^a \oplus P_1^{c-a} & \textrm{ if } c \leq a, \\
S_1^b \oplus I_2^c \oplus P_3^{a-c}[1] & \textrm{ if } a \leq c.
\end{array}\right.$$
So that $X(-a,b,c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{S_1},X^T_{I_2},X^T_{P_1}}$ if $c \leq a$ and in the adjacent cluster $\ens{X^T_{S_1},X^T_{I_2},X^T_{P_3[1]}}$ if $a \leq c$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(a,-b,c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in ${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_2^b, T_1^a \oplus T_3^c)$. The cone of such a generic morphism $f$ is given by~:
$${\rm{Cone}}\,(f) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
P_1^c \oplus P_2^b \oplus P_3^{a-b} & \textrm{ if } b \leq a, \\
P_1^c \oplus P_2^a \oplus S_2^{b-a} & \textrm{ if } a \leq b.
\end{array}\right.$$
So that $X(a,-b,c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_1},X^T_{P_2},X^T_{P_3}}$ if $b \leq a$ and in the adjacent cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_1},X^T_{P_2},X^T_{S_2}}$ if $a \leq b$.
\subsection*{The case where $\gamma=(a,b,-c)$, with $a,b,c \geq 0$}
In this case, $X(\gamma)$ is given by the image of a generic morphism in${\rm{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(T_3^c, T_1^a \oplus T_2^b)$. The cone of such a generic morphism $f$ is given by~:
$${\rm{Cone}}\,(f) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
P_3^a \oplus P_2^c[1] \oplus S_1^{b-c} & \textrm{ if } c \leq b, \\
P_3^a \oplus P_2^b[1] \oplus P_1^{c-b}[1] & \textrm{ if } b \leq c.
\end{array}\right.$$
So that $X(a,b,-c)$ is a cluster monomial in the cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_3},X^T_{P_2[1]},X^T_{S_1}}$ if $c \leq b$ and in the adjacent cluster $\ens{X^T_{P_3},X^T_{P_2[1]},X^T_{P_1[1]}}$ if $b \leq c$.
It thus follows that $\mathcal G^T({\mathcal{C}}) = \mathcal M(Q_T,\mathbf x)$, illustrating Theorem \ref{theorem:finitetype}.
\section{Conjectures}\label{section:conjectures}
\subsection{Generic bases}
The motivation for introducing generic cluster characters is to construct ${\mathbb{Z}}$-bases in cluster algebras. Corollaries \ref{corol:basetypefini} and \ref{corol:acyclic} provide evidences for the following conjecture~:
\begin{conj}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a Hom-finite triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category such that cluster-tilting subcategories form a cluster structure. Let $T$ be a cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and assume that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has constructible cones with respect to ${\rm{add}}\, T$-morphisms. Then, $\mathcal G^T({\mathcal{C}})$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear basis in $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$.
\end{conj}
\subsection{Invariance under mutation}
We conjecture that the set of generic characters is invariant under mutations. More precisely, let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a Hom-finite triangulated 2-Calabi-Yau category such that cluster-tilting subcategories form a cluster structure. Let $T$ be a cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and let $T'$ be a cluster-tilting object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ which is reachable from $T$. Let $\mathbf x=\ens{x_1, \ldots, x_n}$ be the initial cluster in the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$ and $\mathbf x'=\ens{x_1', \ldots, x_n'}$ be the initial cluster in the cluster algebra $\mathcal A(Q_{T'},\mathbf x')$. We denote by
$$\phi : {\mathbb{Q}}(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathbb{Q}}(x_1', \ldots, x_n')$$
the isomorphism sending $x_i$ to $x_i'$ for any $i = 1, \ldots, n$. It induces an isomorphism of ${\mathbb{Z}}$-algebras between the cluster algebras $\mathcal A(Q_T,\mathbf x)$ and $\mathcal A(Q_{T'},\mathbf x')$ and this isomorphism preserves cluster monomials so that we have a commutative diagram~:
$$\xymatrix{
\mathcal M(Q_T,\mathbf x) \ar[r]^{1:1}_{\phi} \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \mathcal M(Q_{T'},\mathbf x') \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
{\mathbb{Q}}(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \ar[r]^{\sim}_{\phi} & {\mathbb{Q}}(x_1', \ldots, x_n')
}$$
We also know from Theorem \ref{theorem:clustermonomials} that the set of cluster monomials is a subset of the set of generic characters.
We actually conjecture~:
\begin{conj}
With the above notations, if ${\mathcal{C}}$ has constructible cones with respect to ${\rm{add}}\, T$-morphisms and to ${\rm{add}}\, T'$-morphisms, then the following diagram commutes~:
$$\xymatrix{
\mathcal M(Q_T,\mathbf x) \ar[r]^{1:1}_{\phi} \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \mathcal M(Q_{T'},\mathbf x') \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\mathcal G^{T}({\mathcal{C}}) \ar@{-->}[r]^{1:1}_{\phi} \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \mathcal G^{T'}({\mathcal{C}}) \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
{\mathbb{Q}}(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \ar[r]^{\sim}_{\phi} & {\mathbb{Q}}(x_1', \ldots, x_n')
}$$
\end{conj}
For instance, Theorem \ref{theorem:finitetype} proves that this conjecture holds in finite type.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This paper was written while the author was at the university of Sherbrooke as a CRM-ISM postdoctoral fellow under the supervision of Ibrahim Assem, Thomas Br\"ustle and Virginie Charette. The author would like to thank Bernhard Keller for interesting discussions on this topic. He would also like to thank an anonymous referee for his interesting suggestions and comments.
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(M,g)$ denote a closed connected orientable Riemannian manifold
of dimension $n\geq2$, with cotangent bundle $\pi:T^{*}M\rightarrow M$.
Let $\omega_{0}=d\lambda_{0}$ denote the canonical symplectic form
$dp\wedge dq$ on $T^{*}M$, where $\lambda_{0}$ is the Liouville
$1$-form. Let $\widetilde{M}$ denote the universal cover of $M$.
Let $\sigma\in\Omega^{2}(M)$ denote a closed \textbf{weakly exact}
$2$-form, by this we mean that the pullback $\widetilde{\sigma}\in\Omega^{2}(\widetilde{M})$
is exact. We assume in addition that $\widetilde{\sigma}$ admits
a \textbf{bounded} primitive. This means that there exists $\theta\in\Omega^{1}(\widetilde{M})$
with $d\theta=\widetilde{\sigma}$, and such that \[
\left\Vert \theta\right\Vert _{\infty}:=\sup_{q\in\widetilde{M}}\left|\theta_{q}\right|<\infty,
\]
where $\left|\cdot\right|$ denotes the lift of the metric $g$ to
$\widetilde{M}$. Let \[
\omega:=\omega_{0}+\pi^{*}\sigma
\]
denote the \textbf{twisted symplectic form}\emph{ }determined by
$\sigma$. We call the symplectic manifold $(T^{*}M,\omega)$ a \textbf{twisted
cotangent bundle}.\newline
Let $H_{g}:T^{*}M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ denote the standard {}``kinetic
energy'' Hamiltonian \[
H_{g}(q,p):=\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}.
\]
Given a potential $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$, we study the autonomous
Hamiltonian system defined by the convex \textbf{mechanical }Hamiltonian
$H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Let $X_{H}$ denote the symplectic gradient
of $H$ with respect to the twisted symplectic form $\omega$, and
let $\phi_{t}^{H}:T^{*}M\rightarrow T^{*}M$ denote the flow of $X_{H}$.
The flow $\phi_{t}^{H}$ has a physical interpretation as the flow
of a particle of unit mass and unit charge moving under the effect
of an electric potential and a magnetic field, the former being represented
by $U$ and the latter being represented by $\sigma$ (see for instance
\cite{ArnoldGivental1990,Ginzburg1996}). The \textbf{Lorentz force}\emph{
}$Y:TM\rightarrow TM$ of $\sigma$ is the bundle map determined uniquely
by \begin{equation}
\sigma_{q}(v,w)=\left\langle Y_{q}(v),w\right\rangle \label{eq:lorentz map}
\end{equation}
for $q\in M$ and $v,w\in T_{q}M$.\newline
Given $k\in\mathbb{R}$, we let $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)\subseteq T^{*}M$.
There are two particular {}``critical values'' $c$ and $c_{0}$
of $k$, known as the\emph{ }\textbf{Ma\~n\'e critical values}. They
are such that the dynamics of the hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ differ
dramatically depending on the relation of $k$ to these numbers. They
satisfy $c<\infty$ if and only if $\widetilde{\sigma}$ admits a
bounded primitive, and $c_{0}<\infty$ if and only if $\sigma$ is
actually exact. If $\sigma$ is exact then whilst in a lot of cases
one has $c=c_{0}$ (for instance, whenever $\pi_{1}(M)$ is \textbf{amenable}
\cite{FathiMaderna2007}), there may in general be a non-trivial interval
$[c,c_{0}]$. In fact, this latter option happens quite frequently;
see \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} for many explicit examples.\newline
Our tool for investigating the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_{k}$ is \textbf{Rabinowitz
Floer homology}, which was introduced by Cieliebak and Frauenfelder
in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}, and then extended in various
other directions by several other authors\emph{ }(\cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009,AlbersFrauenfelder2010c,CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010,AlbersFrauenfelder2010,CieliebakFrauenfelderOancea2010,AlbersFrauenfelder2010a,AlbersFrauenfelder2008,Kang2010}).
We refer the reader to the survey article \cite{AlbersFrauenfelder2010b}
for a summary of the applications Rabinowitz Floer homology has generated
so far. The present paper should be thought of as a supplement to
\cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}. Indeed, phrased in the language above,
Theorem 2 of \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009} deals with energy levels
$k>c_{0}$ (in which case $\sigma$ is then necessarily exact). In
this paper we study the weaker condition $k>c$. More precisely, we
compute the Rabinowitz Floer homology (as defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010})
for any energy level $\Sigma_{k}$ with $k>c$. These computations
are then used to answer a conjecture of Cieliebak, Frauenfelder and
Paternain \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}; namely that
for $k>c$ the hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ is never displaceable.\newline
The starting point of Rabinowitz Floer homology is to work with a
different action functional than the one normally used in Floer homology.
This functional was originally introduced by Rabinowitz \cite{Rabinowitz1978},
and has the advantage that its critical points detect periodic orbits
lying in a \textbf{fixed energy level} of the Hamiltonian. Let $\Lambda T^{*}M$
denote the free loop space of maps $x:S^{1}\rightarrow T^{*}M$ of
Sobolev class $W^{1,2}$. Note that elements of $\Lambda T^{*}M$
are continuous. Given a free homotopy class $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$,
let $\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M$ denote the component of $\Lambda T^{*}M$
of loops whose projection to $M$ belong to $\alpha$. Fix a potential
$U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$ and put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Fix
a regular energy value $k\in\mathbb{R}$ of $H$, and set $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$.
In order to introduce the Rabinowitz action functional, we begin by
considering the $1$-form $a_{H-k}\in\Omega^{1}(\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R})$
defined for $(x,\eta)\in\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$ and $(\xi,b)\in T_{(x,\eta)}(\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R})$
by \[
(a_{H-k})_{(x,\eta)}(\xi,b):=\int_{S^{1}}\omega(\xi,\dot{x}-\eta X_{H}(x))dt-b\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt.
\]
The assumption that $\sigma$ is weakly exact implies the symplectic
form $\omega$ is \textbf{symplectically aspherical}, that is, given
any smooth function $f:S^{2}\rightarrow T^{*}M$ it holds that \[
\int_{S^{2}}f^{*}\omega=0.
\]
This implies that $a_{H-k}$ is exact on $\Lambda_{0}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$,
where $\Lambda_{0}T^{*}M\subseteq\Lambda T^{*}M$ denotes the component
of $\Lambda T^{*}M$ of loops whose projection to $M$ is contractible.
That is, there exists a function $A_{H-k}:\Lambda_{0}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
called the \textbf{Rabinowitz action functional}\emph{ }with the property
that \[
a_{H-k}|_{\Lambda_{0}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}}=dA_{H-k}.
\]
The functional $A_{H-k}$ is defined by \[
A_{H-k}(x,\eta):=\int_{D^{2}}\bar{x}^{*}\omega-\eta\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt,
\]
where $\bar{x}\in C^{0}(D^{2},T^{*}M)\cap W^{1,2}(D^{2},T^{*}M)$
is any map such that $\bar{x}|_{\partial D^{2}}=x$. The symplectic
asphericity condition implies that the value of $\int_{D^{2}}\bar{x}^{*}\omega$
is independent of the choice of filling disc $\bar{x}$. Our first
observation is that the additional assumption that the lift $\widetilde{\sigma}$
of $\sigma$ to $\widetilde{M}$ admits a \textbf{bounded}\emph{ }primitive
implies that the symplectic form $\omega$ is \textbf{symplectically
atoroidal}, that is, given any smooth function $f:\mathbb{T}^{2}\rightarrow T^{*}M$
it holds that \[
\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}}f^{*}\omega=0
\]
(see Lemma \ref{lem:key observation}). In this case $a_{H-k}$ is
actually exact on all of $\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$. Indeed,
for each $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$, fix a reference loop $x_{\alpha}\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M$.
Let $C:=S^{1}\times[0,1]$. Let $\bar{x}\in C^{0}(C,T^{*}M)\cap W^{1,2}(C,T^{*}M)$
denote any map such that $\bar{x}(\cdot,0)=x$ and $\bar{x}(\cdot,1)=x_{\alpha}$.
Since $\omega$ is symplectically atoroidal, the value of $\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega$
is independent of the choice of $\bar{x}$. Thus we may define $A_{H-k}:\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by \[
A_{H-k}(x,\eta):=\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega-\eta\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt,
\]
so that \[
a_{H-k}=dA_{H-k}.
\]
The critical points of $A_{H-k}$ are easily seen to satisfy:\[
\dot{x}=\eta X_{H}(x(t))\ \ \ \mbox{for all }t\in S^{1};
\]
\[
\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt=0.
\]
Since $H$ is invariant under its Hamiltonian flow, the second equation
implies \[
H(x(t))-k=0\ \ \ \mbox{for all }t\in S^{1},
\]
that is, \[
x(S^{1})\subseteq\Sigma_{k}.
\]
Thus if $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ denotes the set of critical points
of $A_{H-k}$, we can characterize $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ by\begin{eqnarray*}
\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k}) & = & \left\{ (x,\eta)\in\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}\,:\, x\in C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\right.\\
& & \left.\ \ \ \dot{x}(t)=\eta X_{H}^{\sigma}(x(t)),\ x(S^{1})\subseteq\Sigma_{k}\right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
For a generic choice of the metric $g$, the set $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$
consists of a copy of the hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ (corresponding
to the constant loops with $\eta=0$) and a discrete union of circles.\newline
On the Lagrangian side we can play a similar game. Let $L_{g}:TM\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
denote the standard {}``kinetic energy'' Lagrangian defined by $L_{g}(q,v):=\frac{1}{2}\left|v\right|^{2}$,
and given $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$ consider the Lagrangian
$L:=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$ (here we denote also by $\pi$ the footpoint
map $TM\rightarrow M$). The Lagrangian $L$ is the \textbf{Fenchel
transform }of the Hamiltonian $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ from above. Let
$q_{\alpha}:=\pi\circ x_{\alpha}$, so that $q_{\alpha}$ is an element
of the component $\Lambda_{\alpha}M$ corresponding to $\alpha$ of
the free loop space $\Lambda M$. Given any $q\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M$,
let $\bar{q}\in C^{0}(C,M)\cap W^{1,2}(C,M)$ denote any map such
that $\bar{q}(\cdot,0)=q$ and $\bar{q}(\cdot,1)=q_{\alpha}$ (where
$C=S^{1}\times[0,1]$ is as above). Then we define the \textbf{free
time action functional}\emph{ }$S_{L+k}:\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by \[
S_{L+k}(q,T):=T\int_{S^{1}}\left(L\left(q(t),\frac{\dot{q}(t)}{T}\right)+k\right)dt+\int_{C}\bar{q}^{*}\sigma.
\]
If $\sigma$ is exact, this reduces to the definition of the standard
free time action functional studied in \cite{ContrerasIturriagaPaternainPaternain2000,Contreras2006}
(up to a constant).
If $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ denotes the set of critical points of $S_{L+k}$,
then if $g$ is chosen genericaly the set $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$
consists of a discrete union of circles. If $L=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$ and
$H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ then there is a close relationship between critical
points of $S_{L+k}$ and critical points of $A_{H-k}$. Namely, each
critical point $w=(q,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ determines two critical
points $Z^{\pm}(w)=(x^{\pm},\pm T)$ of $A_{H-k}$. Here $x^{+}(t):=(q(t),\dot{q}(t))$
(where we have identified $TM$ with $T^{*}M$ via the Riemannian
metric to see $\dot{q}(t)$ as an element of $T_{q(t)}^{*}M$) and
$x^{-}(t):=x^{+}(-t)$. Then we have \[
\{Z^{\pm}(w)\,:\, w\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})\}=\left\{ (x,\eta)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\,:\,\eta\ne0\right\} .
\]
The {}``extra'' critical points $(x,0)$ of $A_{H-k}$ correspond
to the so-called \textbf{critical points at infinity} of $S_{L+k}$,
in the sense of Bahri \cite{Bahri1989}. Following \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009},
this motivates us to extend $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ to a new set \[
\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k}):=\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})\cup\{(q,0)\,:q\in M\}.
\]
For $k>c$, it turns out that one can do Morse theory with $S_{L+k}$.
More precisely, after picking a Morse function $f:\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,
one can combine Frauenfelder's \textbf{Morse-Bott homology with cascades}\emph{
}\cite[Appendix A]{Frauenfelder2004} with Abbondandolo and Majer's
infinite dimensional Morse theory \cite{AbbondandoloMajer2006} to
construct a chain complex $CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f)$ and a cochain complex
$CM^{*}(S_{L+k},f)$ whose associated \textbf{Morse (co)homology}\emph{
}$HM_{*}(S_{L+k},f)$ and $HM^{*}(S_{L+k},f)$ coincide with the singular
(co)homology of $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$.\newline
The fact that there is such a strong relation between the critical
points of $S_{L+k}$ and $A_{H-k}$ means that one is tempted to try
and relate the Morse (co)homology of $S_{L+k}$ with the Rabinowitz
Floer homology of $A_{H-k}$. This is precisely what Abbondandolo
and Schwarz did, and in \cite[Theorem 2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}
they construct (for $k>c_{0}$) a short exact sequence of chain complexes\begin{equation}
0\rightarrow CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f)\rightarrow RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h)\rightarrow CM^{1-*}(S_{L+k},-f)\rightarrow0.\label{eq:ses}
\end{equation}
Here $h:\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ denotes a Morse
function on $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ and $RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h)$ denotes
the Rabinowitz Floer chain complex of the pair $(A_{H-k},h)$. We
remark here that the Morse functions $f$ and $h$ must be related
to each other in a fairly special way in order for such a short exact
sequence to hold. Anyway, passing to the long exact sequence associated
to this short exact of chain complexes and making the identification
of the Morse (co)homology with the singular (co)homology of the loop
space, this provides a way of computing the Rabinowitz Floer homology
$RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$. Actually it must be said that this long exact
sequence is a special case of a more general construction of Cieliebak,
Frauenfelder and Oancea \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderOancea2010}, which
links Rabinowitz Floer homology with symplectic homology.\newline
The aim of this paper is to show how the sequence \eqref{eq:ses}
can be extended to the weaker case of $k>c$. In order to keep our
exposition from being unnecessarily long, we only provide full details
where there are substantial differences from \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}.
Let us now summarize exactly what we do differently. On the Lagrangian
side, more work must be done in order to define the Morse (co)complex;
the key problem is to show that the Palais-Smale condition holds,
which was shown in our previous work \cite{Merry2010}. On the Hamiltonian
side, we work directly with the Hamiltonians $H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ that
define the energy level $\Sigma_{k}$. This means that we cannot use
the $L^{\infty}$ estimates on gradient flow lines of $A_{H-k}$ previously
obtained in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009,AbbondandoloSchwarz2009,CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010,CieliebakFrauenfelderOancea2010}.
Instead, we adapt the method of Abbondandolo and Schwarz in \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}
to obtain our $L^{\infty}$ bounds. In fact, we are only able to obtain
these $L^{\infty}$ bounds if we make an \textbf{additional }assumption
on $\sigma$, namely that $\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}$
is sufficiently small (cf. Remark \ref{rem:shrinking sigma}; specifically
\eqref{eq:epsilon 2}) . However, a scaling argument, combined with
invariance of the Rabinowitz Floer homology defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
(see below) implies this is in fact \textbf{no} extra restriction
at all.\newline
A further difference is the question of grading; since we are working
with the twisted symplectic form $\omega$, results such as Duistermaat's
\textbf{Morse index theorem} \cite{Duistermaat1976} are not immediately
available to us. Secondly the Hamiltonian $H$ is no longer a \textbf{defining
Hamiltonian }(in the sense of \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}).
This makes the computation of the Fredholm index of the operator obtained
by linearizing the gradient of the Rabinowitz action functional along
a flow line somewhat more complicated. Moreover unlike the corresponding
situation in \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}, the relationship between
the Morse index of the fixed period action functional and the free
time action functional is not so clear (cf. Theorem \ref{thm:lag index}
and Remark \ref{rem:Index jumping on the morse side}). Full details
of these index computations can be found in a supplementary paper
joint with Gabriel P. Paternain \cite{MerryPaternain2010}.\newline
Anyway, having proved such a short exact sequence \eqref{eq:ses},
it is then clear that the Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$
is non-zero whenever $k>c$. A key property of the Rabinowitz Floer
homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma,V)$ constructed in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010},
which is associated to a hypersurface $\Sigma$ of \textbf{virtual
restricted contact type} in a \textbf{geometrically bounded symplectically
aspherical} symplectic manifold $V$, is that if the hypersurface
is displaceable then $RFH_{*}(\Sigma,V)$ vanishes. Assuming that
our Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ is the same as the
Rabinowitz Floer homolog
\footnote{The hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ is virtually contact if $k>c$ \cite[Lemma 5.1]{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010},
so $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ as defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
is well defined
} $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ from \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010},
this would imply that $\Sigma_{k}$ is never displaceable for $k>c$.
In Section \ref{sec:Non-displaceability-above-the} we prove that
the two Rabinowitz Floer homologies are indeed isomorphic, and thus
we arrive at the main result of this paper.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:my main theorem}Let $(M,g)$ be a closed connected orientable
Riemannian manifold and $\sigma\in\Omega^{2}(M)$ be a closed weakly
exact $2$-form. Let $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$ and put $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$
and $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$. Then if $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$ the Rabinowitz
Floer homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ of \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
is defined and non-zero. In particular, $\Sigma_{k}$ is not displaceable.\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
An alternative proof of Theorem \ref{thm:my main theorem} is given
by Bae and Frauenfelder in \cite{BaeFrauenfelder2010}. Their idea
is to show directly that the Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;\omega)$
as defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} (where we
temporarily add {}``$\omega$'' to the notation to indicate which
symplectic form we are working with) is independent under certain
perturbations of $\omega$. Using this, they prove that $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;\omega)\cong RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;\omega_{0})$,
from which they can deduce Theorem \ref{thm:my main theorem} from
the corresponding results in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderOancea2010,AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}.
See also Remark \ref{rem:inv under g} below.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:stably displaceable remark}In fact, Theorem \ref{thm:my main theorem}
proves that for $k>c$ the hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ is never \textbf{\emph{stably
displaceable}}. The concept of being stably displaceable is useful
when the Euler characteristic $\chi(M)$ is non-zero. Indeed, when
$\chi(M)\ne0$, $\Sigma_{k}$ is never displaceable for topological
reasons. However, it may be stably displaceable. To define stably
displaceability, one considers the symplectic manifold $(T^{*}M\times T^{*}S^{1},\omega\oplus\omega_{S^{1}})$,
where $\omega_{S^{1}}$ is the standard symplectic form on $T^{*}S^{1}$
(note that $\chi(M\times S^{1})=0$). If $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ is a
mechanical Hamiltonian on $T^{*}M$, consider the new Hamiltonian
$\widehat{H}:T^{*}(M\times S^{1})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ defined by
\begin{align*}
\widehat{H}(q,p,t,p_{t}): & =H(q,p)+\frac{1}{2}\left|p_{t}\right|^{2}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ p\in T_{q}^{*}M,\ p_{t}\in T_{t}^{*}S^{1}\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}+U(q)+\frac{1}{2}\left|p_{t}\right|^{2}.
\end{align*}
Let $\widehat{\Sigma}_{k}:=\widehat{H}^{-1}(k)$. Then by definition
$\Sigma_{k}$ is stably displaceable if $\widehat{\Sigma}_{k}$ is
displaceable. In order to see why our theorem implies that $\Sigma_{k}$
is never stably displaceable for $k>c$, one uses the following observation
of Macarini and Paternain \cite[Lemma 2.2]{MacariniPaternain2010}:
if $c$ denotes the Ma\~n\'e critical value of $H$ and $\widehat{c}$
denotes the Ma\~n\'e critical value of $\widehat{H}$ the
\footnote{Actually \cite[Lemma 2.2]{MacariniPaternain2010} works with the strict
Ma\~n\'e critical values $c_{0}$ and $\widehat{c}_{0}$, but exactly
the same proof (working on $\tilde{M}$ instead of $M$) shows that
$c=\widehat{c}$
} $\widehat{c}=c$. Thus if $k>c$ then also $k>\widehat{c}$, and
so applying Theorem \ref{thm:my main theorem} to $\widehat{\Sigma}_{k}$
we see that $\widehat{\Sigma}_{k}$ is not displaceable, and hence
$\Sigma_{k}$ is not stably displaceable.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:remark on cfp rfh}Strictly speaking, the Rabinowitz Floer
homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ as defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
is only defined for contractible loops, as the observation that the
twisted symplectic form $\omega$ is symplectically atoroidal was
not used in that paper. However, if one uses this observation, the
construction in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} allows
one to define $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ for any free homotopy
class of loops. The proof given in Section \ref{sec:Non-displaceability-above-the}
shows that our $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ agrees with this Rabinowitz Floer
homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ (in any free homotopy class).
The reader however may prefer to read Section \ref{sec:Non-displaceability-above-the}
as if we were only working with contractible loops (which is sufficient
for the non-displaceability application we have in mind).
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
In \cite{Merry2010b} we compute the \textbf{\emph{Lagrangian Rabinowitz
Floer homology }}of the hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$, where for the
Lagrangian submanifolds of $T^{*}M$ involved we take two cotangent
fibres $T_{q_{0}}^{*}M$ and $T_{q_{1}}^{*}M$ (where possibly $q_{0}=q_{1}$).
We show that a similar short exact sequence to \eqref{eq:ses} exists
between the Lagrangian Rabinowitz Floer homology \[
RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T_{q_{0}}^{*}M,T_{q_{1}}^{*}M,T^{*}M)
\]
and the Morse (co)homology of the free time action functional, this
time defined on the \textbf{\emph{path space }}$\Omega(M,q_{0},q_{1})$
of paths in $M$ from $q_{0}$ to $q_{1}$.
\end{rem}
Having proved that for $k>c$ the Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$
is non-zero, one can prove a much stronger statement than non-displaceability,
which we will now explain. Let $\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$ denote
the set of compactly supported Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of the
symplectic manifold $(T^{*}M,\omega)$, that is \[
\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega):=\left\{ \phi_{1}^{F}\,:\, F\in C_{c}^{\infty}(S^{1}\times T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})\right\} ,
\]
where $\phi_{t}^{F}$ is the flow of $X_{F}$; the latter being the
time-dependent symplectic gradient of $F$ with respect to $\omega$.
Fix $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ and put $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$. Given $x\in\Sigma_{k}$,
let us write $\mathcal{L}_{x}$ for the leaf of the characteristic
foliation of $\Sigma_{k}$ passing through $x$, that is,\[
\mathcal{L}_{x}:=\{\phi_{t}^{H}(x)\,:\, t\in\mathbb{R}\},
\]
so that $\Sigma_{k}$ is foliated by the leaves $\{\mathcal{L}_{x}\,:\, x\in\Sigma_{k}\}$.
Given $\psi\in\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$, a point $x\in\Sigma_{k}$
is called a \textbf{leaf-wise intersection point for $\psi$}\emph{
}if $\psi(x)\in\mathcal{L}_{x}$. By following through the proofs
in \cite{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c,AlbersFrauenfelder2008} we can prove
the following result.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Leafwise}Let $(M,g)$ be a closed connected orientable
Riemannian manifold and $\sigma\in\Omega^{2}(M)$ be a closed weakly
exact $2$-form. Let $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$ and put $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$.
Choose $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$ and put $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$. Then for
any $\psi\in\mbox{\emph{Ham}}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$ there exists a
leaf-wise intersection point for $\psi$ in $\Sigma_{k}$. Moreover,
if $\dim\, H_{*}(\Lambda M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\infty$ and $g$ is chosen
generically, then for a generic $\psi\in\mbox{\emph{Ham}}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$
there exist infinitely many leaf-wise intersection points for $\psi$
in $\Sigma_{k}$.
\end{thm}
We conclude this introduction with a remark about how the results
of this paper extend to more general Hamiltonian systems.
\begin{rem}
In fact, all of the results in the present paper are valid under more
general hypotheses, as we now explain. Recall that an autonomous Hamiltonian
$K\in C^{\infty}(T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})$ is called \textbf{\emph{Tonelli}}
if $K$ is \textbf{\emph{fibrewise strictly convex}}\textbf{ }and
\textbf{\emph{superlinear}}. In other words, the second differential
$d^{2}(K|_{T_{q}^{*}M})$ of $K$ restricted to each tangent space
$T_{q}^{*}M$ is positive definite, and \[
\lim_{\left|p\right|\rightarrow\infty}\frac{K(q,p)}{\left|p\right|}=\infty
\]
uniformly for $q\in M$. As with mechanical Hamiltonians, given a
Tonelli Hamiltonian $K$ and a weakly exact $2$-form $\sigma$, there
exists a critical value $c(K,\sigma)$ called the \textbf{\emph{Ma\~n\'e
critical value}}\emph{. }As before, $c(K,\sigma)<\infty$ if and only
if $\widetilde{\sigma}$ admits a bounded primitive. Let us say that
a closed connected orientable hypersurface $\Sigma\subseteq T^{*}M$
is a \textbf{\emph{Ma\~n\'e supercritical hypersurface}}\textbf{
}if there exists a Tonelli Hamiltonian $K$ such that $\Sigma=K^{-1}(k)$
for some $k>c(K,\sigma)$.
Both Theorem \ref{thm:my main theorem} and Theorem \ref{thm:Leafwise}
extend to Ma\~n\'e supercritical hypersurfaces. Namely: the Rabinowitz
Floer homology of any Ma\~n\'e supercritical hypersurface is defined
and non-zero. In particular, Ma\~n\'e supercritical hypersurfaces
are never displaceable. Secondly, given any Ma\~n\'e supercritical
hypersurface $\Sigma$ and any $\psi\in\mbox{\emph{Ham}}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$
there exists a leaf-wise intersection point for $\psi$ in $\Sigma$.
Moreover, if $\dim\, H_{*}(\Lambda M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\infty$ and
$\Sigma$ is non-degenerate (which holds generically), then for a
generic $\psi\in\mbox{\emph{Ham}}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$ there exist
infinitely many leaf-wise intersection points for $\psi$ in $\Sigma$.
More details about these results can be found in \cite{Merry2011}.
\end{rem}
\emph{Acknowledgments. }I would like to thank my Ph.D. adviser Gabriel
P. Paternain for many helpful discussions. I am also extremely grateful
to Alberto Abbondandolo, Peter Albers and Urs Frauenfelder for several
stimulating remarks and insightful suggestions, and for pointing out
errors in previous drafts of this work.
\section{Preliminaries}
We denote by $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ the extended real line $\overline{\mathbb{R}}:=\mathbb{R}\cup\{\pm\infty\}$,
with the differentiable structure induced by the bijection $[-\pi/2,\pi/2]\rightarrow\overline{\mathbb{R}}$
given by \[
s\mapsto\begin{cases}
\tan s & s\in(-\pi/2,\pi/2)\\
\pm\infty & s=\pm\pi/2.
\end{cases}
\]
We denote by $\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}_{0}^{+}$ the spaces $(0,\infty)$
and $[0,\infty)$, with similar conventions for $\mathbb{R}^{-},\mathbb{R}_{0}^{-}$.
We will often identify $S^{1}$ with $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$. We
adopt throughout the convenient convention that any manifold asserted
to have negative dimension is in fact, empty. Another convention we
use throughout is: given a function $f(s,t)$ of two variables $s,t$
(usually $(s,t)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}$) we let $f':=\partial_{s}f$
and $\dot{f}:=\partial_{t}f$. Throughout the paper we will freely
and ambiguously use the isometry $TM\cong T^{*}M,\, v\mapsto\left\langle v,\cdot\right\rangle $,
determined by the Riemannian metric $g$, to identify points in $T_{q}M$
with points in $T_{q}^{*}M$.
\textbf{All the sign conventions used in this paper match those of
\cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}}.
\subsection{The loop spaces}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Let $W^{1,2}([0,1],M)$ denote the Hilbert manifold of paths $q:[0,1]\rightarrow M$
of Sobolev class $W^{1,2}$. Note that elements of $W^{1,2}([0,1],M)$
are continuous. Let $\Lambda M$ denote the submanifold consisting
of loops $q:S^{1}\rightarrow M$ of Sobolev class $W^{1,2}$. Note
that $\Lambda M$ is homotopy equivalent to both $C^{0}(S^{1},M)$
and $C^{\infty}(S^{1},M)$. We can identify $T_{q}\Lambda M$ with
$W^{1,2}(S^{1},q^{*}TM)$, that is, the sections $\zeta:S^{1}\rightarrow q^{*}TM$
of class $W^{1,2}$. Given a free homotopy class $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$,
let $\Lambda_{\alpha}M\subseteq\Lambda M$ denote the connected component
of $\Lambda M$ consisting of the loops $q\in\Lambda M$ belonging
to the free homotopy class $\alpha$. Given $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$,
we write $-\alpha$ for the free homotopy class that contains the
loops $q^{-}(t):=q(-t)$ for $q\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M$.
Similarly we let $W^{1,2}([0,1],T^{*}M)$ denote the Hilbert manifold
of paths $x:[0,1]\rightarrow T^{*}M$ of Sobolev class $W^{1,2}$.
Note that elements of $W^{1,2}([0,1],T^{*}M)$ are continuous. Denote
by $\Lambda T^{*}M$ the submanifold of loops $x:S^{1}\rightarrow T^{*}M$
of Sobolev class $W^{1,2}$. Note that $\Lambda T^{*}M$ is homotopy
equivalent to both $C^{0}(S^{1},T^{*}M)$ and $C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)$.
The tangent space $T_{x}\Lambda T^{*}M$ can be identified with $W^{1,2}(S^{1},x^{*}T^{*}M)$,
that is, the sections $\xi:S^{1}\rightarrow x^{*}TT^{*}M$ of class
$W^{1,2}$. Given $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$, we let $\Lambda_{\alpha}TM$
denote the set of loops $x\in\Lambda T^{*}M$ whose projection $\pi\circ x$
lies in $\Lambda_{\alpha}M$.\newline
Using the metric $g=\left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle $ on $M$
we obtain a metric $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}$$ $on
$\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ via \begin{equation}
\left\langle \left\langle (\zeta,b),(\vartheta,e)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}:=\int_{S^{1}}\left\{ \left\langle \zeta,\vartheta\right\rangle +\left\langle \nabla_{t}\zeta,\nabla_{t}\vartheta\right\rangle \right\} dt+be,\label{eq:the metric on the loop space}
\end{equation}
where $\nabla$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of $(M,g)$.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ denote the space of $1$-periodic almost complex
structures on $T^{*}M$ with finite $L^{\infty}$ norm, and equip
$\mathcal{J}$ with the $L^{\infty}$ norm. The metric $g$ determines
a special autonomous almost complex structure $J_{g}\in\mathcal{J}$
called the \textbf{metric almost complex structure}. To define the
metric almost complex structure, we first recall that the metric $g$
determines a direct summand $T^{h}T^{*}M$ of the vertical tangent
bundle $T^{v}T^{*}M:=\ker\, d\pi$, together with an isomorphism \[
T_{x}T^{*}M=T_{x}^{h}T^{*}M\oplus T_{x}^{v}T^{*}M\cong T_{q}M\oplus T_{q}^{*}M,\ \ \ x=(q,p)\in T^{*}M.
\]
The metric almost complex structure $J_{g}$ is defined in terms of
this splitting by \begin{equation}
J_{g}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\mathbb{1}\\
\mathbb{1} & 0
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:metric acs}
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{J}(\omega)$ denote the space of 1-periodic almost complex
structures on $T^{*}M$ that are $\omega$-compatible and satisfy
$\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}<\infty$. In general $J_{g}\notin\mathcal{J}(\omega)$.
However if $B_{r}(J_{g})$ denotes the open ball of radius $r>0$
about the metric almost complex structure $J_{g}$ in $\mathcal{J}$
then \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Lu1996} implies that there exists a constant
$\varepsilon_{0}=\varepsilon_{0}(g)>0$ (which depends continuously
on $g$) such that if $r>\varepsilon_{0}\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}$
the
\footnote{In fact, \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Lu1996} shows that for $r>\varepsilon_{0}\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}$
we may even find\textbf{ }geometrically bounded almost complex structures
in $\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{r}(J_{g})$; see Remark \ref{rem:geometrically bounded}
} \begin{equation}
\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{r}(J_{g})\ne\emptyset\ \ \ \mbox{if }r>\varepsilon_{0}\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}.\label{eq:ball not empty}
\end{equation}
This will be important in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity};
see also Remark \ref{rem:shrinking sigma}. Given $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)$
we obtain a 1-periodic Riemannian metric $\left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle _{J}=\omega(J\cdot,\cdot)$
on $T^{*}M$. We will write $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{J}$
for the $L^{2}$-metric on $\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$ defined
by \begin{equation}
\left\langle \left\langle (\xi,b),(\rho,e)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{J}:=\int_{S^{1}}\left\langle \xi,\rho\right\rangle _{J}+be.\label{eq:the metric Jsigma}
\end{equation}
Finally let us remark that the first Chern class $c_{1}(T^{*}M,J)=0$
for any $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)$; one way to see this is that the
twisted symplectic manifold $(T^{*}M,\omega)$ admits a Lagrangian
distribution $T^{v}T^{*}M$ (see for example \cite[Example 2.10]{Seidel2000}).
\subsection{Ma\~n\'e's critical values}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
We now recall the definition of the two critical values $c$ and $c_{0}$
associated to the triple $(g,\sigma,U)$, introduced by Ma\~n\'e
in \cite{Mane1996}, which play a decisive role in all that follows.
General references for the results stated below are \cite[Proposition 2-1.1]{ContrerasIturriaga1999}
or \cite[Appendix A]{BurnsPaternain2002}.
Fix $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$, and let $H:T^{*}M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
be defined by $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Given $k\in\mathbb{R}$, let $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$.
Define the \textbf{Ma\~n\'e critical value}\emph{ }associated to
the metric $g$, the weakly exact $2$-form $\sigma$ and the potential
$U$ by:\emph{ }\begin{equation}
c=c(g,\sigma,U):=\inf_{\theta}\sup_{q\in\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{H}(q,\theta_{q}),\label{eq:manc}
\end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all $1$-forms $\theta$ on $\widetilde{M}$
with $d\theta=\widetilde{\sigma}$, and $\widetilde{H}$ is the lift
of $H$ to $T^{*}\widetilde{M}$. Thus $c(g,\sigma,U)<\infty$ if
and only if $\widetilde{\sigma}$ admits a bounded primitive.
If $\sigma$ is exact, define the \textbf{strict Ma}\~n\'e\textbf{
critical value}\emph{ $c_{0}=c_{0}(g,\sigma,U)$ }by \begin{equation}
c_{0}=c_{0}(g,\sigma,U):=\inf_{\theta}\sup_{q\in M}H(q,\theta_{q})<\infty,\label{eq:mansc}
\end{equation}
that is, the same definition only working directly on $T^{*}M$ rather
than lifting to $T^{*}\widetilde{M}$. If $\sigma$ is not exact,
set $c_{0}(g,\sigma,U):=\infty$. Note in all cases we have \[
c\leq c_{0}\leq\infty.
\]
The critical value can also be defined in Lagrangian terms. Let $L:=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$
denote the Fenchel dual Lagrangian to $H$, and let $\widetilde{L}$
denote the lift of $L$ to $T\widetilde{M}$. Fix a primitive $\theta$
of $\widetilde{\sigma}$, and think of $\theta$ as a smooth function
on $T\widetilde{M}$. Now consider the Lagrangian $\widetilde{L}+\theta$.
The \textbf{action}\emph{ }$\mathbb{A}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta}(\gamma)$
on an absolutely continuous curve $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow\widetilde{M}$
is defined by \[
\mathbb{A}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta}(\gamma):=\int_{a}^{b}(\widetilde{L}+\theta)(\gamma(t),\dot{\gamma}(t))dt=\int_{a}^{b}\widetilde{L}(\gamma(t),\dot{\gamma}(t))+\theta_{\gamma(t)}(\dot{\gamma}(t))dt,
\]
and an alternative definition of $c$ is the following:\[
c:=\inf\left\{ k\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\mathbb{A}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}(\gamma)\geq0\ \forall\mbox{ a.c. closed curves defined on }[0,T],\,\forall T\in\mathbb{R}\right\} .
\]
If $\sigma$ is exact then we can pick a primitive $\theta$ of $\sigma$
and consider the same definition on $TM$. In this case we have: \[
c:=\inf\left\{ k\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\mathbb{A}_{L+\theta+k}(\gamma)\geq0\ \forall\mbox{ a.c. closed homotopically trivial curves defined on }[0,T],\,\forall T\in\mathbb{R}\right\} ;
\]
\[
c_{0}:=\inf\left\{ k\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\mathbb{A}_{L+\theta+k}(\gamma)\geq0\ \forall\mbox{ a.c. closed homologically trivial curves defined on }[0,T],\,\forall T\in\mathbb{R}\right\} .
\]
It is immediate from \eqref{eq:mansc} that\begin{equation}
c(g,\sigma,U)\geq\max_{q\in M}U(q).\label{eq:c ge e}
\end{equation}
Let us also denote by\[
e_{0}=e_{0}(g,\sigma,U):=\inf\left\{ k\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\pi(\Sigma_{k})=M\right\} .
\]
For $k>e_{0}$ the intersection of $\Sigma_{k}$ with any fibre $T_{q}^{*}M$
is diffeomorphic to a sphere $S^{n-1}$. We always have $c\geq e_{0}$,
and in a lot of cases the strict inequality $c>e_{0}$ holds (see
\cite[Theorem 1.3]{PaternainPaternain1997a}). In all cases if $k>c$
then $k$ is necessarily a regular value of $H$.\newline
Denote by $\mathcal{R}(M)$ the set of all (smooth) Riemannian metrics
$g$ on $M$, and denote by $\Omega_{\textrm{we}}^{2}(M)$ the set
of closed weakly exact 2-forms on $M$.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:the set Uk}Denote by \[
\mathcal{O}\subseteq\mathcal{R}(M)\times\Omega_{\textrm{\emph{we}}}^{2}(M)\times C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})\times\mathbb{R}
\]
the set of quadruples $(g,\sigma,U,k)$ such that \[
k>c(g,\sigma,U).
\]
\end{defn}
It will be important later on to know how the critical value scales
when we scale $\sigma$. Specifically, let us note the following lemma,
whose proof is immediate from \eqref{eq:manc} and \eqref{eq:mansc}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:scaling c}Given $s\in[0,1]$ it holds that \[
c(g,s\sigma,s^{2}U)=s^{2}c(g,\sigma,U);
\]
\[
c_{0}(g,s\sigma,s^{2}U)=s^{2}c(g,\sigma,U).
\]
\end{lem}
\subsection{\label{sub:The-crucial-observation}Symplectic atoroidality}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
We remind the reader that $\sigma\in\Omega^{2}(M)$ is a weakly exact
$2$-form whose pullback $\widetilde{\sigma}\in\Omega^{2}(\widetilde{M})$
admits a bounded primitive $\theta$. In this subsection we state
and prove the key observation mentioned in the introduction that implies
that the symplectic form $\omega$ is symplectically atoroidal. A
similar idea appeared in Niche \cite{Niche2006}, although there the
additional assumption was made that $M$ admits a metric of negative
curvature. Here we require only the weaker assumption that $\widetilde{\sigma}$
is weakly exact and admits a bounded primitiv
\footnote{This really is a weaker assumption; if $M$ admits a metric of negative
curvature then any closed $2$-form in $M$ has bounded primitives
in $\widetilde{M}$ \cite{Gromov1991}, whilst the converse is clearly
not true
}.\newline
The key lemma we use is the following, which originally appeared in
\cite[Lemma 2.2]{Merry2010}. In the statement, $\mathbb{T}^{2}$
denotes the $2$-torus.
\begin{lem}
\emph{\label{lem:key observation}}For any smooth map $f:\mathbb{T}^{2}\rightarrow M$,
$f^{*}\sigma$ is exact.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider $G:=f_{*}(\pi_{1}(\mathbb{T}^{2}))\leq\pi_{1}(M).$ Then
$G$ is amenable, since $\pi_{1}(\mathbb{T}^{2})=\mathbb{Z}^{2}$,
which is amenable. Then \cite[Lemma 5.3]{Paternain2006} tells us
that since $\left\Vert \theta\right\Vert _{\infty}<\infty$ we can
replace $\theta$ by a $G$-invariant primitive $\theta'$ of $\widetilde{\sigma}$,
which descends to define a primitive $\theta''\in\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{2})$
of $f^{*}\sigma$.
\end{proof}
Given a free homotopy class $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$, fix a reference
loop $x_{\alpha}=(q_{\alpha},p_{\alpha})\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M$.
It will be convenient to insist that $x_{-\alpha}(t)=x_{\alpha}(-t)$,
and that $x_{0}$ has image in one fibre, that is, $q_{0}$ is constant.
Let $C:=S^{1}\times[0,1]$. Let $\bar{x}\in C^{0}(C,T^{*}M)\cap W^{1,2}(C,T^{*}M)$
denote any map such that $\bar{x}(\cdot,0)=x$ and $\bar{x}(\cdot,1)=x_{\alpha}$.
Then thanks to the previous lemma the integral $\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\pi^{*}\sigma$
is is independent of the choice of $\bar{x}$. Similarly given any
$q\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M$, let $\bar{q}\in C^{0}(C,M)\cap W^{1,2}(C,M)$
denote any map such that $\bar{q}(\cdot,0)=q$ and $\bar{q}(\cdot,1)=q_{\alpha}$.
Then the integral $\int_{C}\bar{q}^{*}\sigma$ is independent of the
choice of $\bar{q}$. Note that in particular if $q=\pi\circ x$ then\begin{equation}
\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\pi^{*}\sigma=\int_{C}\bar{q}^{*}\sigma,\label{eq:czequalscx}
\end{equation}
and hence, recalling that $\lambda_{0}=pdq$ is the Liouville $1$-form
on $T^{*}M$, it holds that\begin{equation}
\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega=\int_{S^{1}}x^{*}\lambda_{0}+\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\pi^{*}\sigma=\int_{S^{1}}x^{*}\lambda_{0}+\int_{C}\bar{q}^{*}\sigma.\label{eq:liouville 1 form and c}
\end{equation}
\section{The free time action functional}
\subsection{The definition of $S_{L+k}$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
The first functional we work with is defined on $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$.
Given a potential $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$ and $k\in\mathbb{R}$
let \[
L(q,v):=\frac{1}{2}\left|v\right|^{2}-U(q)
\]
and define the \textbf{free time action functional}\emph{ }$S_{L+k}:\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by\emph{ }\[
S_{L+k}(q,T):=T\int_{S^{1}}\left(L\left(q(t),\frac{\dot{q}(t)}{T}\right)+k\right)dt+\int_{C}\bar{q}^{*}\sigma.
\]
This is well defined by the observations in the previous section.
Moreover $S_{L+k}\in C^{2}(\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R})$;
see \cite[p195]{Merry2010}. Let $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ denote the
set of critical points of $S_{L+k}$, and given $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$,
let $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k};\alpha)$ denote $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})\cap(\Lambda_{\alpha}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+})$.
Given an interval $(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, denote by $\mbox{Crit}^{(a,b)}(S_{L+k})$
the set $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})\cap S_{L+k}^{-1}((a,b))$. This functional
was introduced in \cite{Merry2010}, and is a way of defining the
free time action functional previously studied in \cite{ContrerasIturriagaPaternainPaternain2000,Contreras2006}
when the magnetic form $\sigma$ is not exact.\newline
It will be convenient to study what is essentially the lift of $S_{L+k}$
to the universal cover $\widetilde{M}$. Let $\widetilde{U}$ denote
a lift of $U$ to $\widetilde{M}$. Let $\widetilde{E}:T\widetilde{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
denote the \textbf{energy}\emph{ }of the Lagrangian $\widetilde{L}$:
\[
\widetilde{E}(q,v):=\frac{\partial\widetilde{L}}{\partial v}(q,v)(v)-\widetilde{L}(q,v).
\]
Fix a primitive $\theta$ of the lifted form $\widetilde{\sigma}$
on $\widetilde{M}$ with $\left\Vert \theta\right\Vert _{\infty}<\infty$,
and consider again the Lagrangian $\widetilde{L}+\theta:T\widetilde{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$.
Define \[
\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}:W^{1,2}([0,1],\widetilde{M})\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}
\]
by \[
\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}(q,T):=T\int_{0}^{1}\left(\widetilde{L}\left(q(t),\frac{\dot{q}(t)}{T}\right)+\frac{1}{T}\theta_{q(t)}(\dot{q}(t))+k\right)dt.
\]
In other words, $\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}$ is the standard
free time action functional of the Lagrangian $\widetilde{L}+\theta$
and the energy level $k$. The free time action functional has been
studied extensively in \cite{ContrerasIturriagaPaternainPaternain2000,Contreras2006}.
We wish to relate the functional $\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}$
to that of $S_{L+k}$. For each $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$, fix a lift
$\widetilde{q}_{\alpha}:[0,1]\rightarrow\widetilde{M}$ of our reference
loops $q_{\alpha}\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M$. Define\begin{equation}
I(\alpha,\theta):=\int_{0}^{1}(\widetilde{q}_{\alpha}^{-})^{*}\theta\label{eq:ah}
\end{equation}
(where $\widetilde{q}_{\alpha}^{-}(t):=\widetilde{q}_{\alpha}(-t)$).
Note that as $q_{0}$ is constant, $I(0,\theta)=0$. It is shown in
\cite[p8]{Merry2010} that given $q\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M$ and $\widetilde{q}$
a lift of $q$ and $\bar{q}:C\rightarrow M$ a map as above that\begin{equation}
\int_{C}\bar{q}^{*}\sigma=\int_{0}^{1}\widetilde{q}^{*}\theta+I(\alpha,\theta),\label{eq:relating S and F}
\end{equation}
from which it follows that\begin{equation}
S_{L+k}(q,T)=\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}(\widetilde{q},T)+I(\alpha,\theta).\label{eq:relating to uni cover}
\end{equation}
Since $\left\Vert \theta\right\Vert _{\infty}<\infty$, we can find
constants $e_{1},e_{2},f_{1},f_{2},g_{1},g_{2}>0$ such that for all
$(q,v)\in T\widetilde{M}$ it holds that \begin{equation}
f_{1}\left|v\right|^{2}+f_{2}\geq(\widetilde{L}+\theta)(q,v)\geq e_{1}\left|v\right|^{2}-e_{2};\label{eq:superlinear-1}
\end{equation}
\[
\widetilde{E}(q,v)\geq g_{1}\left|v\right|^{2}-g_{2}.
\]
Given any $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$, let $\widetilde{q}:[0,1]\rightarrow\widetilde{M}$
denote a lift of $q$ and define $\gamma:[0,T]\rightarrow\widetilde{M}$
by $\gamma(t):=\widetilde{q}(t/T)$. One computes\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial S_{L+k}}{\partial T}(q,T) & =\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left(k-\widetilde{E}(\gamma,\dot{\gamma})\right)dt\\
& \leq\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left(k-\frac{g_{1}}{f_{1}}\widetilde{(L}+\theta)(\gamma,\dot{\gamma})+\frac{g_{1}f_{2}}{f_{1}}+g_{2}\right)dt\\
& =\frac{g_{1}f_{2}}{f_{1}}+g_{2}+\left(1+\frac{g_{1}}{f_{1}}\right)k-\frac{g_{1}}{f_{1}T}\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}(\widetilde{q},T)\\
& =\frac{g_{1}f_{2}}{f_{1}}+g_{2}+\left(1+\frac{g_{1}}{f_{1}}\right)k-\frac{g_{1}}{f_{1}T}S_{L+k}(q,T)+\frac{g_{1}I(\alpha,\theta)}{f_{1}T}.
\end{align*}
In particular, in the case $\alpha=0$, since $I(0,\theta)=0$ we
have proved the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:d/deta}There exists $h_{0}>0$ such that if $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$
and \[
S_{L+k}(q,T)>h_{0}T
\]
then \[
\frac{\partial S_{L+k}}{\partial T}(q,T)<0.
\]
\end{lem}
Let us recall a few definitions. If $S:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
is a $C^{2}$ functional on a Hilbert manifold $\mathcal{M}$ equipped
with a Riemannian metric $G$, we say that $S$ satisfies $(\mbox{PS})_{a}$,
that is, \textbf{Palais-Smale condition at the level $a\in\mathbb{R}$,}\emph{
}if any sequence $(x_{i})\subseteq\mathcal{M}$ such that $S(x_{i})\rightarrow a$
and $\left\Vert \nabla S(x_{i})\right\Vert \rightarrow0$ admits a
convergent subsequence (where the gradient $\nabla S$ is taken with
respect to $G$). Let $\Psi_{\tau}$ denote the local flow defined
by the vector field $-\nabla S$, and let $(\tau_{-}(x),\tau_{+}(x))\subseteq\overline{\mathbb{R}}$
denote the maximal interval of existence of the flow line $\tau\mapsto\Psi_{\tau}(x)$.\newline
The next result is the key to defining the Morse (co)complex of $S_{L+k}$
(compare \cite[Proposition 11.1, Proposition 11.2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}).
Recall the definition of the set $\mathcal{O}$ from Definition \ref{def:the set Uk}.
\begin{thm}
\textup{\emph{\label{thm:(Properties-of-)-1}(Properties of $S_{L+k}$
for $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$)}}
Fix $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$. Let $\Psi_{\tau}$ denote the
local flow of $-\nabla S_{L+k}$, where the gradient is taken with
respect to the metric $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}$
from \eqref{eq:the metric on the loop space}. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S_{L+k}$ is bounded below on $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and
strictly positive on $\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$. Moreover
\[
\inf_{\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}}S_{L+k}=0,\ \ \ \inf_{\textrm{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k};0)}S_{L+k}>0.
\]
\item If $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$ is a non-trivial free homotopy class then
$\tau_{+}(q,T)=\infty$ for all $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$.
If $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\tau_{+}(q,T)<\infty$
then if $(q_{\tau},T_{\tau}):=\Psi_{\tau}(q,T)$ then $S_{L+k}(q_{\tau},T_{\tau})\rightarrow0$,
$T_{\tau}\rightarrow0$ and $q_{\tau}$ converges to a constant loop
as $\tau\uparrow\tau_{+}(q,T)$. In particular this happens if \[
S_{L+k}(q,T)<\inf_{\textrm{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k};0)}S_{L+k}.
\]
\item If $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$ is a non-trivial free homotopy class then
$\tau_{-}(q,T)=-\infty$ for all $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$.
\item There exists $h_{1}>0$ with the following properties: given $S>0$
define\[
\mathcal{A}(S):=\{S_{L+k}|_{\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}}<S\}\cap\{T<h_{1}S\}
\]
Then $\mathcal{A}(S)\cap\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})=\emptyset$ for
all $S>0$, and for any $S>0$, if $(q,T)\in\mathcal{A}(S)$ then
$\Psi_{\tau}(q,T)\in\mathcal{A}(S)$ for all $\tau\in(\tau_{-}(q,T),0]$.
Finally if $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ is such that
$\tau_{-}(q,T)>-\infty$ and $S_{L+k}(q,T)\geq S$ then there exists
$\tau<0$ such that $\Psi_{\tau}(q,T)\in\mathcal{A}(S)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The fact that $S_{L+k}$ is bounded below is prove
\footnote{Strictly speaking, all the proofs in \cite{Merry2010} are given only
in the special case $U\equiv0$, but there are no changes in this
case
} in \cite[Lemma 4.2]{Merry2010}. The fact that $S_{L+k}$ is strictly
positive on $\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ follows from the fact
that given $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ we have\[
S_{L+k}(q,T)=\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+k}(\widetilde{q},T)=\mathbb{S}_{\widetilde{L}+\theta+c}(\widetilde{q},T)+(k-c)T\geq0+(k-c)T.
\]
If $q$ is a constant loop then $\lim_{T\rightarrow0}S_{L+k}(q,T)=0$,
and hence the infimum of $S_{L+k}$ on $\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$
is zero. To see that the infimum of $S_{L+k}$ on $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k};0)$
is strictly positive, we use Lemma \ref{lem:relating critical points lemma},
to be proved in the next section, which says that $(q,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$
if and only if $(x,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$, where $x=(q,\dot{q})\in\Lambda T^{*}M$.
Since $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$ is compact and $k$ is a regular value
of $H$, the period of its Hamiltonian orbits is bounded away from
zero, and thus \[
\inf\left\{ \eta>0\,:\,(x,\eta)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\right\} >0.
\]
Thus the infimum of $S_{L+k}$ on $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k};0)$ is strictly
positive. This proves (1).
Statement (2) is proved in \cite[Theorem 3.2, Lemma 4.4]{Merry2010}.
Since $S_{L+k}$ is bounded below, if $(q,T)\in\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$
is such that $\tau_{+}(q,T)<\infty$ then if $(q_{\tau},T_{\tau}):=\Psi_{\tau}(q,T)$,
we must have $\lim_{\tau\uparrow\tau_{+}(q,T)}T_{\tau}=0$ (see for
instance \cite[Proposition 8.4]{MawhimWillem1989}). This can only
happen if $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$, since if $q$
is non-contractible then $T$ is bounded away from zero (\cite[Lemma 4.3]{Merry2010}).
If $(q,T)\in\Lambda_{0}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ then we have \begin{align*}
\frac{\partial T_{\tau}}{\partial\tau} & =\left\langle \left\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Psi_{\tau}(q,T),\left(0,\frac{\partial}{\partial T}\right)\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}\\
& =-\frac{\partial S_{L+k}}{\partial T}(q_{\tau},T_{\tau}),
\end{align*}
and thus Lemma \ref{lem:d/deta} tells us that if $S_{L+k}(q_{\tau},T_{\tau})>h_{0}T_{\tau}$
then $\frac{\partial T_{\tau}}{\partial\tau}>0$. Thus the decreasing
function $\tau\mapsto S_{L+k}(q_{\tau},T_{\tau})$ must converge to
zero. Using \eqref{eq:superlinear-1} it is easy to see that the fact
that both $S_{L+k}(q_{\tau},T_{\tau})$ and $T_{\tau}$ tend to zero
implies that $\int_{S^{1}}\left|\dot{q}_{\tau}(t)\right|^{2}dt$ also
tends to zero as $\tau\uparrow\tau_{+}(q,T)$. This proves (3). The
proof of (4) follows in exactly the same way (see \cite[Proposition 11.2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Fixing the period}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
It will be useful to consider the \textbf{fixed period action functional}.
Given $T\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ let us denote by $S_{L+k}^{T}:\Lambda M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
the functional defined by \[
S_{L+k}^{T}(q):=S_{L+k}(q,T).
\]
Note that \[
d_{q}S_{L+k}^{T}(\zeta)=d_{(q,T)}S_{L+k}(\zeta,0).
\]
Thus if $(q,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ then $q\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k}^{T})$.
\subsection{The Morse index and the non-degeneracy assumption}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
By definition, the \textbf{Morse index}\emph{ }$i(q,T)$ of a critical
point $(q,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ is the maximal dimension of
a subspace $W\subseteq W^{1,2}(S^{1},q^{*}TM)\times\mathbb{R}$ on
which the Hessian $\nabla_{(q,T)}^{2}S_{L+k}$ of of $S_{L+k}$ at
$(q,T)$ is negative definite. It is well known that for the Lagrangians
$L=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$ that we work with the Morse index $i(q,T)$ is
always finite \cite[Section 1]{Duistermaat1976}. Similarly let $i_{T}(q)$
denote the Morse index\textbf{ }of a critical point $q\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k}^{T})$,
that is, the dimension of a maximal subspace of $W^{1,2}(S^{1},q^{*}TM)$
on which the Hessian $\nabla_{q}^{2}S_{L+k}^{T}$ of the $S_{L+k}$
at $(q,T)$ (this time taken with respect to the $W^{1,2}$ metric
on $\Lambda M$) is negative definite.
\begin{defn}
Let us say that a critical point $(q,T)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$
is \textbf{\emph{non-degenerate }}if the kernel of $\nabla_{q}^{2}S_{L+k}^{T}$
is one-dimensional, spanned by the vector $\dot{q}\in T_{q}\Lambda M$.
\end{defn}
Suppose $(q,T)$ is a non-degenerate critical point. One consequence
of this assumption (cf. the discussion at the start of Section \ref{sub:Grading-the-Rabinowitz})
is the existence of an \textbf{orbit cylinder }about $(q,T)$. That
is, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ and a unique smooth (in $s$) family
$(q_{s},T_{s})\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k+s})$ for $s\in(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$,
where $(q_{0},T_{0})=(q,T)$. Moreover $\frac{\partial T_{s}}{\partial s}(0)\ne0$.
Given such a non-degenerate critical point $(q,T)$, we may therefore
define \begin{equation}
\chi(q,T):=\mbox{sign}\left(-\frac{\partial T_{s}}{\partial s}(0)\right)\in\{-1,1\}.\label{eq:chi q T}
\end{equation}
Recall that a function $S:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ on on
a Hilbert manifold $\mathcal{M}$ equipped with a Riemannian metric
$G$ is called \textbf{Morse-Bott}\emph{ }if the set $\mbox{Crit}(S)$
of its critical points is a submanifold of $\mathcal{M}$ (possibly
with components of differing dimensions) and such that for each $x\in\mbox{Crit}(S)$,
the Hessian $\nabla_{x}^{2}S$ of $S$ (defined with respect to $G$)
is a Fredholm operator and satisfies \[
\ker\,\nabla_{x}^{2}S=T_{x}\mbox{Crit}(S).
\]
Denote by \[
\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}\subseteq\mathcal{O}
\]
the set of quadruples $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$ with the property
that if $L:=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$ then every critical point of $S_{L+k}$
is non-degenerate. In this case $S_{L+k}$ is a Morse-Bott function,
and $\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$ consists of a discrete union of circles.
The following theorem can be proved by adapting the proofs of \cite[Theorem B1]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}
(see also the Corrigendum \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelder2010}) together
with a version of the Klingenberg-Takens theorem \cite{KlingenbergTakens1972}
for magnetic flows. Full details can be found in \cite{Merry2011}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:generic}Suppose $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$. Then
given any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $g'\in\mathcal{R}(M)$ with
$\left\Vert g-g'\right\Vert _{\infty}<\varepsilon$ such that $(g',\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$.
\end{thm}
The following theorem is proved in \cite{MerryPaternain2010}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:lag index}Assume $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$,
and set $L:=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$. Let $(q,T)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$.
Then \[
i(q,T)=i_{T}(q)+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\chi(q,T).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:Index jumping on the morse side}In \cite[Section 10]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}
Abbondandolo and Schwarz work with a Lagrangian which is the Fenchel
transform of a Hamiltonian which is homogeneous of degree $2$ in
a neighborhood of $\Sigma_{k}$. In this case one can show $\chi(q,T)=+1$
for every critical point $(q,T)$, and hence the Morse index of the
free time action functional always agrees with the corresponding index
of the fixed period action functional. In the more general situation
that we are interested in here however it is possible that there exist
critical points $(q,T)$ with $\chi(q,T)=-1$. In \cite{MerryPaternain2010}
we provide an example of an exact magnetic Lagrangian $L:TS^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
for which there exists a non-degenerate critical point $(q,T)$ of
$ $$S_{L+k}$ for $k>c$ such that $\chi(q,T)=-1$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{The Morse (co)chain complex}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
In this section we construct the Morse co(chain) complex and state
the Morse homology theorem, which says that the corresponding Morse
(co)homology coincides with the singular (co)homology of the free
loop space $\Lambda M$. Fix $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$,
and put $L:=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$.
It will be convenient to put \[
\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k}):=\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})\cup(M\times\{0\}),
\]
where points in $M$ should be thought of as constant loops in $\Lambda M$.
We refer to elements of the set $\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})\backslash\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$
as \textbf{critical points at infinity
\footnote{In a lot of ways this is a poor choice of name, as these critical
points lie at $ $$T=0$, not at $T=\infty$
}.\emph{ }
We will need three pieces of auxiliary data to define the Morse (co)complex.
Firstly, let $G$ denote a metric on $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$
that is a generic perturbation of the metric $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}$
(in particular $G$ should be uniformly equivalent to $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}$).
Write $\Psi_{\tau}$ for the flow of $-\nabla S_{L+k}$, now taken
with respect to the metric $G$. Secondly, let $f:\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
denote a Morse function on $\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$, and
write $\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)\subseteq\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$
for the set of critical points of $f$, and $\mbox{Crit}(f):=\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})\cap\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$.
Thirdly, let $g_{0}$ denote a Riemannian metric on $\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$
such that the flow $\phi_{t}^{-\nabla f}$ of $-\nabla f$ is Morse-Smale.
The Morse-Smale assumption implies that for every pair $w_{-},w_{+}$
of critical points of $f$ the unstable manifold $W^{u}(w_{-};-\nabla f)$
intersects the stable manifold $W^{s}(w_{+};-\nabla f)$ transversely.
Denote by $i_{f}(z):=\dim\, W^{u}(w;-\nabla f)$ the Morse index of
a critical point $z\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$.
Finally for $w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$ write \[
\widehat{i}_{f}(w):=i(w)+i_{f}(w),
\]
where by definition we put $i(w)=0$ for $w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})\backslash\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$.
Let\[
\overline{\mbox{Crit}}_{i}(f):=\left\{ w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)\,:\,\widehat{i}_{f}(w)=i\right\} .
\]
Given $w_{-},w_{+}\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$, denote by \[
\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{0}(w_{-},w_{+}):=W^{u}(w_{-};-\nabla f)\cap W^{s}(w_{+};-\nabla f).
\]
Let \[
\mathcal{W}_{0}(w_{-},w_{+}):=\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{0}(w_{-},w_{+})/\mathbb{R}
\]
denote the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{0}(w_{-},w_{+})$
by the obvious free $\mathbb{R}$-action (if $w_{-}=w_{+}$, $\mathcal{W}_{0}(w_{-},w_{+})=\emptyset$).
Suppose now that $w_{-}\in\mbox{Crit}(f)$, that is, $w_{-}$ is \textbf{not}\emph{
}a critical point at infinity. If $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and $w_{+}\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$,
let $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{m}(w_{-},w_{+})$ denote the set of
tuples $\boldsymbol{w}=(w_{1},\dots,w_{m})$ where each $w_{i}\in(\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+})\backslash\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$
is such that \[
\Psi_{-\infty}(w_{1})\in W^{u}(w_{-};-\nabla f),\dots,\Psi_{\infty}(w_{m})\in W^{s}(w_{+};-\nabla f),
\]
and such that \[
\Psi_{-\infty}(w_{i+1})\in\phi_{\mathbb{R}^{+}}^{-\nabla f}(\Psi_{\infty}(w_{i})).
\]
Note that if $m\geq1$ then $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{m}(w^{-},w^{+})$
admits a free action of $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ via\[
(w_{1},\dots,w_{m})\mapsto(\Psi_{s_{1}}(w_{1}),\dots,\Psi_{s_{m}}(w_{m})),\ \ \ (s_{1},\dots,s_{m})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}.
\]
We denote by $\mathcal{W}_{m}(w_{-},w_{+})$ the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{m}(w_{-},w_{+})$
by this action. Put \[
\mathcal{W}(w_{-},w_{+}):=\bigcup_{m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}\mathcal{W}_{m}(w_{-},w_{+}).
\]
Finally if $w_{-}\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)\backslash\mbox{Crit}(f)$
is a critical point at infinity, set \[
\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{m}(w_{-},w_{+})=\mathcal{W}_{m}(w_{-},w_{+}):=\emptyset
\]
for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and $w_{+}\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$,
so that $\mathcal{W}(w_{-},w_{+})=\mathcal{W}_{0}(w_{-},w_{+})$.\newline
The next theorem, together with Theorem \ref{thm:morse homology}
below, follows from Theorem \ref{thm:(Properties-of-)-1} exactly
as in \cite[Section 11]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}. See also \cite[Appendix A]{Frauenfelder2004}
for more information.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:generic morse}For a generic choice of $G$ and $g_{0}$
the set $\mathcal{W}(w_{-},w_{+})$ is a finite dimensional smooth
manifold of dimension \[
\dim\,\mathcal{W}(w_{-},w_{+})=\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{-})-\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{+})-1.
\]
Moreover if $\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{-})-\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{+})=1$ then
$\mathcal{W}(w_{-},w_{+})$ is compact, and hence a finite set.
\end{thm}
If $\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{-})-\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{+})=1$ we may therefore
define \[
n_{\textrm{Morse}}(w_{-},w_{+}):=\#\mathcal{W}(w_{-},w_{+}),\ \ \ \mbox{taken mod }2.
\]
Put \[
CM_{i}(S_{L+k},f):=\bigoplus_{w\in\overline{\textrm{Crit}}_{i}(f)}\mathbb{Z}_{2}w,\ \ \ CM^{i}(S_{L+k},f):=\prod_{w\in\overline{\textrm{Crit}}_{i}(f)}\mathbb{Z}_{2}w.
\]
Define \[
\partial^{\textrm{Morse}}=\partial^{\textrm{Morse}}(G,g_{0}):CM_{i}(S_{L+k},f)\rightarrow CM_{i-1}(S_{L+k},f)
\]
by \[
\partial^{\textrm{Morse}}w=\sum_{w'\in\overline{\textrm{Crit}}_{i-1}(f)}n_{\textrm{Morse}}(w,w')w'.
\]
Define \[
\delta^{\textrm{Morse}}=\delta^{\textrm{Morse}}(G,g_{0}):CM^{i}(S_{L+k},f)\rightarrow CM^{i+1}(S_{L+k},f)
\]
by \[
\delta^{\textrm{Morse}}w:=\sum_{w'\in\overline{\textrm{Crit}}_{i+1}(f)}n_{\textrm{Morse}}(w',w)w'.
\]
The next result is the \textbf{Morse homology theorem}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:morse homology}Let $G$ and $g_{0}$ be as Theorem \ref{thm:generic morse}.
Then it holds that $\partial^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}\circ\partial^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}=0$
and also that $\delta^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}\circ\delta^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}=0$.
Thus $\{CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f),\partial^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}(G,g_{0})\}$
and $\{CM^{*}(S_{L+k},f),\delta^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}(G,g_{0})\}$
form a chain (respectively cochain) complex. The isomorphism class
of these complexes is independent of the choice of $f$, $G$ and
$g_{0}$. The associated (co)homology, known as the \textbf{\emph{Morse
(co)homology}}\emph{ }of $S_{L+k}$ is isomorphic to the singular
(co)homology of $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$:\[
HM_{*}(S_{L+k})\cong H_{*}(\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+};\mathbb{Z}_{2}),\ \ \ HM^{*}(S_{L+k})\cong H^{*}(\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+};\mathbb{Z}_{2}).
\]
\end{thm}
Moreover this isomorphism respects the splitting $\Lambda M=\bigoplus_{\alpha\in[S^{1},M]}\Lambda_{\alpha}M$:
if $CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)$ denotes the subcomplex of $CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f)$
generated by the critical points $w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)\cap\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k};\alpha)$
then the homology $HM_{*}(S_{L+k};\alpha)$ of this subcomplex is
isomorphic to $H_{*}(\Lambda_{\alpha}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+};\mathbb{Z}_{2})$
under the isomorphism of the previous theorem. The same statements
holds for cohomology: $HM^{*}(S_{L+k};\alpha)\cong H^{*}(\Lambda_{\alpha}M\times\mathbb{R}^{+})$.
\section{The Rabinowitz action functional}
In this section we finally define the Rabinowitz action functional,
and its associated Rabinowitz Floer homology.
\subsection{Definition of the Rabinowitz action functional}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Fix an autonomous potential $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$, and
put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Fix a regular value $k\in\mathbb{R}$ of
$H$, and put $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$. We define the \textbf{Rabinowitz
action functional}\emph{ }$A_{H-k}:\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by \begin{align*}
A_{H-k}(x,\eta): & =\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega-\eta\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt,\\
& =\int_{S^{1}}x^{*}\lambda_{0}+\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\pi^{*}\sigma-\eta\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt
\end{align*}
(see Section \ref{sub:The-crucial-observation} for the definition
of the term $\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega$; the latter equality follows
from \eqref{eq:liouville 1 form and c}). Denote by $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$
the set of critical points of $A_{H-k}$, and given $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$,
let $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k};\alpha):=\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\cap(\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R})$.
Given an interval $(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, denote by $\mbox{Crit}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k})$
the set $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\cap A_{H-k}^{-1}((a,b))$.
The critical points of $A_{H-k}$ are easily seen to satisfy:\[
\dot{x}=\eta X_{H}(x(t))\ \ \ \mbox{for all }t\in S^{1};
\]
\[
\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt=0.
\]
Since $H$ is invariant under its Hamiltonian flow, the second equation
implies \[
H(x(t))-k=0\ \ \ \mbox{for all }t\in S^{1},
\]
that is, \[
x(S^{1})\subseteq\Sigma_{k}.
\]
Thus we can characterize $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ by\begin{eqnarray*}
\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k}) & = & \left\{ (x,\eta)\in\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}\,:\, x\in C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\right.\\
& & \left.\ \ \ \dot{x}(t)=\eta X_{H}(x(t)),\ x(S^{1})\subseteq\Sigma_{k}\right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
The circle $S^{1}$ acts on $\Lambda T^{*}M$ via rotation:\[
r_{*}(x)(t):=x(r+t),\ \ \ r\in S^{1},\ x\in\Lambda T^{*}M.
\]
This action extends to an action on $\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$
by ignoring the $\mathbb{R}$-factor. Since $H$ is autonomous, the
Rabinowitz action functional $A_{H-k}$ is invariant under this action.
In particular, its critical set $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ is invariant.
Thus the elements of $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ come in two flavours.
Firstly, for each periodic orbit $y:\mathbb{R}/T\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\Sigma_{k}$
of $X_{H}$ on $\Sigma_{k}$ with minimal period $T>0$, and for each
$m\in\mathbb{Z}\backslash\{0\}$, we have a copy of $S^{1}$: \[
\{(r_{*}(y)(mTt),mT)\,:\, r\in S^{1}\}
\]
contained in $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$. Secondly, $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$
contains the set $\{(x,0)\,:\, x\in\Sigma_{k}\}$, where a point in
$\Sigma_{k}$ should be interpreted as a constant loop in $\Lambda T^{*}M$.
Let us fix a $1$-periodic almost complex structure $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)$.
We denote by $\nabla A_{H-k}$ the $L^{2}$-gradient of $A_{H-k}$
with respect to the $L^{2}$-metric $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{J}$:
\[
\nabla A_{H-k}(x,\eta)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
J(t,x)(\dot{x}-\eta X_{H}(x)\\
-\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt
\end{array}\right).
\]
\subsection{Comparing the functionals $S_{L+k}$ and $A_{H-k}$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Let $H$ be as above and set $L:=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$. The following lemma
outlines the relationship between the critical points of $S_{L+k}$
and $A_{H-k}$. The proof is identical to the analogous statements
in \cite[Section 5]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}, and will be omitted.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:relating critical points lemma}(Properties of $S_{L+k}$
and $A_{H-k}$)
\begin{enumerate}
\item Given $w=(q,T)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k};\alpha)$, define \[
Z^{+}(w):=(x,T)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R},\ \ \ \mbox{where }x(t):=\left(q(t),\dot{q}(t)\right),
\]
and define \[
Z^{-}(w):=(x^{-},-T)\in\Lambda_{-\alpha}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R},\ \ \ \mbox{where }x^{-}(t):=x(-t).
\]
Then $Z^{+}(w)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k};\alpha)$ and $Z^{-}(w)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k};-\alpha)$,
and moreover the map\[
\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})\times\{-1,1\}\rightarrow\left\{ (x,\eta)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k})\,:\,\eta\ne0\right\}
\]
given by \[
(w,\pm1)\mapsto Z^{\pm}(w)
\]
is a bijection, and \[
A_{H-k}(Z^{\pm}(w))=\pm S_{L+k}(w).
\]
\item Given any $(x,\eta)\in\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$ with $\eta>0$,
if $q:=\pi\circ x$ then\begin{equation}
A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\leq S_{L+k}(q,\eta),\label{eq:bound plus}
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $x=(q,\dot{q})$. If $x^{-}(t):=x(-t)$
then\begin{equation}
A_{H-k}(x^{-},-\eta)\geq-S_{L+k}(q,\eta)\label{eq:bound minus}
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $x=(q,\dot{q})$.
\item Let $w\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$. Then for all $(\xi,b)\in T_{Z^{+}(w)}(\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R})$
it holds that \[
d_{Z^{+}(w)}^{2}A_{H-k}((\xi,b),(\xi,b))\leq d_{w}^{2}S_{L+k}((d\pi(\xi),b),(d\pi(\xi),b)),
\]
and similarly for all $(\xi,b)\in T_{Z^{-}(w)}(\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R})$
it holds that \[
d_{Z^{-}(w)}^{2}A_{H-k}((\xi,b),(\xi,b))\geq-d_{w}^{2}S_{L+k}((d\pi(\xi)^{-},-b),(d\pi(\xi)^{-},-b)),
\]
where $d\pi(\xi)^{-}(t):=d\pi(\xi)(-t)$.
\item Given $w\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$, a pair $(\xi,b)$ lies in
the kernel of the Hessian of $A_{H-k}$ at $Z^{+}(w)$ if and only
if the pair $(d\pi(\xi),b)$ lies in the kernel of the Hessian of
$S_{L+k}$ at $w$, and similarly $(\xi,b)$ lies in the kernel of
the Hessian of $A_{H-k}$ at $Z^{-}(w)$ if and only if the pair $(d\pi(\xi)^{-},-b)$
lies in the kernel of the Hessian of $S_{L+k}$ at $w$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
As an immediate corollary of the preceding lemma and the definition
of $\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$ (cf. Theorem \ref{thm:generic})
we obtain the following statement.
\begin{cor}
\label{pro:generic-1}If $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$
and $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ then every periodic orbit of $H$ lying in
$\Sigma_{k}$ is \textbf{\emph{strongly transversely non-degenerate}}.
In other words, if $y:\mathbb{R}/T\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\Sigma_{k}$
is a periodic orbit of $X_{H}$ then the \textbf{\emph{nullity}}\emph{
}of $y$, $\nu(y)$ satisfies\[
\nu(y):=\dim\,\ker(d_{y(0)}\phi_{T}^{H}-\mathbb{1})=1.
\]
This implies that the Rabinowitz action functional $A_{H-k}$ is Morse-Bott,
and $\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k})$ consists of a copy of $\Sigma_{k}\times\{0\}$
together with a discrete union of circles.\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It remains only to check that $A_{H-k}$ is Morse-Bott at the constant
orbits $(x,0)\in\Sigma_{k}\times\{0\}\subseteq\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$.
A short computation tells us that $(\xi,b)$ lies in the kernel of
the Hessian of $A_{H-k}$ at $(x,0)$ if and only if \[
-\nabla_{t}\xi(t)+bX_{H}(x)=0;
\]
\[
\int_{S^{1}}d_{x}H(\xi(t))dt=0.
\]
Integrating the first equation and using the fact that $\xi$ is a
loop and $X_{H}(x)\ne0$ (as $k$ is a regular value of $H$ and $x\in\Sigma_{k}$),
we see that $b=0$. Thus $\xi(t)\equiv\xi(0)$ is constant, and the
second equation then says that $\xi(0)\in\ker\, d_{x}H=T_{x}\Sigma_{k}$.
Thus $A_{H-k}$ is Morse-Bott at the constant orbits.
\end{proof}
\subsection{\label{sub:Grading-the-Rabinowitz}Grading the Rabinowitz Floer complex}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Fix $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$. Let $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$.
Suppose $y:\mathbb{R}/T\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\Sigma_{k}$ is a periodic
orbit of $X_{H}$. Our non-degeneracy assumption on $y$ implies that
there exists $\varepsilon>0$ together with a smooth (in $s$) family
$y_{s}:\mathbb{R}/T_{s}\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow T^{*}M$ for $s\in(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$
of $T_{s}$-periodic orbits of $X_{H}$ with $y_{0}=y$ and $H(y_{s})\equiv k+s$.
Such a family $(y_{s})$ is known as an \textbf{orbit cylinder }about
$y$, and the family $(y_{s})$ is unique. Actually the existence
of such an orbit cylinder requires only that $y$ has exactly two
\textbf{Floquet multipliers }equal to one (see for instance \cite[Proposition 4.2]{HoferZehnder1994}).
Our non-degeneracy assumption is strictly stronger than this: it implies
in addition that $\frac{\partial T_{s}}{\partial s}(0)\ne0$. Indeed,
let $N$ denote a hypersurface inside of $\Sigma_{k}$ which is transverse
to $y(\mathbb{R}/T\mathbb{Z})$ at the point $y(0)$, with $T_{y(0)}N$
equal to the symplectic orthogonal to the tangent space of the orbit
cylinder. Let $P_{y}:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{V}$ denote the
associated \textbf{Poincar\'e map}, where $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$
are neighborhoods of $y(0)$. $P$ is a diffeomorphism that fixes
$y(0)$. Then there exists a unique symplectic splitting of $T_{y(0)}T^{*}M$
such that $d_{y(0)}\phi_{T}^{H}$ is given by\[
d_{y(0)}\phi_{T}^{H}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -\frac{\partial T_{s}}{\partial s}(0) & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \begin{array}{ccc}
\\
& d_{y(0)}P_{y}\\
\\
\end{array}
\end{array}\right).
\]
Here $\mathbb{1}-d_{y(0)}P_{z}$ is invertible. The assumption that
$\nu(y)=1$ therefore implies that $\frac{\partial T_{s}}{\partial s}(0)\ne0$.
Let us define \[
\chi(y):=\mbox{sign}\left(-\frac{\partial T_{s}}{\partial s}(0)\right).
\]
Now suppose $(x,\eta)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ with $\eta>0$. Let
$y:\mathbb{R}/\eta\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\Sigma_{k}$ be defined by
$y(t):=x(t/\eta)$. Define \[
\chi(x,\eta):=\chi(y).
\]
If $(x,\eta)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ with $\eta<0$ define \[
\chi(x,\eta):=-\chi(x^{-},-\eta)
\]
where $x^{-}(t):=x(-t)$ (note that $(x^{-},-\eta)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$,
so this makes sense).
Thus \[
\chi(q,T)=\chi(Z^{+}(q,T))=-\chi(Z^{-}(q,T)).
\]
for any $(q,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$, where $\chi(q,T)$ is defined
as in \eqref{eq:chi q T}.\newline
We define a grading $\mu:\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}$
on $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ as follows.
\begin{defn}
Given $(x,\eta)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k})$ with $\eta\ne0$ define
$y:\mathbb{R}/\left|\eta\right|\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\Sigma_{k}$ by
$y(t):=x(t/\left|\eta\right|)$. Then $y$ is an $\left|\eta\right|$-periodic
orbit of $\mbox{\emph{sign}}(\eta)H$. Let us denote by $\mu_{\textrm{\emph{CZ}}}(y)$
the \textbf{\emph{Conley-Zehnder index}}\emph{ }of $y$. See \cite{RobbinSalamon1993}
for the definition of the Conley-Zehnder index in the degenerate case
that we are using (note however that our sign conventions match those
of \cite{AbbondandoloPortaluriSchwarz2008} not \cite{RobbinSalamon1993}).
Define \[
\mu(x,\eta):=\begin{cases}
\mu_{\textrm{\emph{CZ}}}(y)-\frac{1}{2}\chi(x,\eta) & \eta\ne0\\
-n+1 & \eta=0.
\end{cases}
\]
\end{defn}
We wish to compare $\mu(Z^{\pm}(q,T))$ with $i(q,T)$ for $(q,T)\in\mbox{Crit}(S_{L+k})$.
We will need an extension of the \textbf{Morse index theorem} of Duistermaat
\cite{Duistermaat1976} to the twisted symplectic form $\omega$:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:morse index-1}Let $(q,T)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$.
Let $y:\mathbb{R}/T\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\Sigma$ be defined by $y(t):=Z^{+}(q,T)(t/T)$.
Then \[
\mu_{\textrm{\emph{CZ}}}(y)-\frac{1}{2}=i_{T}(q).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We deduce this from the equivalent statement for the standard symplectic
form $\omega_{0}$ (specifically, from \cite[Corollary 4.2]{AbbondandoloPortaluriSchwarz2008})
by arguing as follows: take a tubular neighborhood $W$ of $q(S^{1})$
in $M$. Since $H^{2}(W)=0$, $\sigma|_{W}=d\theta$ for some $\theta\in\Omega^{1}(W)$.
The flow $\phi_{t}^{H}|_{W}$ is conjugated to the flow $\psi_{t}^{H_{\theta}}:T^{*}W\rightarrow T^{*}W$,
where $H_{\theta}(q,p)=H(q,p-\theta_{q})$ and $\psi_{t}^{H_{\theta}}$
denotes the flow of the symplectic gradient of $H_{\theta}$ with
respect to the standard symplectic form $\omega_{0}$. Since both
the Maslov index and the Morse index are local invariants, the theorem
now follows directly from \cite[Corollary 4.2]{AbbondandoloPortaluriSchwarz2008}. \end{proof}
\begin{rem}
In \cite{Merry2011} we provide a direct proof of Theorem \ref{thm:morse index-1},
based on Weber's proof \cite[Theorem 1.3]{Weber2002} of the corresponding
statement for the standard symplectic form.
\end{rem}
The next corollary is an immediate consequence of Theorems \ref{thm:lag index}
and \ref{thm:morse index-1}, and the definition of the Conley-Zehnder
index.
\begin{cor}
\label{pro:morse indices and cz indices}Let $(q,T)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$.
Then \[
\mu(Z^{\pm}(q,T))=\pm i(q,T).
\]
\end{cor}
\subsection{The moduli spaces of Rabinowitz Floer homology}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Throughout this subsection assume $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$
is fixed (recall by assumption this means $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$, cf.
Definition \ref{def:the set Uk}), and put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Fix
$J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)$. We are interested in maps $u:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$
that satisfy the \textbf{Rabinowitz Floer equation}:\begin{equation}
u'(s)+\nabla A_{H-k}(u(s))=0\label{eq:rfeq}
\end{equation}
together with the asymptotic conditions\[
\lim_{s\rightarrow\pm\infty}u(s)\in\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k}).
\]
It is well known that any such map $u$ is smooth, and extends to
a map (also denoted by) $u:\overline{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R}$.
We shall often regard such a map $u$ as an element of $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$.
If we write $u(s,t)=(x(s,t),\eta(s))$ then \eqref{eq:rfeq} implies
that $x$ and $\eta$ solve the coupled equations\[
x'+J(t,x)(\dot{x}-\eta X_{H}(x))=0;
\]
\[
\eta'-\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt=0.
\]
Choose a Morse function $h:\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
and a Riemannian metric $g_{1}$ on $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ such that
the negative gradient flow $\phi_{t}^{-\nabla h}$ of $-\nabla h$
is Morse-Smale. Denote by $\mbox{Crit}(h)\subseteq\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$
the set of critical points of $h$. The Morse-Smale assumption implies
that for every pair $z_{-},z_{+}$ of critical points of $h$ the
unstable manifold $W^{u}(z_{-};-\nabla h)$ intersects the stable
manifold $W^{s}(z_{+};-\nabla h)$ transversely. Denote by $i_{h}(z):=\dim\, W^{u}(z;-\nabla h)$
the Morse index of a critical point $z\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$. We define
a new grading $\widehat{\mu}_{h}:\mbox{Crit}(h)\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}$
by putting\[
\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z):=\mu(z)+i_{h}(z).
\]
Suppose $z_{\pm}=(x_{\pm},\eta_{\pm})\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$ are critical
points of $h$. Denote by \[
\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{0}(z_{-},z_{+}):=W^{u}(z_{-};-\nabla h)\cap W^{s}(z_{+};-\nabla h).
\]
Let \[
\mathcal{M}_{0}(z_{-},z_{+}):=\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{0}(z_{-},z_{+})/\mathbb{R}
\]
denote the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{0}(z_{-},z_{+})$
by the obvious free $\mathbb{R}$-action (if $z_{-}=z_{+}$, $\mathcal{M}_{0}(z_{-},z_{+})=\emptyset$).
Given $m\in\mathbb{N}$, let \[
\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+})
\]
denote the set of tuples of maps $\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{m})$
such that each $u_{i}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R}$
satisfies the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq} and is \textbf{non-stationary}
(here a \textbf{stationary}\emph{ }solution is one that does not depend
on $s$) and such that\[
u_{1}(-\infty)\in W^{u}(z_{-};-\nabla h),\dots,u_{m}(\infty)\in W^{s}(z_{+};-\nabla h);
\]
\[
u_{i+1}(-\infty)\in\phi_{\mathbb{R}^{+}}^{-\nabla h}(u_{i}(\infty)).
\]
Note that if $m\geq1$ then $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+})$
admits a free action of $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ via \[
(u_{1}(s),\dots,u_{m}(s))\mapsto(u_{1}(s+s_{1}),\dots,u_{m}(s+s_{m})),\ \ \ (s_{1},\dots,s_{m})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}.
\]
We denote by $\mathcal{M}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+})$ the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+})$
by this action. Put \[
\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+}):=\bigcup_{m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}\mathcal{M}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+}).
\]
Since $A_{H-k}$ is strictly decreasing on non-stationary solutions
of the Rabinowitz Floer equation, if $z_{-}$ and $z_{+}$ belong
to the same connected component of $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$ then $\mathcal{M}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+})=\emptyset$
for all $m\geq1$, and if $\mathcal{M}_{m}(z_{-},z_{+})\ne\emptyset$
for some $m\geq1$, then $A_{H-k}(z_{-})>A_{H-k}(z_{+})$ and $\mathcal{M}_{0}(z_{-},z_{+})=\emptyset$.
\newline
The central result we need to construct the Rabinowitz Floer complex
is the following:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main theorem-1}There exists $\varepsilon_{1}>0$ such
that if $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g})$
is a generically chosen almost complex structure and $g_{1}$ is a
generically chosen Morse-Smale metric for $h$ then the moduli spaces
$\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+})$ are all finite dimensional smooth manifolds,
and their components of dimension zero are compact. Moreover we have
\begin{equation}
\dim\,\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+})=\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z_{-})-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z_{+})-1.\label{eq:dimension formula}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
The proof of the theorem has four ingredients:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Exhibit $\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+})$ as the zero set of a certain section
of a Banach bundle.
\item Show that the linearization of this operator is Fredholm, and compute
its index.
\item Show that for generic $J,g_{1}$ the linearization is surjective.
\item Exhibit uniform $C_{\textrm{loc}}^{\infty}$ bounds for gradient flow
lines.
\end{enumerate}
We refer to one of the many references (perhaps the two most relevant
are \cite[Appendix A]{Frauenfelder2004} and \cite[Section 3]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006})
as to why solving these four problems does indeed lead to a proof
of the theorem. Problem (1) was solved in \cite[Appendix A]{Frauenfelder2004}.
Problem (2) was solved for \textbf{defining Hamiltonians }and \textbf{restricted
contact type }hypersurfaces in \cite[Section 4]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}.
In our situation there is an additional complication in computing
the indices (stemming from the correction term $-\frac{1}{2}\chi(z)$).
Full details of the computation of the index are contained in \cite{MerryPaternain2010}.
Alternatively one could probably use the methods of \cite[Section 3.2]{BourgeoisOancea2009a}.
Problem (3) can be solved using the methods in \cite{FloerHoferSalamon1996}
combined with the Morse-Bott formalism of \cite[Theorem A.14]{Frauenfelder2004}.
Problem (4) was solved for Hamiltonians that are constant outside
a compact set in \cite[Section 3]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009} and
extended to Hamiltonians that are linear at infinity \cite[Section 5]{CieliebakFrauenfelderOancea2010}
and then Hamiltonians which grow quadratically and radially at infinity
\cite[Section 2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}. None of these are applicable
for the Hamiltonians $H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ that we consider, and hence
we will give a complete proof of this below. Our methods are essentially
those of \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}. Since $\omega|_{\pi_{2}(M)}=0$
and $c_{1}(T^{*}M,\omega)=0$, in order to get $C_{\textrm{loc}}^{\infty}$
bounds on gradient flow lines of the Rabinowitz Floer equation it
is sufficient to obtain $L^{\infty}$ bounds (in short, this is because
the so-called `bubbling' phenomenon cannot occur). Obtaining these
$L^{\infty}$ estimates is the subject of Subsection \ref{sub:The--estimates}
below.
\begin{rem}
It is perhaps useful to explain exactly where our various hypotheses
are used. The fact that $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$ (i.e. $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$)
is used in order in order to obtain $L^{\infty}$ bounds on the $\eta$-component
of gradient flows lines $u\in\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+})$. The bound
on the $x$-component requires two assumptions: firstly that the $\eta$-component
is uniformly bounded, and secondly that $J\in B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g})$.
Finally, the assumption $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$
is used in order to compute the index of the operator defining the
moduli space $\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+})$ - recall that our grading
$\mu$ explicitly used the existence of an orbit cylinder, which need
not exist if only $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:shrinking sigma}The constant $\varepsilon_{1}>0$ appearing
in the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:main theorem-1} is a universal
constant (cf. Theorem \ref{thm:calderon } below). In order for the
statement of Theorem \ref{thm:main theorem-1} not to be completely
vacuous one of course needs to know that such almost complex structures
exist. This can be guaranteed by assuming $\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert $
is sufficiently small. Indeed, suppose $\sigma$ satisfies\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}\leq\frac{\varepsilon_{1}}{2\varepsilon_{0}}.\label{eq:epsilon 2}
\end{equation}
Then by \eqref{eq:ball not empty} we have \[
B_{\varepsilon_{1}/2}(J_{\sigma})\subseteq B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g}).
\]
\end{rem}
\subsection{Constructing the chain complex}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Deferring the proof of Problem (4), we first explain the construction
of Rabinowitz Floer chain complex. Assume that the hypotheses of Theorem
\ref{thm:main theorem-1} are satisfied. Denote by $RF(A_{H-k},h)$
the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$-vector space generated by all formal sums \[
\sum_{z\in V}z,
\]
where $V\subseteq\mbox{Crit}(h)$ is a (possibly infinite) subset
of $\mbox{Crit}(h)$ satisfying the \textbf{Novikov finiteness condition}\emph{
}that for all $a\in\mathbb{R}$ one has \[
\#\left\{ z\in V\,:\, A_{H-k}(z)<a\right\} <\infty.
\]
Let us write $\mbox{Crit}_{i}(h)\subseteq\mbox{Crit}(h)$ for the
set of critical points $z$ of $h$ with $\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z)=i$.
The vector space $RF(A_{H-k},h)$ is given a $\mathbb{Z}$-grading
by the index $\widehat{\mu}_{h}$: an element $\sum_{z\in V}z\in RF(A_{H-k},h)$
belongs to $RF_{i}(A_{H-k},h)$ if $V\subseteq\mbox{Crit}_{i}(h)$.
Similarly, given an interval $(a,b)\subseteq\overline{\mathbb{R}}$,
denote by $RF^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k},h)$ the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$-vector space
of all formal sums \[
\sum_{z\in V}z,
\]
where $V\subseteq\mbox{Crit}^{(a,b)}(h)$ is a (possibly infinite)
subset of $\mbox{Crit}^{(a,b)}(h)$ satisfying the finiteness condition
above (note that if $a$ and $b$ are finite then such a set $V$
is necessarily finite and the Novikov finiteness condition is automatic).
If $z_{\pm}\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$ satisfy $\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z_{-})-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z_{+})=1$
then Theorem \ref{thm:main theorem-1} tells us that $\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+})$
is a finite set. We can therefore define $n_{\textrm{Rab}}(z_{-},z_{+})$
by \[
n_{\textrm{Rab}}(z_{-},z_{+}):=\#\mathcal{M}(z_{-},z_{+}),\ \ \ \mbox{taken mod }2.
\]
Then we define\[
\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}=\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}(J,g_{1}):RF_{i}(A_{H-k},h)\rightarrow RF_{i-1}(A_{H-k},h)
\]
by \[
\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}z:=\sum_{z'\in\textrm{Crit}_{i-1}(h)}n_{\textrm{Rab}}(z,z')z',
\]
and extending by linearity. A standard gluing argument tells us that
$\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}\circ\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}=0$, and therefore
we conclude that $\{RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h),\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}(J,g_{1})\}$
is a chain complex of Abelian groups. The boundary map $\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}$
respects the $\mathbb{R}$-filtration determined by $A_{H-k}$: if
$(a,b)\subseteq\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ then \[
\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}\left(RF_{i}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k},h)\right)\subseteq RF_{i-1}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k},h),
\]
and so $\{RF_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k},h),\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}(J,g_{1})\}$
is a subcomplex. Finally it is clear that $\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}$
also respects the splitting $\Lambda T^{*}M\oplus\mathbb{R}=\bigoplus_{\alpha\in[S^{1},M]}\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$:
if $RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)$ denotes the subspace of $RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h)$
generated by the elements of $\mbox{Crit}(h)\cap\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k};\alpha)$
then $RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)$ is a subcomplex.
We write $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ for the homology of $\{RF_{*}(A_{H-k},a),\partial^{\textrm{Rab}}(J,g_{1})\}$
and call it the \textbf{Rabinowitz Floer homology}\emph{ }of $A_{H-k}$.
Similarly we write $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k};\alpha)$ (resp. $RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k})$)
for the homology of the subcomplex $RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)$ (resp.
$RF_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k},h)$). Standard arguments show that $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$
is independent of the data $(h,J,g_{1})$.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:inv under g}In fact, if $(g_{s},\sigma_{s},U_{s},k_{s})_{s\in[0,1]}\subseteq\mathcal{O}$
is a smooth family that satisfies $(g_{s},\sigma_{s},U_{s},k_{s})\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$
for generic $s\in[0,1]$ and in particular for $s=0,1$ then if $H_{s}(q,p):=\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|_{g_{s}}^{2}+U_{s}(q)$
and $\omega_{s}:=\omega_{0}+\pi^{*}\sigma_{s}$ then $RFH_{*}(A_{H_{0}-k_{0}};\omega_{0})\cong RFH_{*}(A_{H_{1}-k_{1}};\omega_{1})$.
One can prove this directly using the methods of \cite[Section 1.8]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}
and \cite{BaeFrauenfelder2010}. However we can deduce this indirectly
via Theorem 1.1.(b) in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
and Theorem 1.4 in \cite{BaeFrauenfelder2010}, by making use of Proposition
\ref{quadr is const} below, which states that the Rabinowitz Floer
homology $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ is the same as the Rabinowitz Floer homology
$RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ from \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}.
As a consequence we are free to define the Rabinowitz Floer homology
$RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ for the Hamiltonian $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ if only
$(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$ (rather than $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$).
Indeed, by Theorem \ref{thm:generic} we can find a metric $g'$ lying
arbitrarily close to $g$ such that $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$.
Set $H':=H_{g'}+\pi^{*}U$ and \textbf{\emph{define }}$RFH_{*}(A_{H-k}):=RFH_{*}(A_{H'-k}).$
This is well defined, as if $g''$ is another such metric and $H'':=H_{g''}+\pi^{*}U$
then the previous paragraph implies $RFH_{*}(A_{H'-k})\cong RFH_{*}(A_{H''-k})$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{\label{sub:The--estimates}The $L^{\infty}$ estimates}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
In this subsection we prove the two theorems on $L^{\infty}$ estimates
for solutions of the Rabinowitz Floer equation alluded to above, as
well as a third $L^{\infty}$ estimate for gradient flow lines defined
on half-cylinders that will be needed in the next section. The first
result we state is an extension of part of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009},
which obtains uniform $L^{\infty}$ bounds for the $\eta$-component
of flow lines $u=(x,\eta)\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
satisfying the Rabinowitz Floer equation and having bounded $A_{H-k}$-action.
This result (for contractible loops only) was stated without proof
in \cite[Section 7]{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier}Let $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$
and put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Pick $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)$ and $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$,
and fix $-\infty<a<b<\infty$. There exists a constant $C_{0}>0$
such that if $u=(x,\eta)\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
is any map that satisfies the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq}
and has action bounds \[
A_{H-k}(u(\mathbb{R}))\subseteq[a,b]
\]
and satisfies\[
x(\mathbb{R},\cdot)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M
\]
then \[
\left\Vert \eta\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})}\leq C_{0}.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
We emphasize that the following proof uses only that $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$
is of \textbf{\emph{virtual restricted contact type}}\textbf{ }(see
\cite[p1767]{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} for the definition)
for $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$; it makes \textbf{\emph{no}} assumptions on
the behaviour of the Hamiltonian $H$ at infinity. In other words,
the proof would go through if instead of $H$ we used any other Hamiltonian
$K\in C^{\infty}(T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})$ with the property that $X_{K}|_{\Sigma_{k}}=fX_{H}|_{\Sigma_{k}}$
for some smooth function $f\in C^{\infty}(\Sigma_{k},\mathbb{R}^{+})$.\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
\emph{(of Theorem \ref{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier})}
The proof is a slight modification of the arguments of \cite[Section 3]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}.
Let $\widetilde{H}:T^{*}\widetilde{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ denote
the lift of $H$ to $\widetilde{\pi}:T^{*}\widetilde{M}\rightarrow\widetilde{M}$.
Let $\widetilde{\omega}:=\widetilde{\omega}_{0}+\widetilde{\pi}^{*}\widetilde{\sigma}$,
where $\widetilde{\omega}_{0}=d\widetilde{\lambda}_{0}$ is the canonical
symplectic form on $T^{*}\widetilde{M}$. Since $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$,
by \cite[Lemma 5.1]{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} there exists
a primitive $\theta$ of $\widetilde{\sigma}$ and $\delta>0$ such
that \begin{equation}
\widetilde{\lambda}(X_{\widetilde{H}}(x))\geq2\delta\ \ \ \mbox{for all }x\in\widetilde{H}^{-1}([k-\delta,k+\delta]).\label{eq:condition star}
\end{equation}
Here \[
\widetilde{\lambda}:=\widetilde{\lambda}_{0}+\widetilde{\pi}^{*}\theta,
\]
and $X_{\widetilde{H}}$ is the symplectic gradient of the lifted
function $\widetilde{H}$ with respect to the symplectic form $\widetilde{\omega}=d\widetilde{\lambda}$.
Observe that it follows from \eqref{eq:relating S and F} that for
any $x\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M$ and any lift $\widetilde{x}:[0,1]\rightarrow T^{*}\widetilde{M}$
we have \begin{equation}
\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega=\int_{0}^{1}\widetilde{x}^{*}\widetilde{\lambda}+I(\alpha,\theta).\label{eq:lambda theta}
\end{equation}
The first part of the proof is the following statement: there exists
a constant $\rho_{0}=\rho(\delta)>0$ such that: \begin{equation}
\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\right\Vert _{J}\leq\rho_{0}\ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ x(S^{1})\subseteq H^{-1}([k-\delta,k+\delta])\label{eq:bdelta-1}
\end{equation}
(where $\delta>0$ is the constant from \eqref{eq:condition star}).
This part of the proof is identical to \cite[Proposition 3.2, Step 2]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009},
and hence is omitted.
Next we show that there exists a constant $D<\infty$ such that if
$(x,\eta)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$ is any loop that
satisfies \[
x(S^{1})\subseteq H^{-1}([k-\delta,k+\delta]),
\]
(where $\delta>0$ is the constant from \eqref{eq:condition star})
then \begin{equation}
\left|\eta\right|<\frac{1}{\delta}\left|A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\right|+\frac{D}{\delta}\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\right\Vert _{J}+\frac{1}{\delta}\left|I(\alpha,\theta)\right|.\label{eq:first equation to prove}
\end{equation}
Indeed, set \[
D:=\left\Vert \widetilde{\lambda}|_{\widetilde{H}^{-1}([k-\delta,k+\delta])}\right\Vert _{\infty},
\]
and compute using using \eqref{eq:lambda theta}: \begin{align*}
\left|A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\right| & =\left|\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega-\eta\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(t))-k)dt\right|\\
& \geq\left|\int_{0}^{1}\widetilde{\lambda}(\dot{\widetilde{x}})dt\right|-\left|I(\alpha,\theta)\right|-\left|\eta\right|\left|\int_{\mathbb{T}}(H(x(t))-k)dt\right|\\
& \geq\left|\int_{0}^{1}\widetilde{\lambda}(\eta X_{\widetilde{H}}(\widetilde{x}))dt\right|-\left|\int_{0}^{1}\widetilde{\lambda}(\dot{\widetilde{x}}-\eta X_{\widetilde{H}}(\widetilde{x}))dt\right|-\left|I(\alpha,\theta)\right|-\left|\eta\right|\delta.\\
& \geq\left|\eta\right|(2\delta-\delta)-D\int_{S^{1}}\left|\dot{x}-\eta X_{H}(x)\right|dt-\left|I(\alpha,\theta)\right|\\
& \geq\left|\eta\right|\delta-D\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\right\Vert _{J}-\left|I(\alpha,\theta)\right|.
\end{align*}
This proves \eqref{eq:first equation to prove}. Combining \eqref{eq:bdelta-1}
and \eqref{eq:first equation to prove} we see that if \[
\rho_{1}:=\frac{1}{\delta}\max\{1,D\rho_{0}+\left|I(\alpha,\theta)\right|\}
\]
then the following implication holds: for any $(x,\eta)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(x,\eta)\right\Vert _{J}\leq\rho_{0}\ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \left|\eta\right|\leq\rho_{1}\left(A_{H-k}(x,\eta)+1\right).\label{eq:cf prop 32}
\end{equation}
We can now prove the theorem. Let $u=(x,\eta)\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
satisfy the hypotheses of the theorem. Given $s\in\mathbb{R}$ let
\begin{equation}
\tau(s):=\inf\left\{ r\geq0\,:\,\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(u(s+r,\cdot))\right\Vert _{J}\leq\rho_{0}\right\} .\label{eq:def of tau of s}
\end{equation}
Then for any $s\in\mathbb{R}$ we have: \begin{align*}
b-a & \geq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(u(r,\cdot))\right\Vert _{J}^{2}dr\\
& \geq\int_{s}^{s+\tau(s)}\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(u(r,\cdot))\right\Vert _{J}^{2}dr\\
& \geq\tau(s)\rho_{0}^{2},
\end{align*}
and hence \[
\tau(s)\leq\frac{b-a}{\rho_{0}^{2}}.
\]
Thus given any $s\in\mathbb{R}$ we have\begin{align*}
\left|\eta(s)\right| & =\left|\eta(s+\tau(s))-\int_{s}^{s+\tau(s)}\eta'(r)dt\right|\\
& \leq\rho_{1}\left(\left|A_{H-k}(u(s+\tau(s),\cdot))\right|+1\right)+\int_{s}^{s+\tau(s)}\left|\eta'(r)\right|dr\\
& \leq\rho_{1}(\max\{|a|,|b|\}+1)+\left(\tau(s)\int_{s}^{s+\tau(s)}\left|\eta'(r)\right|^{2}ds\right)^{1/2}\\
& \leq\rho_{1}(\max\{|a|,|b|\}+1)+\left(\frac{b-a}{\rho_{0}^{2}}\int_{s}^{s+\tau(s)}\left\Vert u'(r,\cdot)\right\Vert _{J}^{2}ds\right)^{1/2}\\
& \leq\rho_{1}(\max\{|a|,|b|\}+1)+\frac{b-a}{\rho_{0}}.
\end{align*}
Thus the theorem follows with \[
C_{0}:=\rho_{1}(\max\{|a|,|b|\}+1)+\frac{b-a}{\rho_{0}}.
\]
\end{proof}
In the next result we are interested in obtaining bounds on the loop
component $x$ of a flow line $u$. The proof uses the same idea as
\cite[Theorem 1.14, Theorem 1.22]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}, and is
based upon isometrically embedding $(M,g)$ into Euclidean space,
and combining Calderon-Zygmund estimates for the Cauchy-Riemann operator
with certain interpolation inequalities. In the course of the proof
we will need the following statement, which is a consequence of the
Calderon-Zygmund inequalities. Let \[
W_{V}^{1,r}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{2d})=W_{0}^{1,r}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{d})\times W^{1,3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{d})
\]
denote the Sobolev space of $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$-valued maps taking
values in the vertical Lagrangian subspace $V:=(0)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{2d}$
on the boundary.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:calderon }Let $J_{0}$ denote the standard complex structure
on $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ given by \[
J_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\mathbb{1}\\
\mathbb{1} & 0
\end{array}\right).
\]
Consider the \textbf{\emph{Cauchy-Riemann operator}} \[
\partial_{s}+J_{0}\partial_{t}:W_{V}^{1,3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{2d})\rightarrow L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{2d}).
\]
Then there exists a constant $\varepsilon_{1}>0$ such that for any
$v\in W_{V}^{1,3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{2d})$ it holds
that \[
\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\leq\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{1}}\left\Vert (\partial_{s}+J_{0}\partial_{t})v\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}.
\]
\end{thm}
We now prove:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:l infinity}Fix $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$. Suppose
$J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g})$ (where $\varepsilon_{1}>0$
is as in Theorem \ref{thm:calderon }), $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$ and
$-\infty<a<b<\infty$. Put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Assume there exists
a constant $C_{0}>0$ such that if $u=(x,\eta)\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
is any map that satisfies the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq}
and has action bounds \[
A_{H-k}(u(\mathbb{R}))\subseteq[a,b]
\]
and satisfies\[
x(\mathbb{R},\cdot)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M
\]
then \[
\left\Vert \eta\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})}\leq C_{0}.
\]
Then there exists another constant $C_{1}>0$ such that for any such
map $u=(x,\eta)$ it also holds that \[
\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})}<C_{1}.
\]
\end{thm}
In the proof below we will repeatedly use the fact there exists a
constant $b_{0}>0$ such that\begin{equation}
\left|X_{H}(q,p)\right|\leq b_{0}\left(1+\left|p\right|^{2}\right)\ \ \ \mbox{for all }(q,p)\in T^{*}M.\label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}
\emph{(of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity})}
We begin by choosing an isometric embedding of $i:(M,g)\rightarrow(\mathbb{R}^{d},g_{0})$,
where $g_{0}$ is the Euclidean inner product. Such an embedding exists
by Nash's theorem. It induces an embedding (also denoted by) $i:T^{*}M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{2d}$
which is actually a \textbf{unitary embedding} (with respect to the
\textbf{standard }symplectic form), that is,\[
i^{*}\omega_{0}=\omega_{0},\ \ \ i_{*}J_{0}=J_{g},
\]
where \[
J_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\mathbb{1}\\
\mathbb{1} & 0
\end{array}\right)
\]
is the standard almost complex structure on $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$. Thus
under this embedding the metric almost complex structure $J_{g}$
\eqref{eq:metric acs} is simply the restriction of the canonical
almost complex structure $J_{0}$ to $T^{*}M$, and hence the assumption
that $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g})$ corresponds
to $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{0})$. We will
use this embedding to define the various $L^{r}$ and $W^{1,r}$ spaces
that come up in the proof below.
The proof of the theorem is in two steps.\newline
\textbf{Step 1.}\newline
We show that there exists a constant $K>0$ such that for any map
$u=(x,\eta)$ satisfying the hypotheses of the theorem, and any finite
interval $I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, writing $x=(q,p)$ it holds that\begin{equation}
\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{2}(I\times S^{1})}\leq K\left|I\right|^{1/2},\ \ \ \left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}(I\times S^{1})}\leq K\left(1+\left|I\right|^{1/2}\right).\label{eq:step 1 estiamte}
\end{equation}
This part of the proof closely follows \cite[Lemma 1.12]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006},
and heavily uses the fact that our Hamiltonian $H$ is \textbf{quadratic}.
This step does not use the fact that $J\in B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{0})$.
We first note that there exists a constant $b_{1}>0$ such that for
any map $u=(x,\eta)$ satisfying the hypotheses of the theorem, \[
\left\Vert x'\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\leq b_{1},\ \ \ \left\Vert \eta'\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}\leq b_{1}.
\]
Indeed, if $s_{0}<s_{1}$ then \begin{align*}
\left\Vert x'\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{2} & =\int_{s_{0}}^{s_{1}}\int_{S^{1}}\left|x'\right|^{2}dtds\\
& \leq\left\Vert J^{-1}\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}\int_{s_{0}}^{s_{1}}\int_{S^{1}}\left\Vert u'\right\Vert _{J}^{2}dtds\\
& \leq\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}(b-a).
\end{align*}
Exactly the same computation holds for $\left\Vert \eta'\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}$,
and hence we may take \begin{equation}
b_{1}:=\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\sqrt{b-a}.\label{eq:b1}
\end{equation}
We next claim that there exists a constant $b_{2}>0$ such that for
any finite interval $I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ and for any map $u=(x,\eta)$
satisfying the hypotheses of the theorem, if we write $x=(q,p)$,
then\begin{equation}
\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{2}(I\times S^{1})}^{2}\leq b_{2}\max\left\{ \left|I\right|,|I|^{1/2}\right\} .\label{eq:b2}
\end{equation}
Indeed, \begin{align}
\eta'(s) & =\int_{S^{1}}(H(x(s,t))-k)dt\nonumber \\
& \geq\int_{S^{1}}\frac{1}{2}\left|p(s,t)\right|^{2}dt-(\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}+k).\label{eq:eta bounding p}
\end{align}
Hence \begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{2} & \leq\left\Vert \eta'\right\Vert _{L^{1}((s_{0},s_{1}))}+(\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}+k)(s_{1}-s_{0})\\
& \leq\sqrt{s_{1}-s_{0}}\left\Vert \eta'\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{1}))}+(\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}+k)(s_{1}-s_{0})\\
& \leq\sqrt{s_{1}-s_{0}}b_{1}+(\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}+k)(s_{1}-s_{0}).
\end{align*}
Then \eqref{eq:b2} follows with \begin{equation}
b_{2}=2b_{1}+2(\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}+k).\label{eq:b2-1}
\end{equation}
Next we prove that for any map $u=(x,\eta)$ satisfying the hypotheses
of the theorem, and every $0<\varepsilon\leq1$, the closed subsets
\begin{equation}
S_{\varepsilon}(u):=\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}\leq\frac{b_{2}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right\} ;\label{eq:sepsilon set}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
S_{\varepsilon}'(u):=\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}\leq\frac{b_{1}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right\} \label{eq:s dash}
\end{equation}
are \textbf{$\varepsilon$-dense}, that is, they\textbf{ }have non-empty
intersection with any interval of length $\geq\varepsilon$. Indeed,
for every $s_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ we have that if $0<\varepsilon\leq1$
then\begin{align*}
\min_{s\in[s_{0},s_{0}+\varepsilon]}\left\Vert p(s,\cdot.)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2} & \leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{s_{0}}^{s_{0}+\varepsilon}\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}ds.\\
& =\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{0}+\varepsilon)\times S^{1})}^{2}\\
& \leq\frac{b_{2}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}},
\end{align*}
and hence \[
S_{\varepsilon}(u)\cap[s_{0},s_{0}+\varepsilon]\ne\emptyset.
\]
This proves \eqref{eq:sepsilon set}. Exactly the same computation
with $\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}$ instead
of $\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}$ proves
\eqref{eq:s dash}.
We can now improve \eqref{eq:b2} by finding a constant $b_{3}>0$
such that for all $s\in\mathbb{R}$ it holds that \begin{equation}
\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}\leq b_{3}.\label{eq:b3}
\end{equation}
Indeed, given $s\in\mathbb{R}$, choose $s_{0}\in S_{1}(u)$ such
that $\left|s-s_{0}\right|\leq1$ (i.e. take $\varepsilon=1$). Without
loss of generality assume $s\geq s_{0}$. Then we have \begin{align*}
\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2} & =\left\Vert p(s_{0},\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}+\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\frac{d}{dr}\left\Vert p(r,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}dr\\
& =\left\Vert p(s_{0},\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}+2\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\int_{S^{1}}\left\langle p(r,t),p'(r,t)\right\rangle dtdr\\
& \leq b_{2}+2\left|\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\left\Vert p(r,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}dr\right|^{1/2}\left\Vert p'\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s)\times S^{1})}\\
& \leq b_{2}+2\sqrt{b_{2}}\left\Vert x'\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s)\times S^{1})}\\
& \leq b_{2}+2\sqrt{b_{2}}b_{1}.
\end{align*}
Thus \eqref{eq:b3-1} follows with \begin{equation}
b_{3}:=\sqrt{b_{2}+2\sqrt{b_{2}}b_{1}}.\label{eq:b3-1}
\end{equation}
Next, we show how to improve \eqref{eq:sepsilon set} to obtain a
similar result with the $L^{2}(S^{1})$ norm replaced by the $L^{\infty}(S^{1})$
norm. Observe that\begin{align*}
\left\Vert \dot{p}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})} & \leq\left\Vert \dot{x}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\\
& \leq\left\Vert J(\cdot,x)x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}+\left|\eta(s)\right|\left\Vert X_{H}(x(s,\cdot))\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\\
& \leq\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}+C_{0}b_{0}\left(1+\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}\right).\\
& \leq\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}+C_{0}b_{0}\left(1+b_{3}^{2}\right),
\end{align*}
and hence \begin{align*}
\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{W^{1,1}(S^{1})} & \leq\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}+\left\Vert \dot{p}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\\
& \leq b_{3}+\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}+C_{0}b_{0}\left(1+b_{3}^{2}\right).
\end{align*}
Thus if $N>0$ is the uniform constant such that for any map $f\in W^{1,1}(S^{1},\mathbb{R})$
it holds that \begin{equation}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq N\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{W^{1,1}(S^{1})},\label{eq:N}
\end{equation}
then \begin{equation}
\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq Nb_{3}+N\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}+NC_{0}b_{0}\left(1+b_{3}^{2}\right).\label{eq:linfty p}
\end{equation}
Set \begin{equation}
b_{4}:=Nb_{3}+NC_{0}b_{0}(1+b_{3}^{2}),\ \ \ b_{5}:=N\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}b_{1}.\label{eq:b4 and b5}
\end{equation}
It now follows from \eqref{eq:s dash} and \eqref{eq:linfty p} that
for any $0<\varepsilon\leq1$ the subset \[
S_{\varepsilon}''(u):=\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq b_{4}+\frac{b_{5}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right\}
\]
has non-empty intersection with any interval of length $\geq\varepsilon$.
Next, we observe that for any $(s,t)\in\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}$, we
have \begin{align*}
\left|\nabla p(s,t)\right|^{2} & \leq\left|\nabla x(s,t)\right|^{2}\\
& =\left|x'(s,t)\right|^{2}+\left|\dot{x}(s,t)\right|^{2}\\
& =\left|x'(s,t)\right|^{2}+\left|J(t,x)x'(s,t)-\eta(s)X_{H}(x(s,t))\right|^{2}\\
& \overset{(*)}{\leq}\left(1+2\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}\right)\left|x'(s,t)\right|^{2}+2b_{0}^{2}C_{0}^{2}\left(1+\left|p(s,t)\right|^{2}\right)^{2}\\
& \leq b_{6}\left(1+\left|x'(s,t)\right|^{2}+\left|p(s,t)\right|^{4}\right)
\end{align*}
for some constant $b_{6}>0$, where $(*)$ used $\left|a-b\right|^{2}\leq2a^{2}+2b^{2}$.
Thus for all $s_{0}<s_{1}$ we have \begin{equation}
\left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{2}\leq b_{6}\left(\left|s_{1}-s_{0}\right|+b_{1}^{2}\right)+b_{6}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{4}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{4}.\label{eq:l4 estiamte}
\end{equation}
The final step of this part of the proof is to show that there exists
$b_{7}>0$ such that for any map $u=(x,\eta)$ satisfying the hypotheses
of the theorem, and any finite interval $I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ we
have, writing $x=(q,p)$ that \begin{equation}
\left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}(I\times S^{1})}\leq b_{7}(1+\left|I\right|^{1/2}).\label{eq:b7 estimate}
\end{equation}
The proof of \eqref{eq:b7 estimate} from \eqref{eq:l4 estiamte}
is based on an interpolation inequality between the $L^{4}$ norm
and the $L^{2}$ and $W^{1,2}$ norms, which is due to Abbondandolo
and Schwarz. There is no difference between the proof in \cite[p278-279]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}
and the one in our situation, so we will omit this. It will be important
however in the final section of this paper (see the proof of Proposition
\ref{quadr is const}) to state it precisely. The following lemma
is not explicitly stated in \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}, but follows
immediately from a careful inspection of \cite[p278-279]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:the gamma lemma}Suppose $x=(q,p):\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\Lambda T^{*}M$
is a smooth map such that there exist constants $\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3}>0$
with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\left\Vert x'\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\leq\gamma_{1}$;
\item $\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}\leq\gamma_{2}$
for all $s\in\mathbb{R}$;
\item \textup{$\left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{2}\leq\gamma_{3}\left(\left|s_{1}-s_{0}\right|+\gamma_{1}^{2}\right)+\gamma_{3}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{4}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{4}$
for all $s_{0},s_{1}\in\mathbb{R}$ with $s_{0}<s_{1}$.}
\end{enumerate}
Then there exists a constan
\footnote{The constant $\varepsilon_{*}$ corresponds to the constant $\delta=1/(32b_{1}Cc_{4}^{2})$
in \cite[p279]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}
} $0<\varepsilon_{*}\leq1$ depending only on $\gamma_{2}$ and $\gamma_{3}$
such that if \textbf{\emph{in addition}} there exists a constant $\gamma_{*}>0$
such that the set\[
\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq\gamma_{*}\right\}
\]
is $\varepsilon_{*}$-dense then there exists a constant $\Gamma=\Gamma(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3},\gamma_{*})>0$
such that\[
\left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}(I\times S^{1})}\leq\Gamma(1+\left|I\right|^{1/2})
\]
for any finite interval $I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$.\textup{ }
\end{lem}
The important point (as far as Proposition \ref{quadr is const} is
concerned) is that the constant $\Gamma$ depends only on $\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3}$
and $\gamma_{*}$. Anyway, applying the lemma, \eqref{eq:b7 estimate}
follows. The proof of Step 1 now follows with $K:=\max\{b_{3},b_{7}\}$.\newline
\textbf{Step 2.}\newline
The next part of the proof shows how the $L^{2}$ estimates \eqref{eq:step 1 estiamte}
on $p$ and $\nabla p$ on intervals leads to uniform $L^{\infty}$
bounds. This part of the proof closely follows \cite[Theorem 1.14.(i)]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006},
and uses the fact that $J\in B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{0})$, and the
conclusion of Step 1.
Let $\rho:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,1]$ denote a smooth function such
that $\mbox{supp}(\rho)\subseteq(-1,2)$, $\rho|_{[0,1]}=\mathbb{1}$
and $\left|\rho'\right|\leq2$. Given a map $u=(x,\eta)$ satisfying
the hypotheses of the theorem and $i\in\mathbb{Z}$, define $x_{i}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\Lambda T^{*}M$
by \[
x_{i}(s,t):=\rho(s-i)x(s,t).
\]
Note that \[
(\partial_{s}+J_{0}\partial_{t})x_{i}(s,t)=\rho'(s-i)x(s,t)+\rho(s-i)\eta(s)J(t,x)X_{H}(x(s,t))+\rho(s-i)(J_{0}(x)-J(t,x))\dot{x}(s,t).
\]
Since $x_{i}$ is compactly supported, Theorem \ref{thm:calderon }
applies, and we conclude:\begin{align*}
\left\Vert \nabla x_{i}\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})} & \leq\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{1}}\left\Vert (\partial_{s}+J_{0}\partial_{t})x_{i}\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\\
& \leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{1}}\left(R+\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{3}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})}\right)+\frac{C_{0}\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}}{2\varepsilon_{1}}\left\Vert X_{H}(x)\right\Vert _{L^{3}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})}\\
& +\frac{\left\Vert J_{0}-J\right\Vert _{\infty}}{2\varepsilon_{1}}\left\Vert \dot{x}\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})},
\end{align*}
where $R>0$ is a constant depending only on the diameter of the closed
manifold $M$.
Given $r>2$, let $P_{r}>0$ denote the constant such that for any
$f\in W^{1,r}((0,3)\times S^{1},\mathbb{R})$ it holds that \[
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{r}((0,3)\times S^{1})}\leq P_{r}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{W^{1,2}((0,3)\times S^{1})}.
\]
Using \eqref{eq:b0} and Step 1 we see that \begin{align*}
\left\Vert X_{H}(x)\right\Vert _{L^{3}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})} & \leq b_{0}\left(3^{1/3}+\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{6}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})}^{2}\right)\\
& \leq b_{0}\left(3^{1/3}+P_{6}^{2}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{W^{1,2}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})}^{2}\right)\\
& \leq b_{0}\left(3^{1/3}+P_{6}^{2}(K+2K\sqrt{3})^{2}\right).
\end{align*}
Similarly\[
\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{3}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})}\leq P_{3}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{W^{1,2}((i-1,i+2)\times S^{1})}\leq P_{3}(K+2K\sqrt{3}).
\]
Putting this altogether, and using the fact that $J\in B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J)$
we have therefore proved that there exists a constant $C>0$ that
is independent of $u$ and $i$ such that \[
\left\Vert \nabla x_{i}\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\leq C+\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \dot{x}\right\Vert _{L^{3}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}.
\]
Thus \[
\left\Vert \nabla x\right\Vert _{L^{3}((i,i+1)\times S^{1})}\leq2C.
\]
This gives a uniform bound for $x_{i}$ in $W^{1,3}((i,i+1)\times S^{1})$,
and hence also in $L^{\infty}((i,i+1)\times S^{1})$. Since this bound
does not depend on $i$, we have proved the existence of a uniform
bound for $x$ in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})$. The theorem
follows.
\end{proof}
We now turn to the final $L^{\infty}$ estimate we will need. It is
based on \cite[Theorem 1.14.(iii)]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}. It will
be needed to construct the short exact sequence between the Rabinowitz
Floer complex and the Morse (co)complex in the next section. In the
statement of the theorem one should substitute either `$+$' or `$-$'
for `$\pm$' throughout.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:half spaces linfinity}There exist constants $\varepsilon_{2}^{\pm}>0$
with the following property: Suppose $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{2}^{\pm}}(J_{g})$.
Fix $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$, $R>0$, $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$
and $-\infty<a<b<\infty$. Let $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$. Then there exist
constants $C_{4}^{\pm},C_{5}^{\pm}>0$ such that for any map \[
u=(x,\eta):\mathbb{R}^{\pm}\times S^{1}\rightarrow T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}
\]
with\[
x\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{\pm}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\cap W^{1,3}((0,\pm1)\times S^{1},T^{*}M);
\]
\[
\eta\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{\pm},\mathbb{R})\cap W^{1,3}((0,\pm1),\mathbb{R}),
\]
that satisfies the Rabinowitz Floer equation on $\mathbb{R}^{\pm}\times S^{1}$,
has action bounds $A_{H-k}(u(\mathbb{R}^{\pm}))\subseteq[a,b]$ together
with the extra assumptions:\[
\pm\eta(0)\geq0;
\]
\[
\left\Vert q(0,\pm\cdot)\right\Vert _{W^{2/3,3}(S^{1},\mathbb{R}^{d})}\leq R
\]
(where here $d$ is such that $(M,g)$ embeds isometrically into $(\mathbb{R}^{d},g_{0})$,
and we have written $x=(q,p)$), it holds that: \[
\left\Vert \eta\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{\pm})}\leq C_{4}^{\pm},\ \ \ \left\Vert x\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{\pm}\times S^{1})}\leq C_{5}^{\pm}.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier}
will still go through for flow lines defined on $\mathbb{R}^{+}$
instead of $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$, provided we have an a priori
lower bound on $\eta(0)$. If $u$ is defined on $\mathbb{R}^{-}$
then the proof will go through provided we (a) have an a priori upper
bound on $\eta(0)$, and (b), we we redefine the function $\tau(s)$
from \eqref{eq:def of tau of s} to be \[
\tau(s):=\inf\left\{ r\geq0\,:\,\left\Vert \nabla A_{H-k}(u(s-r,\cdot))\right\Vert _{J}\leq\rho_{0}\right\} .
\]
Therefore we have proved the existence of constants $C_{4}^{\pm}>0$
that uniformly bound the $\eta$-component of any map $u$ satisfying
the hypotheses of the theorem. Now Step 1 from the proof of Theorem
\ref{thm:l infinity} goes through without any essential changes (save
of course from the fact that now $u$ is defined on $\mathbb{R}^{\pm}$).
The proof of Step 2 also proceeds similarly, aside from the fact that
instead of following \cite[Theorem 1.14.(ii)]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}
we must instead follow \cite[Theorem 1.14.(iii)]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}.
In particular, the constants $\varepsilon_{2}^{\pm}>0$ in the statement
of the theorem come from a version of Theorem \ref{thm:calderon }
for maps defined on $\mathbb{R}^{\pm}\times S^{1}$ instead of $\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}$.
\end{proof}
\section{The Abbondandolo-Schwarz short exact sequence}
In this section we state and prove the main result of the paper, which
is the extension of \cite[Theorem 2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009} to
the weakly exact case. In the statement of the theorem below it is
implicitly assumed that $\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}$
is sufficiently small; this ensures that almost complex structures
that fit the hypotheses of theorem exist, cf. Remark \ref{rem:shrinking sigma}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:theorem A precise}Fix $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$
and $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$. Put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ and $L=L_{g}-\pi^{*}U$.
Let $f$ and $h$ be Morse functions on $\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}(S_{L+k})$
and $\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k})$ satisfying certain compatibility
requirements (stated precisely in Subsection \ref{thm:theorem A precise}
below). Let $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)$ denote a generically chosen
almost complex structure lying sufficiently close to the metric almost
complex structure $J_{g}$. Let $G$ denote a generically chosen metric
on $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ that is uniformly equivalent to
$\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}$,
and let $g_{0}$ and $g_{1}$ denote generically chosen Riemannian
metrics on $\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}(S_{L+k})$ and $\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k})$
respectively, such that the negative gradient flows of $f$ and $h$
with respect to these metrics are Morse-Smale. Then there exists:
\begin{enumerate}
\item An injective chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}:CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)\rightarrow RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)$
which admits a left inverse $\widehat{\Phi}_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}:RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)\rightarrow CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)$.
\item A surjective chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}:RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)\rightarrow CM^{1-*}(S_{L+k},-f;-\alpha)$
which admits a right inverse $\widehat{\Phi}_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}:CM^{1-*}(S_{L+k},-f;-\alpha)\rightarrow RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover the composition $\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}\circ\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}:CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)\rightarrow CM^{1-*}(S_{L+k},-f;-\alpha)$
is chain homotopic to zero, that is, there exists a homomorphism $P:CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)\rightarrow CM^{-*}(S_{L+k},-f;-\alpha)$
such that \[
\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}\circ\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}=P\partial^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}+\delta^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}P.
\]
Setting\[
\Theta:=\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}-\widehat{\Phi}_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}P\partial^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}-\partial^{\textrm{\emph{Morse}}}\widehat{\Phi}_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}P,
\]
the chain map $\Theta$ is chain homotopic to $\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}$,
and satisfies $\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}\circ\Theta=0$, and thus
we obtain a short exact sequence of chain complexes\[
0\rightarrow CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)\overset{\Theta}{\rightarrow}RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)\overset{\Phi_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}}{\rightarrow C}M^{1-*}(S_{L+k},-f;-\alpha)\rightarrow0.
\]
Identifying $HM_{*}(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)\cong H_{*}(\Lambda_{\alpha}M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})$
and $HM^{*}(S_{L+k},-f;-\alpha)\cong H_{\textrm{}}^{*}(\Lambda_{-\alpha}M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})$,
and passing to the associated long exact sequence\[
\xymatrix{\dots\ar[r] & H_{i}(\Lambda_{\alpha}M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})\ar[r]^{\Theta_{*}} & RFH_{i}(A_{H-k};\alpha)\ar[r]^{(\Psi_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}})_{*}} & H_{\textrm{}}^{1-i}(\Lambda_{-\alpha}M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})\ar[r]^{\Delta} & H_{i-1}(\Lambda_{\alpha}M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})\ar[r] & \dots}
\]
the connecting homomorphism $\Delta$ is identically zero unless $\alpha=0$
and $i=0$, in which case it is multiplication by the Euler class
$e(T^{*}M)$. This therefore allows one to obtain a complete description
of the Rabinowitz Floer homology of $A_{H-k}$.
\end{thm}
As mentioned in the introduction, the proof of this theorem is now
essentially identical to the corresponding proof in \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}.
We therefore omit almost all of the technical details, referring the
reader to the beautiful and lucid exposition in \cite{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009},
and instead just give an outline of Abbondandolo and Schwarz' constructions.
\subsection{\label{sub:Choosing-the-Morse}Choosing the Morse functions $f$
and $h$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
In order to construct the chain homotopy $P$ in the theorem above
it is essential that the Morse functions $f:\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
and $h:\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ are chosen in such
a way that certain compatibility requirements are satisfied. More
precisely, we require that the following four conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all $w\in\mbox{Crit}(f)$, it holds that$f(w)=h(Z^{\pm}(w))$,
and $i_{f}(w)=i_{h}(Z^{\pm}(w))$.
\item The function $f|_{M\times\{0\}}$ has a unique minimum and a unique
maximum and is \textbf{self-indexing}, that is, $f(q,0)=i_{f}((q,0))$
for all $(q,0)\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)\backslash\mbox{Crit}(f)$.
\item For all $x\in\Sigma_{k}$, we have $f(\pi(x),0)\leq h(x,0)\leq f(\pi(x),0)+1/2$.
\item Every critical point of $h|_{\Sigma_{k}\times\{0\}}$ lies above a
critical point of $f|_{M\times\{0\}}$, and moreover for each critical
point $(q,0)$ of $f|_{M\times\{0\}}$ there are exactly two critical
points of $h|_{\Sigma_{k}\times\{0\}}$ in the fibre $(\Sigma_{k}\cap T_{q}^{*}M)\times\{0\}$.
Denoting these two critical points by $(x_{q}^{\pm},0)$, it holds
that $f(q,0)=h(x_{q}^{-},0)=h(x_{q}^{+},0)-1/2$, and that $i_{f}(q,0)=i_{h}(x_{q}^{-},0)=i_{h}(x_{q}^{+},0)-n+1$.
\end{enumerate}
Such functions exist because $k>e_{0}(g,\sigma,U)$. This is explained
in detail in \cite[Appendix B]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}. An immediate
consequence of these requirements and Proposition \ref{pro:morse indices and cz indices}
is the following result.
\begin{lem}
Assume that the Morse functions $f:\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}(S_{L+k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
and $h:\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfy
the requirements above.
Then \[
\widehat{i}_{f}(w)=\widehat{\mu}_{h}(Z^{+}(w));
\]
\[
\widehat{i}_{-f}(w)=1-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(Z^{-}(w))
\]
for $w\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(f)$ and \[
\widehat{i}_{f}((q,0))=n-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(x_{q}^{+},0);
\]
\[
\widehat{i}_{-f}((q,0))=1-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(x_{q}^{-},0)
\]
for $(q,0)\in\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}(f)\backslash\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(f)$.
\end{lem}
\subsection{The chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
In order to define the chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}$, one first
needs to construct a suitable moduli space. Here are the details.
Recall that $G$ denotes a metric on $\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$
that is uniformly equivalent to $\left\langle \left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right\rangle \right\rangle _{g}$
and $g_{0}$ is a Riemannian metric on $\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(S_{L+k})$
such that the negative gradient flow $\phi_{t}^{-\nabla f}$ of $-\nabla f$
is Morse-Smale, and $g_{1}$ is a Riemannian metric on $\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(A_{H-k})$
such that the negative gradient flow $\phi_{t}^{-\nabla h}$ is Morse-Smale.
Fix a generic almost complex structure $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{2}^{+}}(J_{g})$
(where $\varepsilon_{2}^{+}>0$ is the constant from Theorem \ref{thm:half spaces linfinity}).\newline
Fix $w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$. If $m\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{m}^{-}(w)$
denote the set of tuples $\boldsymbol{w}=(w_{1},\dots,w_{m})$ such
that $w_{i}\in\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ for $i=1,\dots,m-1$
and $w_{m}\in\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}_{0}^{+}$, and such that \[
w_{1}\in W^{u}(W^{u}(w;-\nabla f);-\nabla S_{L+k});
\]
\[
\Psi_{-\infty}(w_{i+1})\in\phi_{\mathbb{R}^{+}}^{-\nabla f}(\Psi_{\infty}(w_{i})).
\]
Let $\mathcal{W}_{m}^{-}(w)$ denote the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{m}^{-}(w)$
under the free $\mathbb{R}^{m-1}$ action given by\[
(w_{1},\dots,w_{m-1})\mapsto(\Psi_{s_{1}}(w_{1}),\dots,\Psi_{s_{m-1}}(w_{m-1})),\ \ \ (s_{1},\dots,s_{m-1})\in\mathbb{R}^{m-1}.
\]
Then put \[
\mathcal{W}^{-}(w):=\bigcup_{m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}\mathcal{W}_{m}^{-}(w).
\]
For generically chosen $G$ and $g_{0}$, $\mathcal{W}^{-}(w)$ has
the structure of a smooth finite dimensional manifold of dimension
$\widehat{i}_{f}(w)$.\newline
Fix $z\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$. Let $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}^{+}(z)$
denote the denote the set of tuples of maps $\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{m})$
such that \[
u_{1}:\mathbb{R}_{0}^{+}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R};
\]
\[
u_{2},\dots,u_{m}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R},
\]
all satisfy the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq} (which
are possibly stationary solutions) and such that\[
u_{m}(\infty)\in W^{s}(z;-\nabla h);
\]
\[
u_{i+1}(-\infty)\in\phi_{\mathbb{R}^{+}}^{-\nabla h}(u_{i}(\infty))\ \ \ \mbox{for }i=1,\dots,m-1.
\]
Let $\mathcal{M}_{m}^{+}(z)$ denote the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}^{+}(z)$
under the free $\mathbb{R}^{m-1}$ action given by translation along
the flow lines $u_{2},\dots,u_{m}$.
Then put \[
\mathcal{M}^{+}(z):=\bigcup_{m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}\mathcal{M}_{m}^{+}(z).
\]
The space $\mathcal{M}^{+}(z)$ is not finite dimensional. However,
by restricting where the tuple $\boldsymbol{u}$ can {}``begin'',
we can cut it down to something finite dimensional. This is precisely
what the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$ does. Namely,
the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$ is defined to be
the following subset of $\mathcal{W}^{-}(w)\times\mathcal{M}^{+}(z)$.
A pair $([\boldsymbol{w}],[\boldsymbol{u}])$ (where the square brackets
denote the equivalence class after dividing through by the translation
actions) belongs to $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$ if and only
if we have, writing \[
\boldsymbol{w}=(w_{1},\dots,w_{m});
\]
\[
\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{j})\mbox{\ \ \ with }u_{j}=(x_{j},\eta_{j}),
\]
that \[
w_{m}=(\pi\circ x_{1}(0),\eta_{1}(0)).
\]
In other words, the tuple $\boldsymbol{w}$ must {}``end'' where
the tuple $\boldsymbol{u}$ {}``begins''.
For a fixed element $w^{*}\in\Lambda M\times\mathbb{R}_{0}^{+}$,
requiring tuples $\boldsymbol{u}$ to {}``begin'' at $w^{*}$ in
the sense that $(\pi\circ x_{1}(0),\eta_{1}(0))=w^{*}$ defines a
Lagrangian boundary condition. This implies that we have a Fredholm
problem, and since generically $\mathcal{W}^{-}(w)$ is a finite dimensional
manifold, it follows that $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$ can be
seen as the zero set of a Fredholm operator, whose index can be computed
to be $\widehat{i}_{f}(w)-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z)$. In fact, more is
true. Namely, $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$ (for generic $G,g_{0},J$
and $g_{1}$) is a precompact finite dimensional manifold of dimension
$\widehat{i}_{f}(w)-\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z)$.
This requires us to check two more things. Firstly, one needs to have
$C_{\textrm{loc}}^{\infty}$-bounds for the curves $\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{j})$.
Here the following key inequality comes into play. Given $([\boldsymbol{w}],[\boldsymbol{u}])\in\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$,
equation \eqref{eq:bound plus} from Lemma \ref{lem:relating critical points lemma}
tells us that for all $s\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$: \begin{multline*}
S_{L+k}(w)\geq S_{L+k}(w_{i})\geq S_{L+k}(w_{m})=S_{L+k}(\pi\circ x_{1}(0,\cdot),\eta_{1}(0))\\
\geq A_{H-k}(u_{1}(0,\cdot))\geq A_{H-k}(u_{i}(s,\cdot))\geq A_{H-k}(z).
\end{multline*}
Then uniform $L^{\infty}$ estimates for the solutions $u_{2},\dots,u_{j}$
come from Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity}, and the uniform $L^{\infty}$
estimate for $u_{1}$ comes from Theorem \ref{thm:half spaces linfinity}.
As before, these $L^{\infty}$ bounds give us $C_{\textrm{loc}}^{\infty}$
bounds (since $\omega|_{\pi_{2}(M)}=0$ and $c_{1}(T^{*}M,\omega)=0$).
This shows that the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$
are compact up to breaking.
The only complication with obtaining transversality is the presence
of stationary solutions, which can appear if $z=Z^{+}(w)$ or $w=(q,0)\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)\backslash\mbox{Crit}(f)$
is a critical point at infinity and $z=(x_{q}^{\pm},0)$ is one of
the corresponding two critical points of $h$. In the former case
the first inequality of the third statement of Lemma \ref{lem:relating critical points lemma}
forces the linearized operator defining the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,Z^{+}(w))$
to be an isomorphism (see \cite[Lemma 6.2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}
or \cite[Proposition 3.7]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2006}), and in the second
two cases the four assumptions made earlier on the Morse functions
$f$ and $a$ guarantee that the linearized operator defining the
moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}((q,0),(x_{q}^{\pm},0))$
is surjective (see \cite[Lemma 6.3]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}).\newline
Putting this together, we deduce that when $\widehat{i}_{f}(w)=\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z)$,
the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)$ is a finite set,
and hence we can define \[
n_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z):=\#\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)\ \ \ \mbox{taken modulo }2.
\]
Then one defines $\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}:CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f)\rightarrow RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h)$
by \[
\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}w=\sum_{z\in\textrm{Crit}_{i}(h)}n_{\textrm{SA}}(w,z)z,\ \ \ w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}_{i}(f).
\]
A standard gluing argument shows that $\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}$ is a chain
map. It is clear that $\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}$ restricts to define a
chain map $CM(S_{L+k},f;\alpha)\rightarrow RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)$
for each $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$.
\subsection{The chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{AS}}$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
The chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{AS}}$ is defined in much the same way.
One begins by defining spaces $\mathcal{M}^{-}(z)$ for $z\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$.
Let $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}^{-}(z)$ denote the denote the set
of tuples of maps $\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{m})$ such that
\[
u_{1},\dots,u_{m-1}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R};
\]
\[
u_{m}:\mathbb{R}_{0}^{-}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R},
\]
all satisfy the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq} (which
are possibly stationary solutions) and such that\[
u_{-}(\infty)\in W^{u}(z;-\nabla h),
\]
and such that \[
u_{i+1}(-\infty)\in\phi_{\mathbb{R}^{+}}^{-\nabla h}(u_{i}(\infty))\ \ \ \mbox{for }i=1,\dots,m-1.
\]
Let $\mathcal{M}_{m}^{-}(z)$ denote the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{m}^{-}(z)$
under the free $\mathbb{R}^{m-1}$ action and put \[
\mathcal{M}^{-}(z):=\bigcup_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\mathcal{M}_{m}^{-}(z).
\]
Given $z\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$ and $w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(-f)$,
the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{AS}}(z,w)$ consists of the
subset $\mathcal{M}^{-}(z)\times\mathcal{W}^{-}(w)$ of elements $([\boldsymbol{u}],[\boldsymbol{w}])$
such that, writing\[
\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{j})\mbox{\ \ \ with }u_{i}=(x_{i},\eta_{i});
\]
\[
\boldsymbol{w}=(w_{1},\dots,w_{m})\ \ \ \mbox{with }w_{i}=(q_{i},T_{i}),
\]
we have \[
(q_{m}(t),T_{m})=(\pi\circ x_{j}(0,-t),-\eta_{j}(0)).
\]
This time the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{AS}}(z,w)$ admits
the structure of a precompact smooth manifold of finite dimension
$\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z)+\widehat{i}_{-f}(w)-1$. Here one uses equation
\eqref{eq:bound minus} from Lemma \ref{lem:relating critical points lemma}
to deduce the inequality \begin{multline*}
A_{H-k}(z)\geq A_{H-k}(u_{i}(s,\cdot))\geq A_{H-k}(u_{j}(0,\cdot))\\
\geq-S_{L+k}(\pi\circ x_{j}(0,-\cdot),-\eta_{j}(0))\geq-S_{L+k}(w_{m})\geq-S_{L+k}(w_{i})\geq-S_{L+k}(w),
\end{multline*}
which gives the required $L^{\infty}$ estimates on the $u_{i}$,
and the second inequality in the third statement of Lemma \ref{lem:relating critical points lemma}
to obtain the automatic transversality in the case $z=Z^{-}(w)$.
Thus if $z\in\mbox{Crit}(h)$ and $w\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(-f)$
satisfy $\widehat{\mu}_{h}(z)+\widehat{i}_{-f}(w)=1$, $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{AS}}(z,w)$
is a finite set, and hence we may define $n_{\textrm{AS}}(z,w)$ to
be its parity. This defines the chain map $\Phi_{\textrm{AS}}$. As
before $\Phi_{\textrm{AS}}$ restricts to define a chain map $RF_{*}(A_{H-k},h;\alpha)\rightarrow CM^{1-*}(S_{L+k},f;-\alpha)$
for each $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$.
\subsection{The chain homotopy $P$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
The final ingredient is the chain homotopy $P:CM_{*}(S_{L+k},f)\rightarrow CM^{-*}(S_{L+k},-f)$.
This involves counting a slightly different sort of object. Let $\mathcal{F}_{0}$
denote the set of pairs $(u,T)$ where $T\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $u:[-T,T]\rightarrow T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}$
satisfies the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq}. Given $m\geq1$,
let $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{m}$ denote the set of tuples $\boldsymbol{u}=(u_{0},\dots,u_{m})$
such that \[
u_{0}:\mathbb{R}^{+}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R};
\]
\[
u_{2},\dots,u_{m-1}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R};
\]
\[
u_{m}:\mathbb{R}^{-}\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R},
\]
all satisfy the Rabinowitz Floer equation \eqref{eq:rfeq}, and such
that \[
u_{i}(-\infty)\in\phi_{\mathbb{R}^{+}}^{-\nabla h}(u_{i-1}(-\infty))\ \ \ \mbox{for }i=1,\dots,m.
\]
Let $\mathcal{F}_{m}$ denote the quotient of $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{m}$
by dividing through by the $\mathbb{R}^{m-1}$ action on the middle
curves $u_{1},\dots,u_{m-1}$. Put\[
\mathcal{F}=\bigcup_{m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}\mathcal{F}_{m}.
\]
Given $w_{-},w_{+}\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(f)$, denote by $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{-},w_{+})$
the subset of $\mathcal{W}^{-}(w_{-})\times\mathcal{F}\times\mathcal{W}^{-}w_{+})$
of elements that {}``begin'' at $w^{-}$ and {}``pass through''
an element of $\mathcal{F}$ and then {}``end'' at $w^{+}$ (we
refer to \cite[p46-47]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009} for the precise definition).
Then $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{-},w_{+})$ turns out to be a finite dimensional
smooth manifold of dimension $\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{-})+\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{+})$.
Here the key issue in the analysis is to check that if $(u,T)\in\mathcal{F}_{0}$
then $T$ is strictly bounded away from zero (\cite[Lemma 8.2]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009}).
Now we move onto the key proposition behind the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:theorem A precise}.
The first statement belows shows that if $w_{\pm}\in\overline{\mbox{Crit}}(\mp f)$
satisfy $\widehat{i}_{f}(w_{-})+\widehat{i}_{-f}(w_{+})=1$, we can
define $n_{P}(w_{-},w_{+})$ as the parity of the finite set $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{-},w_{+})$.
This defines the map $P$. The fact that $P$ is a chain homotopy
between $\Phi_{\textrm{SA}}$ and $\Phi_{\textrm{AS}}$ involves studying
the compactification of $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{-},w_{+})$ by adding
in the broken trajectories, and is the content of the second and third
statements of the proposition below.
\begin{prop}
\label{pro:MP precompactness}(\cite[Proposition 8.1]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009})
Let $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$ and choose \[
w_{0}\in\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}_{0}(f;\alpha),\ \ \ w_{1}\in\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}_{1}(f;\alpha);
\]
\[
w^{0}\in\overline{\textrm{\emph{Crit}}}_{0}(-f;-\alpha),\ \ \ w^{1}\in\overline{\mbox{\emph{Crit}}}_{1}(-f;-\alpha).
\]
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{0},w^{0})$ is compact.
\item The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{0},w^{1})$ is precompact, and
we can identify the boundary $\partial\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{P}(w_{0},w^{1})$
of compactification $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{P}(w_{0},w^{1})$ as follows:\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{P}(w_{0},w^{1}) & = & \left\{ \bigcup_{z\in\textrm{\emph{Crit}}_{0}(h)\cap\textrm{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k};\alpha)}\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}(w_{0},z)\times\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}(z,w^{1})\right\} \\
& & \bigcup\left\{ \bigcup_{w\in\overline{\textrm{\emph{Crit}}}_{0}(-f)\cap\textrm{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k};-\alpha)}\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{0},w)\times\mathcal{W}(w,w^{1})\right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
\item The moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{P}(w_{1},w^{0})$ is precompact, and
we can identify the boundary $\partial\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{P}(w_{1},w^{0})$
of compactification $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{P}(w_{1},w^{0})$ as follows:\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{P}(w_{1},w^{0}) & = & \left\{ \bigcup_{z\in\textrm{\emph{Crit}}_{1}(h)\cap\textrm{\emph{Crit}}(A_{H-k};\alpha)}\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{\emph{SA}}}(w_{1},z)\times\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{\emph{AS}}}(z,w^{0})\right\} \\
& & \bigcup\left\{ \bigcup_{w\in\overline{\textrm{\emph{Crit}}}_{1}(-f)\cap\textrm{\emph{Crit}}(S_{L+k};-\alpha)}\mathcal{W}(w_{1},w)\times\mathcal{M}_{P}(w,w^{0})\right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Theorem \ref{thm:theorem A precise} essentially follows from this
proposition; see \cite[Section 9]{AbbondandoloSchwarz2009} for the
details.
\section{\label{sec:Non-displaceability-above-the}Non-displaceability and
leaf-wise intersections above the critical value}
\subsection{Relating $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ with $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
Rabinowitz Floer homology was defined originally in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}
for restricted contact type hypersurfaces and Hamiltonians which are
constant at infinity. This was extended in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
to cover (amongst other things) the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_{k}$ that
we study here. A natural question therefore becomes whether the Rabinowitz
Floer homology we work with in this paper is isomorphic to that of
\cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}. The aim of this section
is to prove this in the affirmative.
Let $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$ and put $H=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$
and $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$. Let $\rho:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow(-\infty,1]$
denote a smooth function \begin{equation}
\rho(t):=\begin{cases}
t & t\in(-\infty,1-\delta]\\
1 & t\in[1+\delta,\infty)
\end{cases}\ \ \ 0\leq\rho'\leq1,\label{eq:def of rho}
\end{equation}
where $0<\delta<1/3$. Given $R>1$, let $\rho_{R}(t):=R\rho\left(\frac{t}{R}\right)$.
Let $H_{R}:T^{*}M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be defined by \[
H_{R}:=\rho_{R}\circ H.
\]
Assuming $R\gg k$, the Hamiltonian $H_{R}$ satisfies $\Sigma_{k}=H_{R}^{-1}(k)$
and $X_{H_{R}}|_{\Sigma_{k}}=X_{H}|_{\Sigma_{k}}$. However the Hamiltonian
$H_{R}$ is \textbf{constant} at infinity. This makes no difference
to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier},
or to that of Step 2 in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity},
but the proof of Step 1 of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity} explicitly
required the Hamiltonian to be quadratic. In the course of the proof
below we will show that the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity}
will still go though for the Hamiltonian $H_{R}$, provided $R\gg0$
is sufficiently large. However exactly what constitutes {}``sufficiently
large'' depends on the action interval $(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$.
Thus this method is not good enough to define the full Rabinowitz
Floer homology with $H_{R}$.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:geometrically bounded}In \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
this is overcome by using an entirely different method to obtain $L^{\infty}$
bounds on the $x$-component of gradient flow lines. Namely, they
work with a compatible almost complex structure $J$ that is \textbf{\emph{geometrically
bounded}} outside of a compact set. We refer to \cite[Chapter V]{AudinLafontaine1994}
for the precise definition, and also for an explanation as to why
working with Hamiltonians which are constant outside of a compact
set and almost complex structures that are geometrically bounded outside
of a compact set leads to such $L^{\infty}$ bounds. Proofs that twisted
cotangent bundles are geometrically bounded can be found in \cite[Proposition 2.2]{CieliebakGinzburgKerman2004}
or \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Lu1996}. The latter proof also shows that
it is possible (if $\left\Vert \sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}$ is small
enough) to find geometrically bounded almost complex structures $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g})$.
\end{rem}
We now prove the following result.
\begin{prop}
\label{quadr is const}Given a fixed finite interval $(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$,
there exists a constant $R(a,b)>0$ such that for all $R>R(a,b)$
there is a chain complex isomorphism \[
RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H_{R}-k})\cong RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k}).
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assuming $R$ is sufficiently large compared to $k$, since all the
critical points of $A_{H-k}$ are either points on $\Sigma_{k}$ or
parametrizations of periodic orbits of $X_{H}$ lying on $\Sigma_{k}$,
we conclude that all the critical points of $A_{H_{R}-k}$ are non-degenerate,
and that $\mbox{Crit}(A_{H_{R}-k})=\mbox{Crit}(A_{H-k})$. This shows
that the two chain complexes coincide (as \textbf{groups}): \[
RF_{*}(A_{H_{R}-k})\cong RF_{*}(A_{H-k}).
\]
Fix an almost complex structure $J\in\mathcal{J}(\omega)\cap B_{\varepsilon_{1}}(J_{g})$
and fix a finite interval $(a,b)\subseteq\mathbb{R}$. Let us denote
by $\mathcal{M}_{R}$ the set of all maps $u=(x,\eta)\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
that satisfy the Rabinowitz Floer equation $u'(s)+\nabla A_{H_{R}-k}(u(s,\cdot))=0$
and have action bounds \[
A_{H_{R}-k}(u(\mathbb{R}))\subseteq[a,b]
\]
and satisfy\[
x(\mathbb{R},\cdot)\in\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M.
\]
We will show how for $R\gg0$ large enough, one can follow through
the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity} and obtain a constant $C_{1}'>0$
that serves as a uniform $L^{\infty}$ bound for the $x$-component
of elements of $\mathcal{M}_{R}$. Here the key point is that the
constant $C_{1}'$ is \textbf{independent }of $R$. It will however
depend on the interval $(a,b)$. Anyway, this will imply the proposition,
as then it is immediate that if we choose $R$ large enough such that
\[
\left\{ (q,p)\in T^{*}M\,:\,\left|p\right|\leq C_{1}'\right\} \subseteq\left\{ (q,p)\in T^{*}M\,:\, H(q,p)\leq R\right\}
\]
then the boundary homomorphisms of the two truncated Rabinowitz Floer
complexes necessarily coincide, and hence the two truncated Rabinowitz
Floer homologies coincide.
Firstly though let us discuss the $\eta$-component of elements of
$\mathcal{M}_{R}$. Nothing in the proof of the bound on the Lagrange
multiplier (Theorem \ref{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier}) used
anything about the behavior of $H$ at infinity, and thus there exists
$R_{0}>0$ such that if $R>R_{0}$, the same constant $C_{0}>0$ obtained
in Theorem \ref{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier} serves as uniform
$L^{\infty}$ bound on the $\eta$-component of any element $u=(x,\eta)\in\mathcal{M}_{R}$.
Parts of the argument from the proof of Step 1 of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity}
are unchanged for the new Hamiltonian $H_{R}$. Indeed, for any $u=(x,\eta)\in\mathcal{M}_{R}$
if $b_{1}:=\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\sqrt{b-a}$ then as before\begin{equation}
\left\Vert x'\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\leq b_{1};\label{eq:b1 second time}
\end{equation}
\[
\left\Vert \eta'\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}\leq b_{1}.
\]
Fix $u=(x,\eta)\in\mathcal{M}_{R}$ and write $x=(q,p)$. Let us introduce
the auxiliary smooth function\[
P_{R}:\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R};
\]
\[
P_{R}(s,t):=\rho_{2R}\left(\left|p(s,t)\right|^{2}\right)=2\rho_{R}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p(s,t)\right|^{2}\right).
\]
Note that \[
X_{H_{R}}(q,p)=\rho_{R}'(H(q,p))\, X_{H}(q,p).
\]
Since $\rho_{R}'\leq1$ we see that \eqref{eq:b0} still holds. Let
us note that for any $(q,p)\in T^{*}M$ the following two implications
hold: \[
\left|p\right|^{2}\geq2R+2R\delta\ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \rho_{R}'\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}\right)\left|p\right|^{2}=0;
\]
\[
\left|p\right|^{2}\leq4R-4R\delta\ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \rho_{4R}\left(\left|p\right|^{2}\right)=\left|p\right|^{2}
\]
(where $\delta>0$ is the constant from the definition \eqref{eq:def of rho}
of $\rho$). Thus since $\delta<1/3$ we always have\begin{equation}
\rho_{R}'\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}\right)\left|p\right|^{2}\leq\rho_{4R}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}\right).\label{eq:first delta ineq}
\end{equation}
In fact, we can improve on this by choosing $R$ sufficiently large.
Indeed, suppose \[
R>R_{1}:=\frac{\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}}{1-3\delta}.
\]
Then for any $(q,p)\in T^{*}M$ one has \[
H(q,p)=R+R\delta\ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \left|p\right|^{2}\leq4R-4R\delta,
\]
and hence for $R>R_{1}$ we have\[
\rho_{R}'(H(q,p))\left|p\right|^{2}\leq\rho_{4R}\left(\left|p\right|^{2}\right)\ \ \ \mbox{for every }(q,p)\in T^{*}M.
\]
Thus for $R>R_{1}$, \begin{equation}
\left|X_{H_{R}}(x(s,t))\right|\leq b_{0}(1+P_{2R}(s,t)))\ \ \ \mbox{for all }(s,t)\in\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\label{eq:xh bound-1}
\end{equation}
where $b_{0}>0$ is defined as befor
\footnote{In order to aid the reader, throughout this proof the constants $b_{i}$
that appear are the \textbf{same }as the constants $b_{i}$ from the
proof of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity}. In some cases it is not possible
to use exactly the same constant; in this case we denote it by $b_{i}'$.
}.
In the truncated case, $\eta'(s)$ no longer bounds the $L^{2}$ norm
of $p(s,\cdot)$, as in \eqref{eq:eta bounding p}, but instead it
bounds the $L^{1}$ norm of $P_{R}(s,\cdot)$. Indeed, since\[
H_{R}(q,p)\geq\rho_{R}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}\right)-\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}
\]
for every $(q,p)\in T^{*}M$, we have
\[
\eta'(s)\geq\int_{S^{1}}\frac{1}{2}P_{R}(s,t)dt-(\left\Vert U\right\Vert _{\infty}+k).
\]
The same arguments as before successively prove:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\left\Vert P_{R}\right\Vert _{L^{1}(I\times S^{1})}\leq b_{2}\max\left\{ \left|I\right|,\left|I\right|^{1/2}\right\} $
for any finite interval $I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$.
\item For any $0<\varepsilon\leq1$ the sets \[
\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert P_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\leq\frac{b_{2}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right\} ;
\]
\[
\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}^{2}\leq\frac{b_{1}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right\}
\]
are $\varepsilon$-dense in $\mathbb{R}$.
\item For any $s\in\mathbb{R}$, $\left\Vert P_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\leq b_{3}$.
We will go through this one in detail: given $s\in\mathbb{R}$, choose
$s_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\left|s-s_{0}\right|\leq1$ and $\left\Vert P_{R}(s_{0},\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\leq b_{2}$.
Without loss of generality assume $s\geq s_{0}$. Then we have\begin{align*}
\left\Vert P_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})} & =\left\Vert P_{R}(s_{0},\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}+\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\frac{d}{dr}\left\Vert P_{R}(r,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}dr\\
& =b_{2}+2\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\int_{S^{1}}\rho_{R}'\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|^{2}\right)\left\langle p(r,t),p'(r,t)\right\rangle dtdr\\
& \leq b_{2}+2\left|\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\int_{S^{1}}\rho_{R}'\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p(r,t)\right|^{2}\right)\left|p(r,t)\right|^{2}dtdr\right|^{1/2}\left|\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\int_{S^{1}}\left|p'(r,t)\right|^{2}dtdr\right|^{1/2}\\
& \overset{(*)}{\leq}b_{2}+2\left|\int_{s_{0}}^{s}\left\Vert P_{2R}(r,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}dr\right|^{1/2}\left\Vert p'\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s)\times S^{1})}\\
& \leq b_{2}+2\sqrt{b_{2}}\left\Vert x'\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s)\times S^{1})}\\
& \leq b_{2}+2\sqrt{b_{2}}b_{1}.
\end{align*}
Here $(*)$ used \eqref{eq:first delta ineq} (note that the assertion
from the first bullet point also holds for $P_{2R}$!).
\end{itemize}
Note however that this last assertion does \textbf{not }imply that
$\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}\leq b_{3}$ for
all $s\in\mathbb{R}$, even if $R\gg b_{3}$. In order to prove this
we we argue as follows. Let $\vartheta_{R}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,1]$
denote a smooth function such that agrees with $\rho_{R}$ for $t\geq\delta$,
and is equal to $\delta/2$ for $t\leq0$, again with $0\leq\vartheta_{R}'\leq1$.
We now introduce another auxiliary smooth function\[
f_{R}:\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R};
\]
\[
f_{R}(s,t):=\vartheta_{R}(\left|p(s,t)\right|).
\]
Observe that for any $(s,t)\in\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}$, if $R>R_{2}:=\max\{R_{0},R_{1}\}$
then \begin{align*}
\dot{f}_{R}(s,t) & \leq\left|\dot{p}(s,t)\right|\\
& \leq\left|\dot{x}(s,t)\right|\\
& \leq\left|J(t,x(s,t))\cdot x'(s,t)\right|+\left|\eta(s)\right|\left|X_{H_{R}}(x(s,t))\right|\\
& \leq\left|J(t,x(s,t))\cdot x'(s,t)\right|+C_{0}b_{0}(1+P_{2R}(s,t)).
\end{align*}
Thus for $R>R_{2}$, \[
\left\Vert \dot{f}_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\leq\left\Vert J\right\Vert _{\infty}\left\Vert x'(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}+C_{0}b_{0}\left(1+\left\Vert P_{2R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\right).
\]
Now observe that \[
\left\Vert f_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}\leq1+\left\Vert P_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{1}(S^{1})}
\]
(since at any point $t\in S^{1}$, either $f_{R}(s,t)\leq1$ or $f_{R}(s,t)\leq P_{R}(s,t)$).
It now follows from \eqref{eq:s dash} and \eqref{eq:linfty p} that
if\[
b_{4}':=N(1+b_{3})+NC_{0}b_{0}(1+b_{3}^{2}),
\]
where $N>0$ is defined as in \eqref{eq:N} then for any $0<\varepsilon\leq1$
the subset \[
\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert f_{R}(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq b'_{4}+\frac{b_{5}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\right\}
\]
is $\varepsilon$-dense. Let \[
R_{3}:=\max\left\{ R_{2},\frac{b'_{4}+b_{5}}{1-\delta}\right\} .
\]
Then for $R>R_{3}$, we know that the set $\{s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq b_{4}'+b_{5}\}$
is $1$-dense in $\mathbb{R}$, and then arguing as before, we discover
that there exists a constant $b_{3}'>0$ such that \begin{equation}
\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{2}(S^{1})}\leq b_{3}'\ \ \ \mbox{for all }s\in\mathbb{R}.\label{eq:b3 dash}
\end{equation}
Next, since $\rho_{R}'\leq1$, the same argument as before shows that
for all $s_{0}<s_{1}$ we have \begin{equation}
\left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{2}\leq b_{6}\left(\left|s_{1}-s_{0}\right|+b_{1}^{2}\right)+b_{6}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L^{4}((s_{0},s_{1})\times S^{1})}^{4}.\label{eq:b6 second time}
\end{equation}
Now let us choose $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{*}$ where $\varepsilon_{*}=\varepsilon_{*}(b_{3}',b_{6})$
is the constant from Lemma \ref{lem:the gamma lemma}, and choose
\[
R>R(a,b):=\max\left\{ R_{3},b'_{4}+\frac{b_{5}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon_{*}}}\right\} .
\]
Then for $R>R(a,b)$ the set \begin{equation}
\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}\,:\,\left\Vert p(s,\cdot)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(S^{1})}\leq b'_{4}+\frac{b_{5}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon_{*}}}\right\} \label{eq:final eq for gamma lemma}
\end{equation}
is $\varepsilon_{*}$-dense in $\mathbb{R}$. Thus by \eqref{eq:b3 dash},
\eqref{eq:b6 second time} and \eqref{eq:final eq for gamma lemma},
Lemma \ref{lem:the gamma lemma} implies that there exists a constant
$b_{7}'=\Gamma(b_{1},b_{3}',b_{6},b_{4}'+b_{5}/\sqrt{\varepsilon_{*}})$
such that for $R>R(a,b)$ the following holds: for any finite interval
$I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ we have \[
\left\Vert \nabla p\right\Vert _{L^{2}(I\times S^{1})}\leq b_{7}'(1+\left|I\right|^{1/2}).
\]
In other words, for $R>R(a,b)$, Step 1 of Theorem \ref{thm:l infinity}
goes through, and the constant $K'>0$ that we obtain is independent
of $R$. Moving onto Step 2, we note that the proof of Step 2 used
nothing about the Hamiltonian other than the fact that Step 1 holds,
and that \eqref{eq:b0} holds. Thus the proof goes through immediately
for the Hamiltonian $H_{R}$ with $R>R(a,b)$. Moreover the constant
$C'_{1}>0$ that Step 2 produced depended only on the constants $K'$
and $b_{0}$. Thus we have proved that there exists a constant $C_{1}'>0$
such that if $R>R(a,b)$ and $u=(x,\eta)\in\mathcal{M}_{R}$ then
\[
\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1})}\leq C_{1}'.
\]
By the remarks at the beginning of the proof this implies the result.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ the Rabinowitz Floer
homology of the hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ as define
\footnote{Technically the Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$
as defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} is only defined
for contractible loops. If however one uses the observation that $\omega$
is symplectically atoroidal then the construction in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}
allows one to define Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$
for any free homotopy class; see Remark \ref{rem:remark on cfp rfh}
} in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}. We now prove that
$RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)\cong RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$. It is sufficient
to prove this when $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$
(cf. Remark \ref{rem:inv under g}). Since the Hamiltonian $H_{R}$
is constant outside of a compact set, using the invariance result
\cite[Theorem 1.1]{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} we conclude
that we can compute $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ usin
\footnote{Here we are implicitly using the last sentence of Remark \ref{rem:geometrically bounded}
} $H_{R}$, and thus for $R>R(a,b)$: \[
RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H_{R}-k})\cong RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M).
\]
Then using \cite[Theorem A]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009a}, which tell
\footnote{This is the only time in the entire paper where it is absolutely \textbf{essential}
that we used field coefficients for the Rabinowitz Floer homology
rather than, say, $\mathbb{Z}$-coefficients
} us that we can determine both the Rabinowitz Floer homologies $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$
and $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$ from the truncated Rabinowitz Floer
homologies via:\[
RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})\cong\underset{a\downarrow-\infty}{\underrightarrow{\lim}}\underset{b\uparrow\infty}{\underleftarrow{\lim}}RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(A_{H-k});
\]
\[
RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)\cong\underset{a\downarrow-\infty}{\underrightarrow{\lim}}\underset{b\uparrow\infty}{\underleftarrow{\lim}}RFH_{*}^{(a,b)}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M).
\]
We conclude that \begin{equation}
RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})\cong RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M).\label{eq:main conc}
\end{equation}
We can now prove the main result of this paper. In the proof below
for clarity we will continue to write $RFH_{*}(A_{H-k})$ for the
Rabinowitz Floer homology as defined in this paper, and $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$
for the Rabinowitz Floer homology defined in \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010},
despite the fact that we have just proved the two are isomorphic.
\begin{proof}
\emph{(of Theorem }\ref{thm:my main theorem}\emph{)}
We are given a closed weakly exact 2-form $\sigma\in\Omega_{\textrm{we}}^{2}(M)$
and a potential $U\in C^{\infty}(M,\mathbb{R})$, together with a
value $k\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$. Put $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$
and $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$. We will compute $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$.
By Remark \ref{rem:inv under g} we may assume that $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$.
We begin by choosing $r>0$ such that $\left\Vert r\sigma\right\Vert _{\infty}$
is sufficiently small such that the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:theorem A precise}
holds. Let us temporarily write $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;\omega)$
to indicate which symplectic form we are working with. Then \[
RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;\omega)\cong RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;r\omega).
\]
To see we argue as follows. If $F\in C_{c}^{\infty}(T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})$
is a \textbf{defining Hamiltonian }for $(H,\Sigma_{k},\omega)$ in
the sense of \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010}, that is,
$F$ is a compactly supported Hamiltonian such that $\Sigma_{k}=F^{-1}(0)$,
and $X_{F}|_{\Sigma_{k}}=X_{H}|_{\Sigma_{k}}$, then since$X_{F}^{\omega}=X_{rF}^{r\omega}$
(here $X_{F}^{\omega}$ denotes the symplectic gradient of $F$ with
respect to $\omega$, etc.), the Hamiltonian $rF$ is a defining Hamiltonian
for $(H,\Sigma_{k},r\omega)$. Next, there is a natural identification
between flow lines of the two Rabinowitz action functionals $A_{F}$
and $A_{rF}$: if $u(s,t)=(x(s,t),\eta(s))$ satisfies $u'(s)+\nabla A_{F}(u(s))=0$
then $u_{r}(s,t):=(x(s,t),\eta(rs))$ satisfies $u_{r}'(s)+\nabla A_{rF}(u_{r}(s))=0$,
and vice versa. This identification defines a chain isomorphism between
the two chain complexes.
Set $\omega_{r}:=\omega_{0}+r\pi^{*}\sigma$ so that $\omega=\omega_{1}$.
Next we claim \[
RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M;r\omega)\cong RFH_{*}(H_{r}^{-1}(r^{2}k),T^{*}M;\omega_{r}),
\]
where $H_{r}(q,p):=H_{g}+r^{2}\pi^{*}U$ (note that the latter is
well defined, as by Lemma \ref{lem:scaling c} we have $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$
if and only if $r^{2}k>c(g,r\sigma,r^{2}U)$). Indeed, the exact symplectomorphism
$\varphi_{r}:T^{*}M\rightarrow T^{*}M$ defined by \[
\varphi_{r}(q,p):=(q,rp)
\]
satisfies \[
\varphi_{r}^{*}\omega_{r}=r\omega;
\]
\[
\varphi_{r}^{*}H_{r}=r^{2}H,
\]
and hence $\varphi_{r}(\Sigma_{k})=H_{r}^{-1}(r^{2}k)$. The Rabinowitz
Floer homology of \cite{CieliebakFrauenfelderPaternain2010} is invariant
under such symplectomorphisms, and hence the claim follows. Next,
by \eqref{eq:main conc} we have
\[
RFH_{*}(H_{r}^{-1}(r^{2}k),T^{*}M;\omega_{r})\cong RFH_{*}(A_{H_{r}-r^{2}k};\omega_{r}),
\]
and finally by our choice of $r$ we can compute $RFH_{*}(A_{H_{r}-r^{2}k};\omega_{r})$
via Theorem \ref{thm:theorem A precise}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Leaf-wise intersections}
$\ $\vspace{6 pt}
We conclude this paper by showing how the fact that $RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M)$
is non-zero for $k>c(g,\sigma,U)$ implies the existence of \textbf{leaf-wise
intersections}, following \cite{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c,AlbersFrauenfelder2008}.
Throughout this section assume that $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}$
(in general we do \textbf{not}\emph{ }need to assume that $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$,
although this will be needed to get infinitely many leaf-wise intersections),
and put $H:=H_{g}+\pi^{*}U$ and $\Sigma_{k}:=H^{-1}(k)$.
The hypersurface $\Sigma_{k}$ is foliated by the leaves $\{\mathcal{L}_{x}\,:\, x\in\Sigma_{k}\}$,
where \[
\mathcal{L}_{x}:=\{\phi_{t}^{H}(x)\,:\, t\in\mathbb{R}\}.
\]
Let $\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$ denote the set of compactly supported
1-periodic Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of the symplectic manifold
$(T^{*}M,\omega)$, that is \[
\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega):=\left\{ \phi_{1}^{F}\,:\, F\in C_{c}^{\infty}(S^{1}\times T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})\right\} ,
\]
where $\phi_{t}^{F}$ is the flow of $X_{F}$; the latter being the
time-dependent symplectic gradient of $F$ with respect to $\omega$.
Given $\psi\in\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$, a point $x\in\Sigma_{k}$
is called a \textbf{leaf-wise intersection point for $\psi$}\emph{
}if $\psi(x)\in\mathcal{L}_{x}$.\newline
In order to explain the beautiful idea of Albers and Frauenfelder
that links Rabinowitz Floer homology to leaf-wise intersections, we
will need some preliminary definitions. First let us define \[
\mathcal{X}:=\left\{ \chi\in C^{\infty}(S^{1},\mathbb{R})\,:\,\int_{S^{1}}\chi(t)dt=1,\ \mbox{supp}(\chi)\subseteq(0,1/2)\right\} .
\]
We will say that a time-dependent Hamiltonian $G:S^{1}\times T^{*}M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
is \textbf{$H$-admissible}\emph{ }if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G(t,x)=\chi(t)G_{0}(x)$ for some $\chi\in\mathcal{X}$ and some
\textbf{compactly supported} $G_{0}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})$.
\item $G_{0}^{-1}(0)=\Sigma_{k}$.
\item It holds that $X_{G_{0}}|_{\Sigma_{k}}=X_{H}|_{\Sigma_{k}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let us write $\mathcal{H}(H)$ for the set of $H$-admissible Hamiltonians.
Finally set \[
\mathcal{F}:=\left\{ F\in C_{c}^{\infty}(S^{1}\times T^{*}M,\mathbb{R})\,:\, F(t,\cdot)\equiv0\ \mbox{for }t\in[1/2,1]\right\} .
\]
It is easy to see that $\mathcal{F}$ generates $\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$
in the sense that given any $\psi\in\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$,
there exists $F\in\mathcal{F}$ such that $\psi=\phi_{1}^{F}$ (see
for example \cite[Lemma 2.3]{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c}).
Let us call a pair $(G,F)\in\mathcal{H}(H)\times\mathcal{F}$ a \textbf{Moser
pair} for $\Sigma_{k}$. Given a Moser pair $(G,F)$ for $\Sigma_{k}$,
define the \textbf{perturbed Rabinowitz action functional}\emph{ }$A_{G-k}^{F}:\Lambda T^{*}M\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
by\[
A_{G-k}^{F}(x,\eta):=\int_{C}\bar{x}^{*}\omega-\eta\int_{S^{1}}G(t,x)dt-\int_{S^{1}}F(t,x)dt
\]
(where $\bar{x}$ and $C$ are defined as before). A short calculation
shows that \[
\mbox{Crit}(A_{G-k}^{F})=\left\{ (x,\eta)\in C^{\infty}(S^{1},T^{*}M)\times\mathbb{R}\,:\,\dot{x}=\eta\chi(t)X_{G_{0}}(x)+X_{F}(t,x),\ \int_{S^{1}}\chi(t)G_{0}(x)dt=0\right\} .
\]
The key observation of Albers and Frauenfelder that makes the whole
approach work is the following lemma \cite[Proposition 2.4]{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:albersfrau}Suppose $(x,\eta)\in\mbox{\emph{Crit}}(A_{G-k}^{F})$.
Then if $\psi=\phi_{1}^{F}$ and $y:=x(1/2)\in\Sigma$ then $\psi(y)=\mathcal{L}_{y}$,
that is, $y$ is a leaf-wise intersection point for $\psi$ in $\Sigma_{k}$.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For $t\in[0,1/2]$ we have $G_{0}(x(t))$ constant, since $X_{F}(t,\cdot)=0$,
and hence $x(t)\in\Sigma_{k}$ for $t\in[0,1/2]$. For $t\in[1/2,1]$,
$x(t)$ satisfies $\dot{x}(t)=X_{F}(t,x(t))$ and hence $x(1)=\psi(x(1/2))$.
Thus if $y:=x(1/2)$ then $y$ and $\psi(y)$ both lie in $\Sigma_{k}$.
Moreover since on $[0,1/2]$ we have $\dot{x}(t)=\eta\chi(t)G_{0}(x(t))$
we have $\psi(y)=x(0)\in\mathcal{L}_{y}$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Let us say that a leaf-wise intersection point $y\in\Sigma_{k}$ for
$\psi\in\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$ is a \textbf{periodic leaf-wise
intersection point for $\psi$}\emph{ }if the leaf $\mathcal{L}_{x}$
is a closed orbit of $\phi_{t}^{H}$. It is clear from the proof above
that the map $\mbox{Crit}(A_{G-k}^{F})\rightarrow\{\mbox{leaf-wise intersection points for }\phi_{1}^{F}\}$
is injective if there do not exist any periodic leaf-wise intersection
points for $\psi$.\newline
We will now state the two analytic results about the perturbed twisted
Rabinowitz action functional $A_{G-k}^{F}$ that allow one to do Rabinowitz
Floer homology with it. The proof of the first theorem is essentially
identical to \cite[Theorem 2.14]{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c} and \cite[Theorem 3.3]{AlbersFrauenfelder2008}.
\begin{thm}
Fix $G\in\mathcal{H}(H)$. Let $\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}(G)\subseteq\mathcal{F}$
denote the set of functions $F$ such that $A_{G-k}^{F}$ is a Morse
function. Then $\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}(G)$ is residual
in $\mathcal{F}$. Moreover if $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}$
then the set $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}(G)\subseteq\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}(G)$
consisting of those functions $F\in\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{\emph{reg}}}(G)$
for which there do not exist any periodic leaf-wise intersection points
for $\phi_{1}^{F}$ in $\Sigma_{k}$, is also residual in $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{thm}
The following result is proved exactly as in \cite[Theorem 2.9]{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c},
aside from the fact that one needs to use the modifications already
present in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bounding the lagrange multiplier}
above to deal with the fact that $\Sigma_{k}$ is only of virtual
restricted contact type.
\begin{thm}
Let $-\infty<a<b<\infty$ and $\alpha\in[S^{1},M]$, and let $\mathcal{M}$
denote the set of gradient flow lines $u\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
of $A_{G-k}^{F}$ (with respect to a suitable compatible almost complex
structure) such that $A_{G-k}^{F}(u(\mathbb{R}))\subseteq[a,b]$ and
$x(\mathbb{R},\cdot)\subseteq\Lambda_{\alpha}T^{*}M$. Then $\mathcal{M}$
is precompact in $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},T^{*}M)\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times S^{1},\mathbb{R})$,
where this space is given the $C_{\textrm{\emph{loc}}}^{\infty}$
topology.
\end{thm}
Using the previous two theorems (see \cite[Section 2]{AlbersFrauenfelder2010c}
for the full details), if $F\in\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{reg}}(G)$ one
can define the Rabinowitz Floer homology $RFH_{*}(A_{G-k}^{F})$ of
the perturbed Rabinowitz action functional $A_{G-k}^{F}$, and show
moreover that \[
RFH_{*}(A_{G-k}^{F})\cong RFH_{*}(A_{G-k}^{F=0})\overset{\textrm{def}}{=}RFH_{*}(\Sigma_{k},T^{*}M).
\]
In particular, given $F\in\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{reg}}(G)$ we have
the following corollary of Theorem \ref{thm:theorem A precise}.
\begin{cor}
For degrees $*\ne0,1$, \[
RFH_{*}(A_{G-k}^{F})\cong\begin{cases}
H_{*}(\Lambda M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})\\
H^{1-*}(\Lambda M;\mathbb{Z}_{2}).
\end{cases}
\]
\end{cor}
Using the corollary it is easy to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Leafwise}
from the introduction.
\begin{proof}
\emph{(of Theorem \ref{thm:Leafwise})}
First we show that any $\psi\in\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$ has
a leaf-wise intersection point. Indeed, if not then we can find $F\in\mathcal{F}$
and $G\in\mathcal{H}(H)$ such that $\psi=\phi_{1}^{F}$ and $\mbox{Crit}(A_{G-k}^{F})=\emptyset$
(see for instance \cite[p279-280]{CieliebakFrauenfelder2009}). In
this case $A_{G-k}^{F}$ is trivially Morse, and hence $F\in\mathcal{F}_{\textrm{reg}}(G)$.
But if $\mbox{Crit}(A_{G-k}^{F})=\emptyset$ then $RFH_{*}(A_{G-k}^{F})=0$,
a contradiction.
Suppose now that $\dim\, H_{*}(\Lambda M;\mathbb{Z}_{2})=\infty$
and $(g,\sigma,U,k)\in\mathcal{O}_{\textrm{reg}}$. Then for a generic
$\psi\in\mbox{Ham}_{c}(T^{*}M,\omega)$, we can write $\psi=\phi_{1}^{F}$
for some $F\in\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{\textrm{reg}}(G)$. In this
case the previous corollary combined with Lemma \ref{lem:albersfrau}
implies the existence of infinitely many leaf-wise intersection points
for $\psi$ in $\Sigma_{k}$.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
A key challenge across many domains of
science and engineering is to understand the behavior of complex
systems in terms of dynamical interactions among their component
parts. A common way to address this challenge is by analysis of time
series data acquired simultaneously from multiple system components.
Increasingly, such analysis aims to draw inferences about
\emph{causal} interactions among system variables
\cite{DingEtal06,Friston03,Schreiber00}, as a complement to standard
assessments of undirected functional connectivity as revealed by
coherence, correlation, and the like.
A first step in any dynamical analysis is to identify target
variables. Typically, subsequent analysis then assumes that
functional (causal) interactions take place among these variables.
However, in the general case it may be that explanatorily relevant
causal interactions take place among \emph{groups}, or ``ensembles'',
of variables \cite{ladroue:2009,Geweke82}. It is important to
account for this possibility for at least two reasons. First,
identification of target variables is usually based on \emph{a
priori} system knowledge or technical constraints, which may be
incomplete or arbitrary, respectively. Second, even given
appropriate target variables, it is possible that relevant
interactions may operate at multiple scales within a system, with
larger scales involving groups of variables. Consider an example
from functional neuroimaging. In a typical fMRI\footnote{Functional
magnetic resonance imaging.} study, the researcher may identify
\emph{a priori} several ``regions-of-interest'' (ROI) in the brain,
each represented in the fMRI dataset by multiple voxels, where each
voxel is a variable comprising a single time series reflecting
changes in the underlying metabolic signal. Assuming that the
objective of the study is to assess the causal connectivity among
the ROIs, a standard approach is to derive a single time series for
each ROI either by averaging or by extracting a principal component
\cite{zhou:2009}; alternatively, repeated pairwise analysis can be
performed on each pair of voxels. A more appropriate approach,
however, may be to consider causal interactions among the
multivariate groups of voxels comprising each ROI. Similar
scenarios could be concocted in a very wide range of application
areas, including economics, biology, climate science, among others.
In this paper, we describe a principled approach to assessing causal
interactions among multivariate groups of variables. Our approach is
based on the concept of Granger causality (G-causality)
\cite{wiener:1956,Granger69}, a statistical notion of causality
which originated in econometrics but which has since found
widespread application in many fields, with a particular
concentration in the neurosciences \cite{DingEtal06,bressler:2010}.
G-causality is an example of time series inference on stochastic
processes and is usually implemented via autoregressive modeling of
multivariate time series. The basic idea is simple: one variable
(or time series) can be called ``causal'' to another if the ability to
predict the second variable is improved by incorporating information
about the first. More precisely, given inter-dependent variables
$X$ and $Y$, it is said that ``$Y$ G-causes $X$'' if, in a
statistically suitable manner, $Y$ assists in predicting the future
of $X$ beyond the degree to which $X$ already predicts its own
future. It is straightforward to extend G-causality to the
conditional case \cite{Geweke82}, where $Y$ is said to G-cause $X$,
conditional on $Z$, if $Y$ assists in predicting the future of $X$
beyond the degree to which $X$ and $Z$ together already predict the
future of $X$. Importantly, conditional G-causality is orthogonal
to the notion of inferring causality among groups of variables,
which is the focus of the present paper and which we term
\emph{multivariate} G-causality. In the multivariate case, the
above description of G-causality is generalized to interactions
among \emph{sets} of interdependent variables $\bX$, $\bY$, and (in
the conditional multivariate case) $\bZ$. The generalization we
propose was originally introduced in the field of econometrics by
Geweke in 1982 \cite{Geweke82}, but has since been almost totally
overlooked. Indeed a different measure has recently appeared
\cite{ladroue:2009}. In the following, we derive several
justifications for preferring Geweke's measure, some of which we examine numerically. We go on to explore a
series of implications for the analysis of complex systems in
general, with a particular focus on applications in neuroscience.
After laying out our conventions in Section 2, in Section 3 we
introduce two alternative measures of multivariate G-causality. The
formulations differ according to their treatment of the covariance
matrices of residuals in the underlying autoregressive models:
Geweke's measure uses the \textit{determinant} of this matrix (the
generalized variance), while the other uses the \textit{trace} (the
total variance). Section 4 explores several advantageous properties
of the determinant formulation as compared to the trace formulation.
In brief, the determinant formulation is fully equivalent to
transfer entropy \cite{Schreiber00} under Gaussian assumptions, is
invariant under a wider range of variable transformations, is
expandable as a sum of standard univariate G-causalities, and admits
a satisfactory spectral decomposition. Numerically, we show that Geweke's measure is just as stable as is the alternative measure based on the total variance. Section 5 extends the
determinant formulation to the important case of ``partial''
G-causality which provides some measure of control with respect to
unmeasured latent or exogenous variables. Section 6 extends a
previously defined measure of ``causal density'' \cite{seth:2009a}
which reflects the overall dynamical complexity of causal
interactions sustained by a system. In Section 7 we show how
multivariate G-causality can enhance a measure of ``autonomy'' (or
``self-causation'') based on G-causality \cite{seth:alife:2009}, and
Section 8 carries the discussion towards the identification of
macroscopic variables via the notion of causal independence. Section
9 provides a general discussion and summary of contributions.
\section{Notational conventions and preliminaries}
We use a mathematical vector/matrix notation in which bold type generally denotes vector quantities and upper-case type denotes matrices or random variables, according to context. All vectors are considered to be \textit{column} vectors. `$\mc$' denotes \textit{vertical concatenation} of vectors, so that for $\bx = \trans{(x_1,\ldots,x_n)}$ and $\by = \trans{(y_1,\ldots,y_m)}$, $\bx\mc\by$ is the vector $\trans{(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m)}$ of dimension $n+m$, where the symbol `$\transop$' denotes the transpose operator. We also write $\dett\cdot$ for the determinant and $\trace\cdot$ for the trace of a square matrix.
Given jointly distributed multivariate random variables (\ie\ random vectors) $\bX,\bY$, we denote by $\Covs\bX$ the $n \times n$ matrix of covariances $\cov{X_i}{X_j}$ and by $\Cov\bX\bY$ the $n \times m$ matrix of cross-covariances $\cov{X_i}{Y_\alpha}$. We then use $\Covc\bX\bY$ to denote the $n \times n$ matrix
\begin{equation}
\Covc\bX\bY \equiv \Covs\bX - \Cov\bX\bY \Covs\bY^{-1} \trans{\Cov\bX\bY}\,, \label{eq:ccxy}
\end{equation}
defined when $\Covs\bY$ is invertible. $\Covc\bX\bY$ appears as the covariance matrix of the residuals of a linear regression of $\bX$ on $\bY$ (c.f.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:rescov} below); thus, by analogy with \textit{partial correlation} \cite{Kendall79} we term $\Covc\bX\bY$ the \textit{partial covariance}\footnote{This is to be distinguished from the \textit{conditional covariance}, which will in general be a random variable, though later we note that for \textit{Gaussian} variables the notions coincide.} of $\bX$ given $\bY$. Similarly, given another jointly distributed variable $\bZ$, we define the \textit{partial cross-covariance}
\begin{equation}
\Covc{\bX,\bY}\bZ \equiv \Cov\bX\bY - \Cov\bX\bZ \Covs\bZ^{-1} \trans{\Cov\bY\bZ}\,. \label{eq:cccxy}
\end{equation}
The following identity \cite{Barnett:2009a} will be useful for deriving certain properties of multivariate G-causality:
\begin{equation}
\dett{\Covc\bX\bY} = \left. \dett{\Covs{\bX\mc\bY}} \right/ \dett{\Covs\bY}\,. \label{eq:cxyid}
\end{equation}
Suppose we have a multivariate stochastic process $\bX_t$ in discrete time\footnote{While our analysis may be extended to \textit{continuous} time we focus here on the discrete time case.} (\ie\ the random variables $X_{it}$ are jointly distributed). We use the notation $\bX^{(p)}_t \equiv \bX_t\mc\bX_{t-1}\mc\ldots\mc\bX_{t-p+1}$ to denote $\bX$ itself, along with $p-1$ \textit{lags}, so that for each $t$, $\bX^{(p)}_t$ is a random vector of dimension $pn$. Given the lag $p$, we also often use the shorthand notation $\blX_t \equiv \bX^{(p)}_{t-1}$ for the lagged variable.
\section{Multivariate Granger causality} \label{sec:granger}
G-causality analysis is concerned with the comparison of different linear regression models of data. Thus, let us consider the (multivariate) linear regression of one random vector $\bX$, the predictee, on another random vector $\bY$, the predictor:\footnote{Here and in the remainder of this paper we assume, without loss of generality, that all random vectors and random processes have zero mean; thus constant terms are omitted in all linear regressions.}
\begin{equation}
\bX = A \cdot \bY + \beps\,, \label{eq:linreg}
\end{equation}
where the $n \times m$ matrix $A$ contains the regression coefficients and the random vector $\beps = \trans{(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_n)}$ comprises the residuals. The coefficients of this model are uniquely specified by imposing zero correlation between the residuals $\beps$ and the regressors (predictors) $\bY$. Via the Yule-Walker procedure \cite{DingEtal06,Barnett:2009a} one obtains
\begin{equation}
A = \Cov\bX\bY \Covs\bY^{-1} \label{eq:regcoef}
\end{equation}
and finds the covariance matrix of the residuals to be given by
\begin{equation}
\Covs\beps = \Covc\bX\bY\,, \label{eq:rescov}
\end{equation}
with $\Covc\bX\bY$ defined as in \eqref{eq:ccxy}.
Suppose now we have three jointly distributed,
stationary\footnote{The analysis carries through for the
non-stationary case, but for simplicity we assume here that all
processes are stationary.} multivariate stochastic processes $\bX_t,
\bY_t, \bZ_t$. Then to measure the G-causality from $\bY$ to
$\bX$ given $\bZ$, one wants to compare the following two
multivariate autoregressive (MVAR) models for the processes
\cite{Granger69}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bX_t & = A \cdot \bracr{\bX^{(p)}_{t-1}\mc\bZ^{(r)}_{t-1}} + \beps_t\,, \\
\bX_t & = A' \cdot \bracr{\bX^{(p)}_{t-1}\mc\bY^{(q)}_{t-1}\mc\bZ^{(r)}_{t-1}} + \beps'_t\,.
\end{split} \label{eq:reg}
\end{equation}
Thus the predictee variable $\bX$ is regressed firstly on the previous $p$ lags of itself plus $r$ lags of the conditioning variable $\bZ$ and secondly, in addition, on $q$ lags of the predictor variable $\bY$ (in theory, if not in practice, $p$, $q$ and $r$ could be infinite).\footnote{This might be more familiar as \textit{conditional} G-causality, with $\bZ$ the conditioning variable. In practice it is the more useful form; for the non-conditional version, $\bZ$ may simply be omitted.}
The standard measure of G-causality used in the literature is defined only for \textit{univariate} predictor and predictee variables $Y$ and $X$, and is given by the log of the ratio of the residual variances for the regressions \eqref{eq:reg}. In our notation,\footnote{Note that even though $X$ and $Y$ are univariate, the \textit{lagged} variables $\blX$ and $\blY$ will generally be multivariate (at least if $p,q>1$); hence they are written in bold type.}
\begin{align}
\cgc Y X\bZ
&\equiv \lnt{\frac{\var{\eps_t}}{\var{\eps'_t}}} \nonumber \\
&= \lnt{\frac{\Covs{\eps_t}}{\Covs{\eps'_t}}} \nonumber \\
&= \lnt{\frac{\Covc X{\blX\mc\blZ}}{\Covc X{\blX\mc\blY\mc\blZ}}}\,, \label{eq:gcu}
\end{align}
where the last equality follows from the general formula \eqref{eq:rescov}. By stationarity this expression does not depend on time $t$. Note that the residual variance of the first regression will always be larger than or equal to that of the second, so that $\cgc Y X\bZ \ge 0$ always.
As regards statistical inference, it is known that the corresponding maximum likelihood estimator\footnote{We remark that for significance testing of G-causality it is quite common to use the appropriate $F$-statistic for the regressions \eqref{eq:reg} rather than $\cgc Y X\bZ$ itself \cite{Granger69,Seth:2010}; the quantities are in any case related by a monotonic transformation.} $\ecgc Y X\bZ$ will have (asymptotically for large samples) a $\chi^2$-distribution under the null hypothesis $\cgc Y X\bZ = 0$ \cite{Granger63,Whittle53}, and a non-central $\chi^2$-distribution under the alternative hypothesis $\cgc Y X\bZ > 0$ \cite{Geweke82,Wald43}.
We now consider the case where predictee and predictor
variables are no longer constrained to be univariate, i.e.~multivariate G-causality. For a multivariate predictor,
Eq.~\eqref{eq:gcu} above (with $Y$ replaced by the bold-type $\bY$)
is a valid and consistent formula for G-causality. However,
for the case of a multivariate predictee there is not yet a
standard definition for G-causality. One possibility is to
simply use the multivariate mean square error (i.e.~total variance,
or expected squared length of the multivariate residual), leading
to
\begin{align}
\ctgc\bY\bX\bZ
&\equiv \lnt{\frac{\trace{\Covs{\beps_t}}}{\trace{\Covs{\beps'_t}}}} \nonumber \\
&= \lnt{\frac{\trace{\Covc{\bX}{\blX\mc\blZ}}}{\trace{\Covc{\bX}{\blX\mc\blY\mc\blZ}}}}\,. \label{eq:gct}
\end{align}
We call this the trace version of multivariate G-causality
(trvMVGC). As recently noted by Ladroue
and colleagues \cite{ladroue:2009} trvMVGC appears to be a natural
extension of G-causality to the multivariate case because total
variance is a common choice for a measure of goodness-of-fit or
prediction error for a multivariate regression. Moreover, the
measure is always non-negative, reduces to \eqref{eq:gcu} when the
predictee variable is univariate, and the regression matrix
coefficients that render the residuals uncorrelated with the
regressors also minimize the total variance (this is just the
``ordinary least squares'' procedure, minimizing mean square error).
Nonetheless, an alternative originally proposed by Geweke
\cite{Geweke82} uses instead the \textit{generalized variance}
$\dett{\Covs{\beps_t}}$, which quantifies the \textit{volume} in
which the residuals lie. This leads to the measure
\begin{align}
\cgc\bY\bX\bZ
&\equiv \lnt{\frac{\dett{\Covs{\beps_t}}}{\dett{\Covs{\beps'_t}}}} \nonumber \\
&= \lnt{\frac{\dett{\Covc{\bX}{\blX\mc\blZ}}}{\dett{\Covc{\bX}{\blX\mc\blY\mc\blZ}}}}\,. \label{eq:gc}
\end{align}
Like trvMVGC, this measure is always non-negative, reduces to
\eqref{eq:gcu} when the predictee variable is univariate, and is
consistent with the autoregressive approach inasmuch as the
Yule-Walker regression matrix coefficients minimize the generalized
variance, $\dett{\Covs\beps}$, as well as the total variance, (see
\Apxref{apx:mindet} for a proof). Geweke \cite{Geweke82} lists a
number of motivations for taking $\cgc\bY\bX\bZ$ as given in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:gc} as the natural extension of G-causality to
the multivariate case. These include: (i) that the generalized
variance version \eqref{eq:gc} is invariant under (linear)
transformation of variables (see \Secref{sec:invariance}); and (ii)
that the maximum likelihood estimator of this quantity,
$\ecgc\bY\bX\bZ$, is asymptotically $\chi^2$-distributed for large
samples. In the following section we further justify this choice.
Since we advocate the use of Geweke's measure \eqref{eq:gc} of
multivariate G-causality we abbreviate this simply as MVGC
henceforth.
As remarked previously, the expression \eqref{eq:gc} defines \emph{conditional} MVGC. Geweke \cite{Geweke84} gives the following intuitively appealing expression for $\cgc\bY\bX\bZ$ in terms of unconditional MVGCs:
\begin{equation}
\cgc\bY\bX\bZ \equiv \gc{\bY\mc\bZ}\bX - \gc\bZ\bX\,; \label{eq:cgc}
\end{equation}
that is, the extent to which $\bY$ and $\bZ$ together cause $\bX$ less the extent that $\bZ$ on its own causes $\bX$. Note that this identity also holds for trvMVGC.
\section{Properties of Multivariate Granger causality} \label{sec:Justifications}
In the following subsections we discuss some properties of MVGC and further motivate Geweke's definition of this measure.
\subsection{Gaussian Equivalence with Transfer Entropy} \label{sec:gauss}
When all variables are Gaussian distributed, the MVGC $\cgc\bY\bX\bZ$ is fully equivalent to the transfer entropy $\cxe\bY\bX\bZ$, an information-theoretic notion of causality \cite{Barnett:2009a}, with a simple factor of 2 relating the two quantities,
\begin{equation}
\cgc\bY\bX\bZ = 2\cxe\bY\bX\bZ\,. \label{eq:tegceq}
\end{equation}
Transfer entropy \cite{Schreiber00,KaiserSchreiber02} is defined by
the difference in entropies
\begin{equation}
\cxe\bY\bX\bZ \equiv \centro{\bX}{\blX\mc\blZ} - \centro{\bX}{\blX\mc\blY\mc\blZ}\,, \label{eq:te}
\end{equation}
and quantifies the degree to which knowledge of the past of $\bY$
reduces uncertainty in the future of $\bX$. The equivalence \eqref{eq:tegceq} stems from the entropy of a Gaussian distribution being directly proportional to the logarithm of the determinant of its covariance matrix; and, furthermore, from any conditional entropy involving Gaussian variables being directly proportional to the logarithm of the determinant of the appropriate corresponding \emph{partial} covariance matrix (see \cite{Barnett:2009a} for details). Due to the use of the determinant being crucial for this relationship, for trvMVGC the equivalence holds only in the more restricted situation when the predictee variable is univariate.
In addition to motivating MVGC over trvMVGC, the equivalence
\eqref{eq:tegceq} also provides a justification for the use of
linear regression models in measuring causality. Transfer
entropy is naturally sensitive to nonlinearities in the data, a property
which is rightly seen as desirable for measures of causality and
which has motivated the development of several nonlinear extensions
to standard G-causality \cite{ChenEtal04,Marinazzo08}.
However, when data are Gaussian, the two linear regressions capture
all of the entropy difference that defines transfer entropy,
which implies that non-linear extensions to G-causality
are of no additional utility. Indeed for two multivariate
Gaussian variables $\bX$ and $\bY$, the partial covariance
$\Covop(\bX|\bY)$, which is the same quantity as the residual
covariance under linear regression, can be simply thought of as the
conditional covariance of $\bX$ given $\bY$, because
$\mathrm{cov}(\bX|\bY=\by)=\Covop(\bX|\bY)$ for all $\by$. Hence, for
Gaussian data, linear regression accounts for all the dependence of
the regressee on the regressor.
To demonstrate formally that a stationary Gaussian AR process must be \textit{linear}, consider a general stationary multivariate Gaussian process $\bX_t$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\bX_t = f\!\bracr{\bX_{t-1}^{(p)}} + \beps_t\,,
\end{equation}
where $f(\cdot)$ is some sufficiently well-behaved, possibly nonlinear function and the $\beps_t$ are independent of $\bX_{t-s}$ for $s =1,2,\ldots$. For any $t$ then, $\beps_t = \bX_t - f\!\bracr{\bX_{t-1}^{(p)}}$ is independent of $\bX_{t-1}^{(p)}$, so that, in particular, for any value $\bxi$ taken by $\bX_{t-1}^{(p)}$, the conditional expectation
\begin{equation}
\cexpect{\beps_t}{\bX_{t-1}^{(p)} = \bxi} = \cexpect{\bX_t}{\bX_{t-1}^{(p)} = \bxi} -f(\bxi) \label{eq:ccond}
\end{equation}
does not depend on $\bxi$ and nor, by stationarity, on $t$. But since by assumption $\bX_t$ and $\bX_{t-1}^{(p)}$ are jointly multivariate Gaussian, by a well-known result $\cexpect{\bX_t}{\bX_{t-1}^{(p)}}$ depends linearly on $\bxi$, and from \eqref{eq:ccond} it follows that $f(\bxi)$ must be a linear function of $\bxi$.
\subsection{Invariance under transformation of variables} \label{sec:invariance}
The partial covariance $\Covop(\bX|\bY)$ transforms in a simple way under linear transformation of variables. If $T$ and $U$ are respective matrices for linear transformations on $\bX$ and $\bY$ then we have that
\begin{equation}
\Covc{T \cdot \bX}{U \cdot \bY} \equiv T \Covc\bX\bY \trans T\,. \label{eq:pci}
\end{equation}
Using this formula, and the properties of the determinant and trace operators, we can find the respective groups of linear transformations under which MVGC and trvMVGC are invariant. For MVGC, we find that the most general transformation that $\cgc\bY\bX\bZ$ is invariant under is given by
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\bX &\to T_{xx} \cdot \bX\,, \\
\bY &\to T_{yx} \cdot \bX + T_{yy} \cdot \bY + T_{yz} \cdot \bZ\,, \\
\bZ &\to T_{zx} \cdot \bX + T_{zz} \cdot \bZ\,,
\end{split} \label{xmfns}
\end{align}
where the matrices $T_{xx}$, $T_{yy}$ and $T_{zz}$ on the diagonal are non-singular. All these symmetries are desirable properties for a causality measure. There ought to be invariance under redefinition of the individual variables within each of $\bX$, $\bY$ and $\bZ$, (i.e.~under the diagonal components $T_{xx}$, $T_{yy}$ and $T_{zz}$ of Eq.~\eqref{xmfns}), because MVGC is designed to measure causality between unified wholes rather than between arbitrarily defined constituent elements. The ``off-diagonal'' components $T_{yx}$, $T_{yz}$ and $T_{zx}$ are also intuitive. Adding components of $\bZ$ or $\bX$ to the predictor $\bY$ should not change the value of MVGC, because MVGC is designed to measure the ability of $\bY$ at predicting $\bX$ \textit{over and above} $\bZ$ and $\bX$. Similarly, adding components of $\bX$ onto $\bZ$ should not make a difference because the predictee $\bX$ could already be thought of as a conditional variable before transformation.
trvMVGC has an invariance under a similar group of transformations but with one significant restriction, namely that the matrix $T_{xx}$ must be \textit{conformal} (angle-preserving), that is $T_{xx}$ must satisfy $T_{xx}\trans{T_{xx}} = c I$ for some constant $c$. This difference can have practical consequences. The broader invariance of MVGC (under \emph{all} linear transformations $T_{xx}$) means that this measure, but not trvMVGC, is insensitive to certain common inaccuracies of data collection, namely those in which variables within a given set $\bX$ are contaminated by contributions from other variables (see Discussion). To put this point another way, if one wishes to infer MVGC between \emph{hidden} variables by analyzing MVGC between observed variables, these two quantities are actually the same if the relationship between hidden and observed variables is linear and can be written in the form given in Eq.~\eqref{xmfns}. One may also wish to measure the MVGC from the independent components of the predictor to the independent components of the predictee. Again, the invariance properties of MVGC mean that one does not need to explicitly find these independent components; one can simply compute MVGC between observed components. These observations indicate that MVGC takes into account correlation between variables in a principled way. We see this explicitly in Section \ref{sec:expand}.
The restriction $T_{xx}\trans{T_{xx}} = c I$ for trvMVGC further implies that an uneven \emph{rescaling} of the components of the predictee variable may change the value of $\ctgc\bY\bX\bZ$. This too has practical implications, namely that trvMVGC but not MVGC can be affected by magnitude differences in the components of $\bX$, perhaps resulting from these components reflecting underlying mechanisms that are differently amplified or differentially accessible to the measuring equipment, a common situation in many neuroscience contexts (see Discussion). This sensitivity is undesirable because causal connectivity should be based on the information content of signals (c.f.\ Section~\ref{sec:gauss}), and not on their respective magnitudes.
It is worth noting that for transfer entropy the symmetry group can be extended to include all non-singular (not necessarily linear) transformations of the predictee variable, since the entropies are invariant under such transformations.\footnote{If the predictee variable has a continuous (multivariate) distribution, we note that the Jacobian determinants in the standard change-of-variables formula for entropy calculation cancel out.} Since G-causality is essentially a linear version of transfer entropy, the former should at least be invariant under the linear subgroup of transformations.
\subsection{Expansion of Multivariate Granger Causality} \label{sec:expand}
MVGC is expandable as a sum of G-causalities over all combinations of \textit{univariate} predictor and predictee variables contained within the multivariate composites. The existence of this expansion depends on the fact that determinants are decomposable into products, and that logarithms of products are decomposable into sums of logarithms. No such decomposition exists for the logarithm of a trace, and so there is no obvious way of expanding trvMVGC into combinations of univariate components.
The expansion of MVGC is not entirely straightforward because different terms in the sum involve conditioning on the past and present of different subsets of variables. However each predictor/predictee combination appears precisely once in the sum, and each term can be explained intuitively. The general formula may be written as
\begin{equation}
\cgc\bY\bX\bZ = \sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{\alpha=1}^m \cgc{Y_\alpha}{X_i}{\bZ\mc\bX\mc Y_1\mc\ldots\mc Y_{\alpha-1}\mc X^0_1\mc\ldots\mc X^0_{i-1}}\,, \label{eq:Fexp}
\end{equation}
where the superscript `$^0$' indicates conditioning on the present (in addition to the past) of the corresponding variables. Thus, in the term for causality from $Y_\alpha$ to $X_i$ one conditions on (i) the past of the entire multivariate conditional variable $\bZ$, (ii) the past of the entire multivariate predictee variable $\bX$, (iii) the past of all predictor variables $Y_\beta$ with $\beta < \alpha$ and (iv) the present of all predictee variables $X_j$ with $j<i$. The derivation of the expansion
\eqref{eq:Fexp} is given in Appendix \ref{expandproof}.
For the case of a multivariate predictor and a univariate predictee we have
\begin{equation}
\gc\bY X = \gc{Y_1}X + \cgc{Y_2}X{Y_1} + \cgc{Y_3}X{Y_1\mc Y_2}+ \cdots + \cgc{Y_m}X{Y_1\mc Y_2\mc\ldots\mc Y_{m-1}}\,.
\end{equation}
This formula is consistent with the intuitive idea that the total degree to which the multivariate $\bY$ helps predict the univariate $X$ is: the degree to which $Y_1$ predicts $X$, plus the degree to which $Y_2$ helps predict $X$ over and above the information already present in $Y_1$, and so on.
For the case of a multivariate predictee and a univariate predictor we have
\begin{equation}
\gc Y\bX = \cgc Y{X_1}\bX + \cgc Y{X_2}{\bX\mc X^0_1} + \cgc Y{X_3}{\bX\mc X^0_1\mc X^0_2}+ \cdots + \cgc Y{X_n}{\bX\mc X^0_1\mc X^0_2\mc\ldots\mc X^0_{n-1}}\,.
\end{equation}
This formula supports the intuition that the total degree to which the univariate $Y$ helps predict the multivariate $\bX$ is: the degree to which the past of $Y$ helps predict the current value of $X_1$ over and above the degree to which the past of the whole of $\bX$ predicts the current value of $X_1$, plus the degree to which the past of $Y$ helps predict the current value of $X_2$ over and above the degree to which the past of the whole of $\bX$ and the current value of $X_1$ predicts the current value of $X_2$, and so on.
We remark on two implications of the
expansion of MVGC. First, Ladroue and colleagues suggested that use
of generalized residual variance for causal inference on
high-dimensional data might suffer from problems of numerical
stability. However, the expansion of MVGC into low-dimensional,
univariate G-causalities suggests that there should be no
problem (see Section \ref{sec:stability} for numerical evidence of this).
Second, the expansion \eqref{eq:Fexp} indicates that MVGC
controls for, to some extent, the influence of unmeasured
latent/exogenous variables (see also Section \ref{sec:partial}). By conditioning on the present of
certain appropriate predictee variables for each term of the
expansion, only the effects of each predictor on independent
components of the predictees enter the equation. This property stems
from the fact that the determinant of the residual covariance matrix
reflects not just residual variances, but also the extent to which
these residual variances are independent of each other. This is
another advantage of the MVGC measure over trvMVGC, which does not
depend on residual correlations.
\subsubsection{Stability of Multivariate Granger Causality} \label{sec:stability}
We tested numerically our claim (Section \ref{sec:expand}) that MVGC should not be less stable than trvMVGC. We studied MVAR$(1)$ processes whose dynamics are given by
\begin{equation} \label{stableprocess}
\bX_t=A\cdot \bX_{t-1} +\beps_t\,,
\end{equation}
where $\bX$ contains 8 variables, the sum of each row of $A$ (i.e.~total afferent to each element) is 0.5, all components in a given row of $A$ are equal and positive, and each component of $\beps_t$ is an independent Gaussian random variable of mean 0 and variance 1. We generated 30 random ``connectivity'' matrices (or systems) $A_i$, $(i=1,\ldots,30)$, each with an average of 2 non-zero components per row. For each $A_i$ we obtained 10 sets of 3000 (post equilibrium) data points via Eq.~\eqref{stableprocess}. For each set, we computed the MVGC across each bipartition of the system corresponding to $A_i$. We then calculated, for each bipartition, the standard deviation of the MVGC across the 10 data sets and (excluding bipartitions with standard deviation less than 0.01) the corresponding coefficient of variation (CoV, standard deviation divided by mean). This procedure allowed us to obtain, for each $A_i$, a maximum CoV. Figure \ref{fig:stability1}(a) shows that the maximum CoV is generally very small and never large, confirming the stability of MVGC.
To compare the stability of MVGC with that of trvMVGC, for each $A_i$ and for each bipartition we divided the CoV for MVGC by the CoV for trvMVGC. Figure \ref{fig:stability1}(b) shows the distribution of the average of this ratio across all bipartitions. The clustering of this distribution at $\approx$1, with no outliers, confirms that MVGC and trvMVGC have similar stability properties, at least in the systems we have simulated.
To generalize these results we next used a genetic algorithm (GA) \cite{Seth05,SpornsEtal00} to see if we could find a network for which MVGC becomes unstable. The GA was initialized using a population composed of the 30 random systems $A_i$ described above. We ran the GA for 130 generations. In each generation, we computed the fitness of each system as the maximum CoV of MVGC. Systems were selected to proceed to subsequent generations using stochastic rank-based selection. Mutations enabled the adding of new non-zero components to $A_i$, the removal of existing non-zero components, or the swapping of components, followed by renormalization of each row to sum to 0.5 again; two mutations were applied per system. After 130 generations (sufficient for fitness to asymptote) the average fitness (i.e.~maximum CoV) in the population was $\approx$0.25, and the maximum was 0.39, which is still a low value. For the $A_i$ that gave this highest value, we compared the CoV obtained using MVGC with that obtained using trvMVGC following the procedure described above. The average ratio (across all bipartitions) was $\approx$1.00, (maximum value 1.12), indicating that MVGC and trvMVGC had similar stability properties even for systems optimized to be unstable with respect to MVGC. Further, we examined some $A_i$ for which the sums of the rows differed (i.e.~having heterogeneous afferent connectivity); these systems had similar stability properties to those described above. Finally, stability properties were unaffected when computations were based on 1000 (rather than 3000) data points.
Taken together, these simulation results confirm that MVGC is numerically stable, and is not appreciably different from trvMVGC in terms of stability properties.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{stability1} \ \ \ \
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{stability2}
\caption{Stability of MVGC. (a) Histogram of the maximum CoV of MVGC, observed over 10 trials of 3000 time-steps, for each of 30 different systems, as described in Section \ref{sec:stability}. (b) Histogram of the average ratio between the CoV of MVGC and the CoV of trvMVGC, for each of the 30 systems. MVGC is numerically stable (a) and is not appreciably different from trvMVGC in terms of stability properties (b). \label{fig:stability1}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spectral decomposition} \label{sec:sdecomp}
In this section we review the spectral decomposition of G-causality \cite{Geweke82,DingEtal06}. For simplicity we limit ourselves to the unconditional case, although the procedure may be readily extended to the conditional case (as described in \eg\ Refs.~\cite{Geweke84,DingEtal06,Chen06}). We assume multivariate predictor and predictee variables, and show that MVGC but not trvMVGC has a satisfactory spectral decomposition.
Consider the stationary MVAR
\begin{equation}
\bX_t = A \cdot \bX^{(p)}_{t-1} + \beps_t = \sum_{k=1}^p A_k \cdot \bX_{t-k} + \beps_t\,. \label{eq:mvar}
\end{equation}
We may write this as
\begin{equation}
A(L) \cdot \bX_t= \beps_t\,, \label{eq:alag}
\end{equation}
where $L$ denotes the (single time step) lag operator, and
\begin{equation}
A(L) \equiv I - \sum_{k=1}^p A_k L^k\,.
\end{equation}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:alag} may be solved as
\begin{equation}
\bX_t = H(L) \cdot \beps_t\,, \label{eq:hlag}
\end{equation}
where $H(L) \equiv A(L)^{-1}$. Transforming into the frequency domain via the discrete-time Fourier transform $\bX(\lambda) = \sum_{t = -\infty}^\infty \bX_t \;e^{-i\lambda t}$ yields $ A(\lambda) \cdot \bX(\lambda) = \beps(\lambda)$ (replace $L$ by $e^{-i\lambda}$), so that
\begin{equation}
\bX(\lambda) = H(\lambda) \cdot \beps(\lambda)\,,
\end{equation}
where $H(\lambda) \equiv A(\lambda)^{-1}$ is the \emph{transfer matrix}. The (power) \emph{spectral density} of $\bX$ is then given by
\begin{equation}
S(\lambda) = H(\lambda) \Covs{\beps} \ctran H(\lambda)\,. \label{eq:sh}
\end{equation}
From a standard result \cite{Rozanov67}, since $H(L)$ is a square matrix lag operator with the identity matrix as leading term, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac 1{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi \ln\dett{H(\lambda) \ctran H(\lambda)} \dlam = 0\,, \label{eq:hint}
\end{equation}
provided that all roots of the characteristic polynomial $\dett{A(L)}$ lie outside the unit circle, which is a necessary condition for the existence of the stationary process \eqref{eq:mvar}. From \eqref{eq:sh} we may then derive the relation \cite{Doob53}
\begin{equation}
\frac 1{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi \ln\dett{S(\lambda)} \dlam = \ln\dett{\Covs\beps}\,. \label{eq:sint}
\end{equation}
Consider now the stationary MVAR
\begin{equation}
\bX_t \mc\bY_t = A \cdot \bracr{\bX^{(p)}_{t-1} \mc \bY^{(q)}_{t-1}} + \beps_{x,t} \mc \beps_{y,t} \label{eq:xymvar}
\end{equation}
with coefficients matrix
\begin{equation}
A \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
A_{xx} & A_{xy} \\
A_{yx} & A_{yy}
\end{pmatrix}\,
\end{equation}
and residuals covariance matrix
\begin{equation}
\Covs{\beps_x \mc \beps_y} \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
\Sigma_{xx} & \Sigma_{xy} \\
\Sigma_{yx} & \Sigma_{yy}
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
Let us split the corresponding transfer matrix $H(\lambda)$ as
\begin{equation}
H(\lambda) \equiv A(\lambda)^{-1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
H_{xx}(\lambda) & H_{xy}(\lambda) \\
H_{yx}(\lambda) & H_{yy}(\lambda)
\end{pmatrix}\,
\end{equation}
and the spectral density as
\begin{equation}
S(\lambda) =
\begin{pmatrix}
S_{xx}(\lambda) & S_{xy}(\lambda) \\
S_{yx}(\lambda) & S_{yy}(\lambda)
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{equation}
Then $S_{xx}(\lambda)$ is just the spectral density of $\bX$, which from \eqref{eq:sh} is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{xx}(\lambda) = H_{xx}(\lambda) \Sigma_{xx} \ctranx H{xx}(\lambda) \\
+ 2\,\re\!\bracc{H_{xx}(\lambda) \Sigma_{xy} \ctranx H{xy}(\lambda)} \\
+ H_{xy}(\lambda) \Sigma_{yy} \ctranx H{xy}(\lambda)\,. \label{eq:sxx}
\end{equation}
The idea is that we wish to decompose this expression into a part reflecting the effect of $\bX$ itself and a part reflecting the causal influence of $\bY$. The problem is that, due to the presence of the ``cross'' term, $S_{xx}(\lambda)$ does not split cleanly into an $\bX$ and a $\bY$ part. Geweke \cite{Geweke82} addresses this issue by introducing the transformation
\begin{equation}
\bX\mc\bY \to U \cdot \bracr{\bX\mc\bY}\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
U \equiv \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \\ -\Sigma_{yx} \Sigma_{xx}^{-1} & I \end{pmatrix}\,. \label{eq:cxform}
\end{equation}
Note that this transformation leaves the G-causality $\gc\bY\bX$ invariant (c.f.~Section \ref{sec:invariance}) and, for the transformed regression, we have $\Sigma_{xy} \equiv 0$; that is, the residuals $\beps_x, \beps_y$ are uncorrelated. Thus, assuming the transformation \eqref{eq:cxform} has been pre-applied, Eq.~\eqref{eq:sxx} becomes
\begin{equation}
S_{xx}(\lambda) = H_{xx}(\lambda) \Sigma_{xx} \ctranx H{xx}(\lambda) + H_{xy}(\lambda) \Sigma_{yy} \ctranx H{xy}(\lambda)\,, \label{eq:sxxt}
\end{equation}
whereby the spectral density of $\bX$ splits into an ``intrinsic'' part and a ``causal'' part. The spectral G-causality of $\bY \to \bX$ at frequency $\lambda$ is now defined to be
\begin{equation}
\sgc\bY\bX(\lambda) \equiv \lnt{\frac{\dett{S_{xx}(\lambda)}}{\dett{H_{xx}(\lambda) \Sigma_{xx} \ctranx H{xx}(\lambda)}}} \label{eq:sgc}
\end{equation}
or, in terms of the \emph{untransformed} variables,
\begin{equation}
\sgc\bY\bX(\lambda) \equiv \lnt{\frac{\dett{S_{xx}(\lambda)}}{\dett{S_{xx}(\lambda) - H_{xy}(\lambda) \Sigma_{y|x} \ctranx H{xy}(\lambda)}}}\,, \label{eq:sgcut}
\end{equation}
with $S_{xx}(\lambda)$ as in \eqref{eq:sxx} and $\Sigma_{y|x} \equiv \Sigma_{yy} - \Sigma_{yx} \Sigma_{xx}^{-1} \Sigma_{xy}$.
Geweke (Ref.~\cite{Geweke82}, Theorem 2) then establishes the fundamental motivating relationship between frequency and time domain G-causality:
\begin{equation}
\frac 1{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi \sgc\bY\bX(\lambda) \dlam = \gc\bY\bX\,, \label{eq:sgcint}
\end{equation}
provided that all roots of $\dett{A_{yy}(L)}$ lie outside the unit circle.\footnote{A subtlety to note is that even if the MVAR \eqref{eq:xymvar} has a finite number of lags $p,q < \infty$, the exact \emph{restricted} regression of $\bX$ on its own past will generally require an infinite number of lags \cite{Geweke82}. Thus in theory, for exact equality in \eqref{eq:sgcint}, an infinite number of lags is required to calculate the term $\Covc{\bX}{\blX}$ which appears in $\gc\bY\bX$ (using a finite number of lags will generally result in an overestimate of $\gc\bY\bX$, since residual errors will be larger than for the exact regression). As applied to empirical data, it is in any case good practice to choose ``sufficient'' lags for all regressions so as to model the data adequately without overfitting \cite{Akaike74,Schwartz78}.\label{fn:gcint}} The proof of this relation relies crucially on the result \eqref{eq:hint} which, we note, involves the \emph{determinant} of the transfer matrix. Thus if the trace, rather than the determinant, were to be used in the definition \eqref{eq:sgc} for $\sgc\bY\bX(\lambda)$ then we could not expect to obtain a relation corresponding to \eqref{eq:sgcint}, since (i) the trace of the spectral density in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sh} does not factorize, (ii) there is no trace analogue to Eq.~\eqref{eq:hint}, and thus (iii) no analogue to Eq.~\eqref{eq:sint}. This would seem to preclude a satisfactory spectral decomposition for the trace version of G-causality. Similar remarks apply to conditional G-causality in the spectral domain.
In Ref.~\cite{ladroue:2009}, however, it is conjectured that a trace analogue of Eq.~\eqref{eq:sgcint} does indeed hold. To test this conjecture we performed the following experiment: we simulated $1000$ MVAR$(1)$ processes of the form
\begin{equation}
\bX_t \mc Y_t = A \cdot \bracr{\bX_{t-1} \mc Y_{t-1}} + \beps_{x,t} \mc \eps_{y,t}\,, \label{eq:mvar1}
\end{equation}
where $\bX$ has dimension $2$ and $Y$ dimension $1$. Residuals $\beps_{x,t}, \eps_{y,t}$ were completely uncorrelated, with unit variance (\ie\ $\Covs{\beps_{x,t} \mc \eps_{y,t}}$ was the $3 \times 3$ identity matrix) so that, in particular, the Geweke transformation \eqref{eq:cxform} was unnecessary. For each trial the $3 \times 3$ coefficients matrix $A$ was chosen at random with elements uniform on $[-\shalf,\shalf]$, and the process \eqref{eq:mvar1} simulated for $10^6$ stationary time steps (the occasional unstable process was rejected). Time domain causalities $\gc Y\bX, \ \tgc Y\bX$ and frequency domain causalities $\sgc Y\bX(\lambda), \ \tsgc Y\bX(\lambda)$ were calculated in sample using $p = 10$ lags. (As noted previously,$^{10}$ equality in \eqref{eq:sgcint} is only assured in the limit of infinite lags; $10$ lags was found empirically to achieve good accuracy without overfitting the data.) Relative errors of integrated spectral MVGC with respect to time-domain MVGC, expressed as a percentage, were defined as
\begin{align}
E_\%\phantom{^{tr}} &\equiv 100 \times \frac{\frac 1{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi \sgc Y\bX(\lambda) \dlam-\gc Y\bX}{\gc Y\bX}\,, \nonumber \\
E_\%^{tr} &\equiv 100 \times \frac{\frac 1{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi \tsgc Y\bX(\lambda) \dlam-\tgc Y\bX}{\tgc Y\bX}\,,
\end{align}
for MVGC and trvMVGC respectively. (The integrals were computed by standard numerical quadrature.) Results, displayed in Table~\ref{tab:speccomp}, confirm to good accuracy the theoretical prediction of Eq.~\eqref{eq:sgcint} for MVGC (the small negative bias on $E_\%$ is due to the finite number of lags), while for trvMVGC relative errors are several orders of magnitude larger and furthermore were not decreased by choosing longer stationary sequences and/or more lags.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
error & mean & std.~dev. & abs.~mean \\
\hline
$E_\%\phantom{^{tr}}$ & $-0.0004$ & $\phantom 1 0.0005$ & $0.0005$ \\
\hline
$E_\%^{tr}$ & $-0.0488$ & $10.5995$ & 8.1799 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Comparison of relative errors of integrated spectral MVGC and trvMVGC with respect to time domain MVGC and trvMVGC, for a random sample of MVAR$(1)$ processes. Top row shows MVGC, bottom row shows trvMVGC. See text for details. Figures in the ``abs.~mean'' column are the means of the absolute values $\abs{E_\%}$ and $\abs{E_\%^{tr}}$.} \label{tab:speccomp}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The full distribution of relative errors is also displayed as a histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:speccomp_hist}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{speccomp_hist1} \ \ \ \
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{speccomp_hist2}
\caption{Distribution of relative errors of integrated spectral multivariate G-causality with respect to the time domain for (a) MVGC (b) trvMVGC, for a random sample of MVAR$(1)$ processes.} \label{fig:speccomp_hist}
\end{figure*}
We also repeated the experiment with higher order MVAR$(p)$ processes, higher dimensional predictee and predictor variables and correlated residuals $\beps_x$. In all cases, results confirmed the accuracy of \eqref{eq:sgcint} for MVGC and yielded large relative errors for trvMVGC. We remark that \emph{qualitative} differences (\ie\ aside from differences of scale) between spectral MVGC and trvMVGC could be substantial (Fig.~\ref{fig:speccomp_single}). These differences, furthermore, appeared in general to be exaggerated by the presence of residual correlations; this is consonant with the sensitivity of MVGC as contrasted with the lack of sensitivity of trvMVGC to residual correlations (see Sections \ref{sec:expand} and \ref{sec:partial}).
It is straightforward to show that $\sgc\bY\bX(\lambda)$ is invariant under the same group of linear transformations \eqref{xmfns} as $\gc\bY\bX$; again, $\tsgc\bY\bX(\lambda)$ will in general be invariant only under the restricted group with $T_{xx}$ conformal; this extends to the conditional case.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{speccomp_single1} \ \ \ \
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{speccomp_single2}
\caption{Comparison of MVGC and trvMVGC in the frequency domain: spectral MVGC and trvMVGC plotted against frequency for (a) a typical MVAR$(3)$ process with $\dim(\bX) = 2, \ \dim(Y) = 1$ and (b) a typical MVAR$(5)$ process with $\dim(\bX) = 3, \ \dim(\bY) = 2$.} \label{fig:speccomp_single}
\end{figure*}
\section{Multivariate partial Granger causality} \label{sec:partial}
Recently, a \textit{partial G-causality} measure has been introduced \cite{guoetal:2008} which exploits a parallel with the concept of \textit{partial coherence} \cite{baccala:2001} in order to control for latent/exogenous influences on standard G- causality. Partial G-causality modifies the standard G-causality measure by including terms based on residual correlations between the predictee variable and the conditional variables. Consider, in addition to the regressions \eqref{eq:reg}, the following regressions of the \textit{conditioning} variable $\bZ_t$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bZ_t & = B \cdot \bracr{\bX^{(p)}_{t-1}\mc\bZ^{(r)}_{t-1}} + \beeta_t\,, \\
\bZ_t & = B' \cdot \bracr{\bX^{(p)}_{t-1}\mc\bY^{(q)}_{t-1}\mc\bZ^{(r)}_{t-1}} + \beeta'_t\,.
\end{split} \label{eq:regz}
\end{equation}
Here the roles of the predictee and conditioning variables are reversed. Then for univariate predictor and predictee the partial G-causality of $Y$ on $X$ given $\bZ$ is defined by conditioning the respective residual covariances for the regressions of $X$ on the corresponding residuals for the regressions of $\bZ$:
\begin{equation}
\cpgc Y X\bZ \equiv \lnt{\frac{\Covc{\beps_t}{\beeta_t}}{\Covc{\beps'_t}{\beeta'_t}}}\,. \label{eq:pgcue}
\end{equation}
This extends naturally to the fully multivariate case (c.f.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:gc}), and we define partial MVGC (pMVGC) as
\begin{align}
\cpgc\bY\bX\bZ
&\equiv \lnt{\frac{\dett{\Covc{\beps_t}{\beeta_t}}}{\dett{\Covc{\beps'_t}{\beeta'_t}}}} \label{eq:pgcd} \\
&= \lnt{\frac{\dett{\Covc{\bX}{\blX\mc\blZ\mc\bZ}}}{\dett{\Covc{\bX}{\blX\mc\blY\mc\blZ\mc\bZ}}}} \label{eq:pgc}
\end{align}
where the RHS \eqref{eq:pgc} follows from the identity \eqref{eq:rcepet} derived in Appendix \ref{apx:pgc}, (with $\bW \equiv \blX\mc\blZ$ and $\bW \equiv \blX\mc\blY\mc\blZ$ for the numerator and denominator terms respectively). Comparing with \eqref{eq:gc} we see thus that pMVGC differs from MVGC in the inclusion of the \textit{present} of the conditioning variable $\bZ$ in the respective regressions. Seen in this form, it is clear that, as is the case for MVGC, pMVGC is always non-negative.\footnote{In \cite{guoetal:2008} it is stated that partial G-causality may in some circumstances be \textit{negative}; the justification for this is unclear.} One could alternatively express pMVGC as (non-partial) MVGC conditioned on a ``forward lagged'' version of $\bZ$: defining $\btZ_t \equiv \bZ_{t+1}$ we have $\bZ_t\mc\bZ^{(r)}_{t-1} \equiv \btZ^{(r+1)}_{t-1}$, or $\bltZ = \bZ\mc\blZ$ (note the additional lag on $\bltZ$), so that, from Eq.~\eqref{eq:pgc},
\begin{equation}
\cpgc\bY\bX\bZ = \cgc\bY\bX{\tilde\bZ} \label{eq:pgcz1}\,.
\end{equation}
As noted in Section \ref{sec:expand}, (non-partial) MVGC to some extent already controls for the influence of latent/exogenous variables because the generalized variance is sensitive to residual correlations. However, pMVGC takes into account even more correlations with the explicit aim of controlling for latent/exogenous influences. pMVGC may therefore be preferable when such influences are expected to be (a) strong and (b) relatively uniform in their influence on the measured system. Indeed, pMVGC (and the original measure of partial G-causality) can only be effective in compensating for latent/exogenous variables that affect \textit{all} modeled variables (\ie\ predictee, predictor and conditioning) to a roughly equal degree \cite{guoetal:2008}.
It is interesting to note that pMVGC may be expressed in terms of non-partial MVGCs as
\begin{equation}
\cpgc\bY\bX\bZ = \gc\bY{\bZ\mc\bX}-\cgc\bY\bZ\bX\,. \label{eq:pgc1}
\end{equation}
by straightforward application of Eq.~\eqref{eq:cxyid}. As expected, \eqref{eq:pgc1} includes a term with a mandatory multivariate predictee, since it is only in this case that residual correlation can make a difference. It is interesting that $\bZ$ appears as a \textit{predictee} variable; this might be understood as pMVGC using the conditioning variable $\bZ$ as a ``proxy'' by which to assess the influence of latent or exogenous variables.
A ``trace'' version of pMVGC may be defined analogously to \eqref{eq:pgcd}. Again by Eq.~\eqref{eq:rcepet} of Appendix \ref{apx:pgc}, the identity corresponding to \eqref{eq:pgc} will hold, as will the trace analogue of \eqref{eq:pgcz1}. However, the analogue of \eqref{eq:pgc1} will \emph{not} hold in general, since the traces of the partial covariance matrices will in general not factorize appropriately.\footnote{In \cite{ladroue:2009}, under the section headed ``Partial Complex Granger causality'', the quantity developed appears to be (the trace version of) what is conventionally referred to as \emph{conditional} G-causality, rather than partial G-causality as introduced in \cite{guoetal:2008} and referenced in this section.}
From \eqref{eq:pgcz1} it is straightforward to derive a spectral decomposition $\pscgc\bY\bX\bZ(\lambda)$ for pMVGC, which will integrate correctly to the time-domain pMVGC $\cpgc\bY\bX\bZ$. Again, a spectral decomposition for the corresponding trace version is likely to be problematic, insofar as it will fail in general to integrate correctly to the time-domain value (c.f.~Section \ref{sec:sdecomp}).
\section{Causal density}
A straightforward application of MVGC is to measures of
\textit{causal density}, the overall level of causal interactivity
sustained by a multivariate system $\bX$. A previous measure of
causal density \cite{Seth05} has been defined as the average of all
pairwise (and hence univariate) G-causalities between system
elements, conditioned on the remaining system
elements:\footnote{This is the ``weighted'' version of causal
density. An unweighted and [0,1] bounded alternative can be defined
as the fraction of all pairwise conditional causalities that are
statistically significant at a given significance level.}
\begin{equation}
\cd\bX \equiv \frac 1{n(n-1)} \sum_{i \ne j} \cgc{X_i}{X_j}{\bX_{[ij]}} \label{cd1}
\end{equation}
where $\bX_{[ij]}$ denotes the subsystem of $\bX$ with variables $X_i$ and $X_j$ omitted, and $n$ is the total number of variables. Causal density provides a useful measure of the dynamical ``complexity'' of a system inasmuch as elements that are completely independent will have zero causal density, as will elements that are completely integrated in their dynamics. Exemplifying standard intuitions about complexity \cite{sporns:2007}, high causal density will only be achieved when elements behave somewhat differently from each other, in order to contribute novel potential predictive information, and at the same time are globally integrated, so that the potential predictive information is in fact useful \cite{SethEtal06,shanahan:2008}.
Using MVGC, various extensions to \eqref{cd1} can be suggested, based on the various possible interactions between multivariate predictors, predictees and conditional variables. These extensions may provide a more principled measure of complexity by analyzing a target system at multiple scales. First we define the causal density from size $k$ to size $r$, $\mathrm{cd}_{k\to r}(\boldsymbol{X})$, as the average MVGC from a subset of size $k$ to a subset of size $r$, conditioned on the rest of the system:
\begin{equation}
\cdx{k\to r}\bX = \frac 1{n_{k,r}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{k,r}} \cgc{\bV^k_i}{\bU^r_i}{\bW^{n-k-r}_i}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\bX = \bV^k_i \cup \bU^r_i \cup \bW^{n-k-r}_i$ denotes the $i^\mathrm{th}$ of the $n_{k,r} \equiv \binom n k \binom{n-k}r$ distinct tripartitions of $\bX$ into disjoint sub-systems of respective sizes $k$, $r$ and $(n-k-r)$. Then using this, one could define the \textit{bipartition causal density} (bcd) as the average of $\mathrm{cd}_{k\to (n-k)} (\bX)$ over predictor size $k$,
\begin{equation}
\bcd\bX = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \cdx{k \to (n-k)}\bX \,.
\end{equation}
Interestingly, this quantity is closely related to the popular Tononi-Sporns-Edelman ``neural complexity'' measure \cite{TononiEtal94} which averages (contemporaneous) \textit{mutual information} across bipartitions; (we are currently exploring this in work in preparation). It could also be interesting to compare causal density at different scales of predictor plus predictee size; thus we define
\begin{equation}
\cdx s\bX \equiv \frac 1{s-1} \sum_{k=1}^{s-1} \cdx{k \to (s-k)}\bX\,.
\end{equation}
Then the original causal density measure of Eq.~\eqref{cd1} is just $\mathrm{cd}_2$ and bcd is $\mathrm{cd}_n$. The average of this over all scales can be used to define a complete \textit{tripartition causal density} (tcd):
\begin{equation}
\tcd\bX \equiv \frac 1{n-1} \sum_{s=2}^n \cdx s\bX\,.
\end{equation}
A comparison of the properties of all versions of causal density, as well as related complexity measures, is in progress. We remark that it is straightforward to define spectral versions of these causal density measures.
\\
\section{Autonomy in complex systems}
G-causality has recently been adapted to provide an operational measure of ``autonomy'' in complex systems \cite{seth:alife:2009}. A variable $\bX$ can be said to be ``G-autonomous'' with respect to a (multivariate) set of external variables $\bZ$ if its own past states help predict its future states over and above predictions based on $\bZ$. This definition rests on the intuition of autonomy as ``self determination'' or ``self causation''. We can formalize this notion along the lines of MVGC as follows. Consider the regressions
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bX_t & = A \cdot \bZ^{(r)}_{t-1} + \beps_t\,, \\
\bX_t & = A' \cdot \bracr{\bX^{(p)}_{t-1}\mc\bZ^{(r)}_{t-1}} + \beps'_t\,,
\end{split} \label{eq:maut}
\end{equation}
which differ from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:reg} primarily because the predictee variable $\bX$ is \emph{not} regressed on itself in one of the equations. The G-autonomy of $\bX$ is then given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{\bX|\bZ} = \lnt{\frac{\dett{\Covs{\beps_t}}}{\dett{\Covs{\beps'_t}}}}\,. \label{eq:aut}
\end{equation}
The extension of G-autonomy to the multivariate case is important because it accommodates situations in which groups of elements may be jointly autonomous (self-determining, self-causing), even though the activity of individual elements within the group may be adequately predicted by combinations of activities of other elements in the group. Univariate formulations of G-autonomy \cite{seth:alife:2009} would fail in these cases. Consider as a trivial example an element $X_1$ which is G-autonomous with respect to a background $\bZ$. If $X_1$ is now duplicated by the element $X_2$ it will no longer appear as G-autonomous within the multivariate system $X_1{\mc}X_2{\mc}\bZ$. However, the multivariate variable $X_1{\mc}X_2$ will be (jointly) G-autonomous with respect to $\bZ$.
As discussed in \cite{seth:alife:2009} G-autonomy also provides
the basis for a notion of ``G-emergence'' as applied to the relation
between \emph{macroscopic} variables ``emerging'' from the activity of
\emph{microscopic} constituents. G-emergence operationalizes the
intuition that a macro-level variable is emergent to the extent that
it is simultaneously \emph{autonomous from} and \emph{dependent
upon} its micro-level constituents \cite{seth:alife:2009,Bedau97}.
Extension of G-emergence to the multivariate case using MVGC is
straightforward, allowing consideration of multivariate micro- and
macro-variables.
\section{Macroscopic variables and causal independence}
Given the ability to assess multivariate causal interactions, a
second challenge arises: the identification of relevant groupings of
variables into multivariate ensembles. One approach to this challenge
adopts the perspective of statistical mechanics on the emergence of novel macroscopic variables,
given a microscopic description of a system
\cite{ShaliziMoore06,shalizi:2006}. Here, we suggest that MVGC may
furnish a useful method for macro-variable identification in this
context. Let us assume that $\bZ_t$ represents a set of
microscopic variables defining a complex (possibly stochastic) dynamical system, and
$\bX_t \equiv f(\bZ_t)$ a set of macroscopic variables functionally
(possibly deterministically) dependent on the microscopic variables.
There is then a sense in which $\bX$ represents a ``parsimonious''
high-level description of the system, to the extent that it predicts
its own dynamical evolution without recourse to the low level of
description of the system represented by $\bZ$; that is, to the
extent that $\bX$ exhibits strong \emph{causal independence} with
respect to $\bZ$. In this view, $\gc\bZ\bX$ furnishes a natural
measure of the \emph{lack} of this causal independence, which might
then be used to \emph{identify} parsimonious macroscopic variables
by minimizing $\gc\bZ{f(\bZ)}$ over candidate functions $f(\cdot)$.
The multivariate formulation MVGC would appear to be
significant in this context for reasons similar to the G-autonomy
case. Specifically, it may be that a set of macroscopic variables
$\bX$ may \emph{jointly} have high causal independence with respect
to the microscopic variables $\bZ$, while the component variables
$X_i$ may individually have lower causal independence.
The notions of G-autonomy, G-emergence, and causal independence are distinct but related. In short, G-autonomy measures ``self-causation'', causal independence measures the \emph{absence} of useful predictive information between microscopic and macroscopic descriptions of a system, and G-emergence measures a combination of macro-level autonomy and micro-to-macro causal \emph{dependence}. It is possible, and is left as an objective of future work, that all three measures could be applied usefully to systems that avail multiple levels of descriptions, (i) to identify relevant groupings of observables at each level, (ii) to decompose causal interactions within each level, and finally (iii) to quantitatively characterize inter-level relationships.
\section{Discussion}
We have described and motivated a measure of multivariate causal
interaction that is a natural extension of the standard G-causality measure. The measure, originally introduced by Geweke
\cite{Geweke82} but almost totally overlooked since, uses the
generalized variance (the determinant of the residual covariance
matrix) and we have termed it \emph{multivariate G-causality}
(MVGC). It contrasts with another recent proposal
\cite{ladroue:2009} for addressing the same problem which uses
instead the total variance (the trace of the residual covariance
matrix). In this paper, we have presented several theoretical
justifications, augmented by numerical modeling, for preferring MVGC over the trace version, which we
summarize below. We have also extended MVGC to address novel
challenges in the analysis of complex dynamical systems, including
quantitative characterization of ``causal density'', ``autonomy'', and
the identification of novel macroscopic variables via causal
independence.
\subsection{Importance of multivariate causal analysis}
In many analyses of complex systems, particularly in neuroscience
and biology, there may be no simple or principled relationship
between observed variables and explanatorily relevant
collections, or ensembles, of these variables. In the Introduction
we already remarked on fMRI, where
explanatorily relevant ROIs are each composed of multiple
observables (voxels) which are arbitrarily demarcated with respect to underlying neural mechanisms. Other non-invasive neuroimaging methods share similar varieties of arbitrariness: both electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) provide signals which are complex convolutions of underlying neural sources. In these and similar cases, multivariate causal analysis, and MVGC in particular, can be used to aggregate univariate observables into meaningful multivariate (ensemble) variables. It bears emphasizing that MVGC is fundamentally different from conditional G-causality \cite{Seth07a}, which assesses the causal connectivity between two univariate variables, conditioned on a set of other variables.
Even when it is possible to measure directly the activity of variables of interest, it is still important to consider multivariate interactions. Continuing with the neuroscience example, it may be that multiple ROIs act \emph{jointly} to influence other ROIs, or cognitive and/or behavioral outputs. In single cell recordings this point is even more pressing: since Hebb \cite{Hebb49} it has been increasingly appreciated that neurons act as ensembles, rather than singly, in the adaptive function of the brain \cite{Harris05}. MVGC is well suited to disclosing causal relationships among these ensembles as a window onto underlying principles of brain operation.
Of course, the application of MVGC is not limited to neuroscience. Multivariate interactions are likely to be important in a very broad range of application areas. For example, genetic, metabolic, and transcriptional regulatory networks may be usefully decomposed into multivariate ensembles influencing other such ensembles \cite{ladroue:2009}. Indeed, multivariate interactions may be important in any system, natural or artificial, which can be described in terms of multiple simultaneously acquired time series.
\subsection{Generalized variance vs total variance}
A different approach to multivariate causal analysis was recently proposed by Ladroue and colleagues \cite{ladroue:2009}. This involved a measure (which we call trvMVGC) based on the trace of the residual covariance matrix (the total variance), rather than the determinant (the generalized variance). Geweke \cite{Geweke82} provided the original justifications for the determinant form, but did not explicitly discuss the trace form. As noted in Section 3 of Ref.~\cite{Geweke82}, Geweke's motivations included (i) MVGC is invariant under (linear) transformations of variables, and (ii) the maximum likelihood estimator of MVGC is asymptotically $\chi^2$-distributed for large samples; (there is no standard test statistic for trvMVGC). In this paper we have substantially enhanced this list, in each case comparing MVGC explicitly with trvMVGC. In summary: (iii) MVGC is fully equivalent to transfer entropy under Gaussian
assumptions, whereas for trvMVGC this equivalence only holds for the
univariate case; (iv) MVGC is invariant under \emph{all} (non-singular) linear transformations of the predictee variable, while trvMVGC is invariant only under conformal linear transformations (see below); (v) only MVGC is expandable as a sum of univariate G-causalities; (vi) MVGC but not trvMVGC admits a satisfactory spectral decomposition, inasmuch as it guarantees a consistent relationship with the corresponding time-domain formulation; (vii) only MVGC depends
on residual correlations, and through these accommodates in a natural way the influence of exogenous or latent variables, and (viii) the partial version of MVGC, pMVGC is decomposable in terms of non-partial MVGCs, but this is not true in general for trvMVGC.
All the above factors suggest that MVGC should be preferred to trvMVGC. Taken individually they may differ in their significance but taken together they emphasize that MVGC, but not trvMVGC, provides a comprehensive and \emph{theoretically consistent} extension of standard G-causality to the multivariate case. While this consistency is the most important reason to prefer MVGC to trvMVGC, let us consider further three of the individual properties. First, the equivalence with transfer entropy is important because it justifies the use of linear modeling for multivariate causal analysis, at least where Gaussian assumptions are reasonable. Second, the broader range of invariance is important because it means that MVGC is robust to a wider range of common inaccuracies during data collection, in particular those in which univariate variables are contaminated by contributions from other variables and in which different components of multivariate ensembles are differently scaled by measurement constraints. It is likely that this additional robustness will have significant practical importance in many experimental applications, for example in EEG and MEG where individual sensors detect signals from multiple neural sources and may differentially amplify these sources according to their distance from the sensors and their alignment with the cortical surface. Finally, the lack of a satisfactory spectral version of trvMVGC, which we establish both theoretically and numerically (Section \ref{sec:sdecomp} and Figures \ref{fig:speccomp_hist} and \ref{fig:speccomp_single}), implies that frequency-domain results obtained using trvMVGC are unreliable, both in their magnitude and in their spectral profile.
Ladroue \emph{et al.} \cite{ladroue:2009} note Geweke's form (i.e.~MVGC) and suggest trvMVGC is preferable in view of possible numerical instabilities attending the computation of determinants for high-dimensional data. However the existence of an expansion of MVGC in terms of univariate G-causalities \eqref{eq:Fexp} seems to counter this claim, since the univariate causalities would not be expected to be unstable. Numerical simulations (Section \ref{sec:stability} and Figure \ref{fig:stability1}) confirm our view.
\subsection{Quantities derived from MVGC}
In the second part of the paper we used MVGC to derive several novel measures that have the potential to shed substantial new light on complex system dynamics.
First, MVGC leads immediately to a series of redefinitions of our previous ``causal density'' measure \cite{Seth05}, which aims to capture the dynamical complexity of a system's dynamics in terms of coexisting integration and differentiation. Extension to the multivariate case allows causal density to be evaluated at multiple levels of description thus furnishing a more principled measure of dynamical complexity. Causal density has been suggested as a measure of neural dynamics that captures certain aspects of consciousness \cite{SethEtal06}. It has been shown\footnote{In approximation.} to increase in response to perceived stimuli as compared to non-perceived stimuli in a visual masking task \cite{gaillard:2009}, and it captures the complex dynamics of small-world networks more effectively than does a prominent competing measure, neural complexity \cite{shanahan:2008}. Multivariate causal density has the potential to further strengthen and generalize these contributions.
Second, MVGC can be used to generalize the concept of G-autonomy, which operationalizes the notion of autonomy as ``self causation'' \cite{seth:alife:2009}. Multivariate G-autonomy is a significant enhancement because it deals with the case in which a group of variables may be jointly autonomous even though, individually, no variable is autonomous. Our results therefore pave the way to informative application of this measure to complex systems.
Third, MVGC can be helpful in considering relations between microscopic and macroscopic levels of description of a system. One approach is to consider how \emph{causally independent} a macroscopic variable is, with respect to its set of constituent micro-variables. We have suggested that this notion can be used to identify parsimonious macro-variables by maximizing causal independence over a space of functions relating micro- and macro-variables. Alternatively, the concept of G-emergence operationalizes the idea that an emergent macro-variable is both \emph{autonomous from} and \emph{causally dependent} on its underlying micro-level constituents. Unlike the ``causal independence'' view, G-emergence may be better suited to characterizing the degree of emergence as opposed to identifying prospective macro-variables; G-emergence also explicitly measures micro-to-macro causal dependence rather than assuming that it is present.
Finally, the concepts of redundancy and synergy amongst variables have been recently introduced, via the use of a variant of the trvMVGC measure \cite{angelini}. These quantities aim at detecting functionally relevant partitions of a system by grouping variables according to their summed causal influences. Because of the advantages of MVGC over trvMVGC, we suggest it may be useful to redefine redundancy and synergy in terms of MVGC.
\subsection{Summary}
Models of complex systems typically contain large numbers of variables. Having a measure for directed interactions between groups of variables, as opposed to just single variables, provides a useful tool for the analysis of such systems. We have demonstrated that MVGC is such a measure, and we have provided a series of justifications, theoretical and numerical, to prefer it over a related measure, trvMVGC. Like all measures of directed interaction based on G-causality, MVGC can be measured for freely collected data, without perturbing or providing inputs to the system. Finally, in contrast to alternative approaches such as structural equation modeling \cite{kline:2005} or dynamic causal modeling \cite{Friston03}, MVGC can be applied with very little prior knowledge of the system under consideration.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
AKS is supported by EPSRC Leadership Fellowship EP/G007543/1, which also supports the work of ABB. Support is also gratefully acknowledged from the Dr. Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction}
Long duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and core collapse supernovae are
known to be correlated \cite{grb030329,Hjorth:2003jt}. MeV photons
that give rise to GRBs are thought to be produced by accelerated
electrons in internal shock of jets emitted by the GRB
progenitor. Many details about GRB phenomenology remains
uncertain. These GRB jets have very narrow opening angles and very
large Lorentz boost factors ($\Gamma \gtrsim 300$.) GRBs are one of
the plausible candidates sources for the highest energy cosmic rays
\cite{Vietri,WaxmanBahcall} and as such would observable in
$\sim$~100~TeV neutrinos by km$^3$ detectors such as IceCube
\cite{IceCube} and KM3Net \cite{KM3Net}.
Only a very small fraction of core collapse supernovae result in
GRBs. It has been speculated that the rate of production of jets in core
collapse supernovae may be significantly higher than the rate of GRBs,
but that often these jets are choked within the supernovae. Evidence
for this hypothesis is the observed asymmetry in the explosion of core
collapse supernovae \cite{AssymmetrySN2008D,Tanaka}. Very recently
evidence for mildly relativistic jets ($\Gamma\sim$~1) that did break
from the progenitor has been presented for type Ic supernovae 2007gr
and 2009bb \cite{sn2007gr,sn2009bb}. Supernovae with hidden jets, supernovae
with mildly relativistic jets that manage to break out and long GRBs could form a
continuum class of astronomical objects. Neutrinos would provide us
with information about these hidden jets and early neutrino
observations could also lead the way in finding and studying
supernovae with mildly relativistic jets that do break out. A model
has been proposed by Razzaque, M\'esz\'aros and Waxman (henceforth RMW)
\cite{RMW}. This model was extended by Ando and Beacom (henceforth AB)
to include kaon production \cite{AB}. The RMW/AB spectrum is very soft
leading to $\gtrsim$100~GeV neutrino observations in IceCube/KM3Net. A
model for neutrino production in reverse shocks for both choked and
successful relativistic jets associated with SN type Ib has also been
proposed \cite{horiuchi}. While we did not consider this latter model
in the present letter, the broad conclusions still apply.
A promising way to search for $\gtrsim$100~GeV neutrinos from core collapse
supernovae is the optical follow-up \cite{Followup}. Neutrino
multiplets in directional and time coincidence trigger observations by
fast robotic telescopes. This method has the advantage of being able
to dramatically reduce the intrinsic atmospheric neutrino
background because the signal search window is only
$O(100\mathrm{s})$. A neutrino multiplet may not be significant on its
own because the accidental rate due to atmospheric neutrino background
is O(10/year), but the subsequent observation of the rising light-curve
of a supernova in spatial and temporal coincidence with a neutrino
multiplet would be highly significant. Optical follow-up programs are
already in operation by IceCube \cite{FollowupIceCube} and Antares
\cite{FollowupAntares}.
The objective of this letter is to calculate the event rate from core
collapse supernovae as observed by $\sim$10~GeV detectors like
DeepCore \cite{deepcore}. We propose the optical follow-up programs to
be enhanced so as to require at least one $\gtrsim$100~GeV $\nu_\mu$
(minimum requirement to achieve good sky localization) and several
$\gtrsim$10~GeV events. We also calculate the event rate on
$\gtrsim$~100 GeV neutrino-induced cascades. A most interesting case
is that of KM3Net, which promises good angular reconstruction of
cascades. We propose the optical follow-up programs to be enhanced so
as to require at least one $\sim$100~GeV $\nu_\mu$ and one
$\sim$100~GeV neutrino-induced cascade. The enhanced sensitivity of
these two new modes of observation will allow IceCube/KM3Net to
provide a more thorough test of the RMW/AB model.
\section{Neutrino production in choked jets}
The RMW/AB model supposes a choked jet with bulk Lorentz boost factor
$\Gamma_b \sim 3$ and an opening angle $\theta_j \sim 0.3$. The kinetic energy
of the jet is set to $E_j = 3\times10^{51}$~erg in analogy to
GRBs. Also similar to GRBs the time variability of the engine is set
to $t_v \sim 0.1$~s. Neutrinos are produced in p-p interactions via
both pions and kaons. The accelerated proton spectrum is assumed to be
$dN_p/dE = E^{-2}$. The density and energies involved are similar to
those of atmospheric neutrinos in which muons do not decay, but
instead are subject to radiative cooling. Thus in the case of
neutrinos generated by pion decay, the neutrino flavor flux ratio
$\phi_{\nu_e}$:$\phi_{\nu_mu}$:$\phi_{\nu_\tau}$ is 0:1:0. In the case
of kaons there is a small flux of $\nu_e$ due to $K^0_{\mathrm L}$
decay, but the AB paper does not include neutral kaon contribution. We
therefore also assume 0:1:0 as the flavor flux ratio. Taking into
account vacuum oscillations the expected flavor flux ratio at Earth is
0.2:0.4:0.4 for both pions and kaons. Note that vacuum oscillations
were not taken into account in previous calculations \cite{RMW,AB}, we
include them here as they are critical to describe $\nu_e$ and
$\nu_\tau$ fluxes at Earth. All our numbers include vacuum
oscillations except where explicitly noted.
The mesons product of p-p interactions have the same initial spectrum
as the protons, but they are subject to hadronic and radiative
cooling. This results in two break energies above which the meson
spectrum is steeper. Neutrinos follow the energy spectrum of their
parent mesons. The neutrino flux resulting from pion and kaon
contributions can be described as a doubly broken power law:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN_\nu}{dE} = A \left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
E^{-2} & E > E_\nu^{(1)} \\
E_\nu^{(1)} E^{-3} & E_\nu^{(1)} E < E_\nu^{(2)} \\
E_\nu^{(1)} E_\nu^{(2)} E^{-4} & E_\nu^{(2)} < E < E_{max}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
$A$ is the flux normalization (for all flavors combined) such that for
pions(kaons) $dN_\nu/dE$ is $5\times10^{-2}$~GeV$^{-1}$.cm$^{-2}$
($5\times10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-1}$.cm$^{-2}$) at $E_\nu^{(1)}$. The energies
$E_\nu^{(1)}$ and $E_\nu^{(2)}$ are the energies above which hadronic
and radiative cooling become relevant respectively. For pions (kaons)
these energies are: $E_\nu^{(1)} = 30$~GeV (200~GeV)
and $E_\nu^{(2)} = 100$~GeV (20~TeV). The values above
correspond to a supernova at 10 Mpc with default choices of
parameters. See RMW\cite{RMW} and AB\cite{AB} for details.
\section{Effective Areas and Event rates in IceCube/KM3Net/DeepCore}
\label{sec:effarea}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig1a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig1b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig1c.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Areas} The three panels show the neutrino
effective areas for $\nu_e$ (left), $\nu_\mu$ (center) and $\nu_\tau$ (right). The effective areas shown are
for IceCube (solid histogram - black online version) and DeepCore
(short dashed histogram - blue online version) as calculated in this
letter. Also shown (long dashed curve - red online version) is the
effective area for $\nu_\mu$ published by the IceCube
collaboration. The effective area has been averaged over the
northern hemisphere ($\delta$: $0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$). The effective
area is also averaged over neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. The
difference between IceCube's effective area for $nu_mu$ as
calculated in this letter and as published by the IceCube
collaboration is due to threshold effects. In this letter's
calculation we have simplistically assumed that all muons with >
100~GeV energy that go through IceCube are detected. For details see
section \ref{sec:effarea}.}
\end{figure*}
To calculate the expected number of events $N_{\mathrm obs}$ given a
neutrino flux $dN_\nu/dE$ the neutrino effective area $A_{eff}$ of
a detector is needed:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:effArea}
N_{\mathrm{obs}} = \int dE A_{eff} (E) \frac{dN_\nu}{dE}
\end{equation}
The neutrino effective area of IceCube for muon neutrinos averaged
over the northern hemisphere and assuming equal $\nu$ and $\bar{\nu}$
fluxes has been published by the IceCube collaboration \cite{IceCubeEffectiveArea}
and it is reproduced in Fig.\ref{fig:Areas}. The neutrino effective
area of a detector can be calculated from first principles and the
procedure for doing so has been reported in many publications. In
particular \cite{HalzenGonzalez} and refs. therein have a careful
discussion of this subject.
The calculation of neutrino effective area requires knowledge of the
muon effective area, which in turn depends on detailed knowledge of
the operation of the detector. In the literature it is common to
assume that IceCube has an effective area of 1~km$^2$ for muons above
a threshold of 100~GeV. This approximation is a good one for the hard
spectra, such as that expected from the sources of cosmic rays. In
contrast this approximation is a bad one for soft fluxes, such as
those from the RMW/AB model. For RMW/AB most of the events observed
have energies that are close to the muon detection threshold and thus
detailed knowledge of the detector functioning (and hence the muon
effective area) are needed. As similar argument also applies to
DeepCore and cascade events.
We have used ANIS \cite{ANIS} to simulate neutrinos in the
vicinity of IceCube and DeepCore. We assume that IceCube is a cylinder
of 1000~m of height and 564~m in radius. The center of this cylinder
is placed 1950~m below the ice surface. DeepCore is simulated as a
cylinder of 350~m of height and 125~m of radius at 2275~m of depth
below the ice surface. The ANIS simulation takes into account the
ice/rock boundary, Earth neutrino absorption (though this is a very
small effect for the soft RMW/AB spectrum), neutral current
regeneration, etc. Our simulations include neutrinos of all
flavors. We have assumed flavor flux ratio as appropriate for an
the injected fluxes by either pions or kaons and we have taken into
account neutrino oscillations. We
have also assumed equal ratios of neutrino to anti-neutrino for a given
flavor. Muon propagation is calculated with MMC \cite{MMC}. We
assume that events are detected for the following conditions: a)
through-going muons or entering muons must have a minimum energy when
entering the detector cylinder b) the total visible energy (cascades,
muons, etc) of a contained event must be greater than the same
threshold as through-going events. For IceCube we have chose 100~GeV
as the threshold and for DeepCore 10~GeV. IceCube results also apply
to KM3Net. We show our calculations for neutrino effective areas for
IceCube and DeepCore in Fig. \ref{fig:Areas}.
Note good agreement between our calculations and IceCube published
effective for $\gtrsim$TeV. As described above, for low energies,
detailed simulation of the detector performance becomes important. For
DeepCore our simulation is in good agreement with the results
published by the IceCube collaboration \cite{deepcore}. The IceCube
collaboration has not published an effective area for neutrino-induced
cascades. Therefore our results concerning cascades will have the
largest uncertainty.
Performing the integral on Eq. \ref{eq:effArea} using IceCube's
published neutrino effective area with the RMW/AB flux for a core
collapse supernova at 10 Mpc confirms previous estimates of
expected $\nu_\mu$ events \cite{AB}. Using IceCube' published
$\nu_\mu$ effective area we obtain an expectation of 11.2 events (28
if we don't assume oscillations as AB did.) The comparison remains
equally valid at high energies for which threshold effects are less
relevant. Using our calculation of the $\nu_\mu$ effective area we
obtain 3.3 events. Our discrepancy with AB and the IceCube published
effective area can be attributed exclusively to threshold effects near
100~GeV.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig2b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig2c.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:DCrates} The panels show the expected signal
above a given energy for DeepCore for $\nu_e$ (left), $\nu_\mu$
(center) and $\nu_\tau$ (right). The solid (black in the online
version) histogram is the total expectation of the RMW/AB model, the
long dashed histogram (blue in the online version) is the pion
contribution and the short dashed (red in the online version)
histogram is the kaon contribution.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig3c.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:ICrates} The panels show the expected signal
above a given energy for cascades in IceCube/KM3Net for $\nu_e$
(left), $\nu_\mu$ (center) and $\nu_\tau$ (right). The solid line
(black in the online version) is the total expectation of the RMW/AB
model, the long dashed line (blue in the online version) is the pion
contribution and the short dashed line (red in the online version)
is the kaon contribution.}
\end{figure*}
The all-flavor expectation for DeepCore is 4 events. The
neutrino-induced cascade signal expected in IceCube is 6.1
events. DeepCore events are broken down by flavor to 0.4 due to
$\nu_e$, 3 are due to $\nu_\mu$ and 0.6 due to $\nu_\tau$. Cascade
events break down to 2 due to $\nu_e$, 1.3 due to $\nu_\mu$ (via
neutral current interactions) and 2.8 due to $\nu_\tau$.
Figure \ref{fig:DCrates} shows the observed event spectra for all
three neutrino flavors in DeepCore due to a reference supernova at 10
Mpc that follows the RMW/AB model. Figure \ref{fig:ICrates} is similar
but neutrino-induced cascades in a km$^3$ detector. It is clear that
the pion component
makes the most significant contribution to the observations in
DeepCore. In contrast events expected in IceCube, both $\nu_\mu$ and
cascades, are mostly due to kaons with the exception of energies near
to the detector threshold.
\section{Atmospheric Neutrino background}
In DeepCore $10^5$ atmospheric neutrinos of all flavors over 2$\pi$~sr
are expected per year \cite{deepcore}. IceCube has an atmospheric
muon neutrino rate of $10^5$ events per year over 2$\pi$~sr
\cite{IceCube}. IceCube has a rate of $2\times 10^4$ atmospheric
neutrino-induced cascades per year over 4$\pi$~sr\cite{Michelangelo}.
When searching for neutrino transients, background is significantly
reduced by using a narrow time window and by pointing in a specific
direction. Km$^3$ neutrino detectors have angular resolutions of
$O(1^\circ)$ \footnote{KM3Net may achieve better angular resolution
than this for higher energy. But at 100~GeV - 1~TeV, the angular
resolution is dominated by the directional difference between the
parent $\nu_\mu$ and the daughter muon.}. Due to the optical
properties of ice, IceCube is not expected to be able to reconstruct
the direction of cascades well, but it is anticipated that KM3Net will
be able to reconstruct cascades with $5^\circ$ resolution
\cite{CascadeDirection}. It is also expected that DeepCore will
reconstruct the direction of events. For charged current $\nu_\mu$
events above $\sim$10-20~GeV DeepCore will have a resolution of
10-15$^\circ$. For cascade-like events in DeepCore the angular
resolution is expected to be $\sim 30^\circ$ but the minimum energy at
which this is feasible is still unknown. DeepCore will also have the
ability to separate track events (from C.C. $\nu_\mu$ interactions)
from cascade-like events for energies greater than 10~GeV
\cite{DarrenGrant}. In our calculations below we assume, perhaps
pessimistically, an angular resolution of $\sim 30^\circ$ for all
flavors in DeepCore. The appropriate time search window is set by the
size of the star: $R_{*} / c_{\mathrm light}$ $\sim 100
\mathrm{s})$. In fact the radii of progenitors just prior to core
collapse are known with poor detail. Candidate progenitor stars have
been identified for about a dozen of core collapse supernovae,
including SN1987A (type IIP, $R_{*} \sim 10^{11}$~cm) \cite{SN1987A}
and SN2008D (type Ib, $R_{*} \sim 10^{11}$~cm) \cite{SN2008D}. But
SN1987A is unusual and type II progenitors are more frequently red
giants with $R_{*}$ as large as $\sim 10^{13}$~cm.
The rate of accidental atmospheric neutrino multiplets with $N$ events of channel $a$
(e.g. $>$100~GeV $\nu_\mu$) and $M$ (e.g DeepCore) events of channel $b$ is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:yearlyrate}
R_{N,M} = R_{a}^N R_{b}^M (\frac{\Omega_a}{2\pi})^{N-1} (\frac{\Omega_b}{2\pi})^{M} \frac{\Delta T^{M+N-1}}{(N-1)! M!},
\end{equation}
where $R_a$ and $R_b$ are the atmospheric neutrino background rates
for channels $a$ and $b$, $\Omega_a$ and $\Omega_b$ are the angular
areas search areas and $\Delta T$ is the temporal search window. Note
that eq. \ref{eq:yearlyrate} is only valid for $N\ge1$ and $M\ge0$. In
the case that the neutrino multiplet with a single species, it is
necessary to set $M=0$.
The rate of accidentals should be matched to at most, what is feasible
to follow-up with robotic optical telescopes, about 50/year. The
resulting angular uncertainty of the multiband or multiflavor neutrino
multiplet must also match the field of view of robotic optical
telescopes, about $2^\circ \times 2^\circ$. Using
eq. \ref{eq:yearlyrate} we find that optical follow-ups are possible for
2 or more $\gtrsim$100~GeV $\nu_\mu$ (which has already been
proposed), but also (with KM3Net) one $\gtrsim$100~GeV $\nu_\mu$ and
one $\gtrsim$100~GeV cascade. Two $\gtrsim$100~GeV cascades also
produces an accidental rate that might be appropriate, but its follow
up would require a very large field of view telescope. Coincidences of
one $\gtrsim$100~GeV $\nu_\mu$ and at least three DeepCore events also
provides a good match to perform optical follow up. Tables
\ref{tab:table1} and \ref{tab:table2} show the accidental false rate
of neutrino multiplets for $\nu_\mu$, DeepCore events and cascades.
\section{Discussion}
Following the RMW/AB model, we have calculated the event expectation
in DeepCore and for cascades in km$^3$ detectors like IceCube and
KM3Net. We find that for a reference core-collapse supernova at 10 Mpc
$\sim 4$ events would be detected by DeepCore and $\sim~6$ cascades
would be detected by km$^3$ detectors. These signals are strong enough
to allow for the search of neutrinos in coincidence with a known
supernova in the scale of 10 Mpc. In the case of neutrino only
searches, the atmospheric neutrino background is higher than what we
described in the text, as the time of the explosion can only be
established with about 1 day precision \cite{CowenKowalski}.
A better alternative is to expand the already running optical
follow-up programs. A single TeV $\nu_\mu$ event can provide accurate
location in the sky, while a coincident observation with at least three
10~GeV events in DeepCore would result in an acceptable false
accidental rate. One muon event and one cascade event at
$\gtrsim$100~GeV also has a very low accidental rate in KM3Net,
because of its good angular resolution for cascades. A DeepCore-like
component in KM3Net may have better angular resolution
than in IceCube, but the level of improvement is limited by the
kinematical direction difference between the neutrino and the outgoing
muon or shower.
The $\gtrsim$10~GeV observations provide another advantage. Because
they are sensitive to the pion contribution and the $\gtrsim$100~GeV
neutrinos are sensitive to the kaon contribution, the multiband
channel helps the IceCube/DeepCore combination to maintain sensitivity
if actual supernovae deviate from the reference model.
Observations of $\gtrsim$10~GeV and $\gtrsim$100~GeV neutrinos in
coincidence with core collapse supernovae would be very strong evidence
for the existence of choked jets. This observations would help
understand the correlation between long duration gamma ray bursts and
core collapse supernovae. Finally these observations may provide an
alternative way of detecting gamma-ray dark core collapse supernovae
with mildly relativistic jets as those observed in SN2007gr and SN2009bb.
The expansion of the optical follow-up programs proposed here is
promising in light of the core-collapse supernova rate within 10 Mpc:
1-2 core collapse SNe/yr \cite{Kistler:2008us,Ando:2005ka}. The expected opening
angle of the choked jets implies a random aligning of one of the jets with the
line of sight for 10-20\%. This would result in a positive
observation every 2.5 - 10 years within 10 Mpc if all core collapse
supernovae have hidden jets. But this is a conservative estimation of
the relevant supernova rate. The neutrino event rates calculated in this letter imply that
observations are possible at distances beyond 10 Mpc and the supernova
rate depends of the cube of the distance \footnote{At close distances
the detailed distribution of local galaxies is important and does
deviate somewhat from the continuous limit}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table1} Expected coincident yearly rates of N $\nu_\mu$
events and M DeepCore events. We assume the $\nu_\mu$ events
coincident in a circle of 1$^\circ$ radius and 30$^\circ$ for DeepCore
events. We assume coincidence time window of 100~s. }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | | c | c | c | c | }
DC /\ $\nu_\mu$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
0 & - & - & 4.8 & 1.1$\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1 & - & - & 0.2 & 5.0$\times 10^{-6}$ \\
2 & - & 94 & 4.6$\times 10^{-3}$ & 1.1$\times 10^{-3}$ \\
3 & 94 & 1.4 & 6.6$\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.6$\times 10^{-9}$ \\
4 & 1.4 & 1.5$\times 10^{-2}$ & 7.2$\times 10^{-7}$ & 1.7$\times 10^{-11}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table2} Expected coincident yearly rates of N $\nu_\mu$
events and M cascade events. We assume the $\nu_\mu$ events
coincident in a circle of 1$^\circ$ radius and 5$^\circ$ for cascade
events. We assume coincidence time window of 100~s.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | | c | c | c | c | }
casc /\ $\nu_\mu$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
0 & - & - & 4.8 & 1.1$\times 10^{-4}$ \\
1 & - & 12 & 5.8$\times 10^{-4}$ & 1.4$\times 10^{-8}$ \\
2 & 1.2 & 7.3$\times 10^{-3}$ & 3.5$\times 10^{-8}$ & 8.5$\times 10^{-13}$ \\
3 & 7.3$\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.9$\times 10^{-8}$ & 1.4$\times 10^{-12}$ & 3.4$\times 10^{-17}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are grateful to John Beacom and Francis Halzen for helpful comments and
discussion. We are grateful to Darren Grant for providing information regarding
the performance of DeepCore. We thank the anonymous referee for useful
comments. This work has been partially supported by
National Science Foundation grant PHY-0855291.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent bottom-up~\cite{Yang06} and top-down~\cite{Lansbergen08,Colinge07}
demonstrations of Si channels with diameters of only a few nanometers
shape the roadmap towards the ultimate limits of scaling. Silicon nanowires (SiNWs), in particular,
can be easily integrated with existing semiconductor technologies. As experimental results remain
difficult to obtain and analyze at this lengthscale, modelling has a crucial role to play in
assessing this technology.
Owing to computational and methodological advances, great progress has been achieved
in atomic-scale transport calculations, first in molecular systems~\cite{Cuniberti,Datta}
and later in semiconductor nanowires~\cite{Klimeck,Neophytou2,Luisier,Giorgos}.
Nevertheless, semiconductor physics is most easily captured within the effective mass theory and
many device simulators are built based on this approximation~\cite{Asenov,Goodnick}. This implies that simple models
describing the basic mechanisms are required~\cite{Neophytou1}.
Recently, using an effective mass model we were able to determine the important parameters in
scattering from neutral P-dopants in SiNWs and reproduce results from a first-principles approach within DFT~\cite{Panos}.
Here, in a similar fashion, we take a first step in explaining scattering from Si atoms at the wire
surface promoted to different oxidation states (typically Si$^{+1}$ and Si$^{+2}$).
Due to oxidation, this type of oxygen-related defects are unavoidable at the surface of a pure
semiconductor wire core even in surface treated SiNWs and can be considered as a source of roughness on
the atomic scale~\cite{Luisier,Pantelides}. Using an effectively one-dimensional model of scattering from a well we fit
the conductance of ultrathin ($<$ 3nm in diameter) SiNWs as obtained from a combined DFT-Green's
function formalism.
An atomic-scale analysis based on calculations from first-principles will be presented elsewhere~\cite{Giorgos}.
This approach allows us to identify the scattering mechanism as intra-subband scattering
from a shallow potential well.
In Section \ref{Sec2}, we summarize the equations of the effective mass model
solved using a quantum transport scattering approach.
In Section \ref{Sec3}, we present a discussion of our results for various typical
scenarios of local surface oxidation. We conclude with Section \ref{Sec4}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=4cm]{Fig1}%
\label{Fig1}
\caption{The cross-section of [110]-oriented hydrogenated SiNWs with diameter W = 1.15nm as measured from the distance between furthest Si atoms in the slice.}
\end{figure}
\section{Effective mass equations}
\label{Sec2}
The general Hamiltonian that governs the three-dimensional electron motion reads
\begin{equation}
H =
\frac{\hbar^2}{2} \mathbf{k}^T \stackrel{\textstyle\leftrightarrow}{m}^{-1}_D \mathbf{k}
+ W(x,y,z)
\label{eq1_c1}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\stackrel{\textstyle\leftrightarrow}{m}^{-1}_D$ is the
effective mass tensor in the coordinate system of the device (i.e., x-axis is oriented along the channel)
, $\mathbf{k} = (k_x,k_y,k_z) = -i (\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\frac{\partial}{\partial y},
\frac{\partial}{\partial z})$ is the momentum operator for a fully spatially
quantized electron motion and $W(x,y,z)$ is the single-particle operator for the electrostatic
potential that the electron feels when injected in the channel. In what follows we focus on hole
transport and take that the effective mass tensor is diagonal within our SiNW coordinate system.
This leads to an effective mass Hamiltonian \ref{eq1_c1} for the nanostructure
reading~\cite{Lundstrom}
\begin{equation}
H =
- \frac{\hbar^2}{2}
\sum_{r=x,y,z}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\frac{1}{m^*_r(x,y,z)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+ W(x,y,z).
\label{eq2_c1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
We also assume that the effective mass varies only along the channel, i.e., the x-direction,
allowing us to use an ansatz of the form
\begin{equation}
\Psi(x,y,z) = \sum\limits_{nm} \phi_{nm}(x) \xi_{nm}(x,y,z).
\label{eq3_c1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Applying this ansatz and using the orthonormality property for the
function $\xi_{nm}(x,y,z)$ together with a 'smooth disorder' assumption
along transport, i.e. very slow variation, then it is eligible to assume
that the function $\xi_{nm}(x,y,z)$ is independent of $x$. This approximation has
also been used in Ref.~\cite{Wang}. Under these assumptions we end up
with an one-dimensional effective mass equation governing transport within the nanowire
\begin{equation}
\left \{- \frac{\hbar^2}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \frac{1}{m^*_x(x)} \frac{\partial}{\partial x} +
E_{nm}(x) \right \} \phi_{nm}(x) =
E \phi_{nm}(x),
\label{eq4_c1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $E_{nm}(x)$ is determined by the solution of
\begin{eqnarray}
\left \{- \frac{\hbar^2}{2}
\sum_{r=x,y} \frac{1}{m^*_r(x)} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial^2 r}
+ W(y,z;x)
\right \}
\xi_{nm}(x,y,z) = \\ \nonumber
E_{nm}(x) \xi_{nm}(x,y,z)
\label{eq5_c1}
\end{eqnarray}
The quantum mechanical scattering problem corresponding to Equation \ref{eq4_c1} is then
solved to yield the transmission coefficient, $T_i$, for each channel and, hence,
the Landauer conductance $G = (2e^2/h) T = (2e^2/h) \sum T_i$.
\section{Results}
\label{Sec3}
For definitiveness, we consider SiNWs grown along the [110]-direction and
fix the diameter to $W = 1.15$nm. Similar results are obtained for the lowest
subbands in wires with larger W. Figure 1 shows the cross-section of the wire
channel. The atomistic model for the promotion of Si atoms to the states Si$^{+1}$ and Si$^{+2}$
consists of starting from the neutral oxidation state Si$^{0}$ at the surface of the hydrogenated wires
and introducing oxygens as shown in Figure 2. The resulting Si-O-H and Si-O-Si bonds
are the simplest cases of oxygen bridge- and back- bonds.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=4cm]{Fig2a}%
\vspace{1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=4cm]{Fig2b}%
\label{Fig2}
\caption{Examples of an (a) Si-O-H bond, (b) Si-O-Si back-bond. The oxidized surface Si atom
is at the Si$^{+1}$ and Si$^{+2}$ oxidation state, respectively.}
\end{figure}
Before performing a transport calculation using Eq. \ref{eq4_c1} it is instructive to
compare the electronic structure of the pristine hydrogenated wire with the bands
of a large enough supercell that includes an oxygen-derived defect. This is done
in Figure 3, where we plot the bands derived from a density functional tight-binding (DFTB)
approach. The latter is an efficient approximation to the Kohn-Sham DFT scheme.
We first note that the effective mass as determined by the curvature of the bands
does not change by the introduction of the oxygen. In general, impurities cause
variations of the effective mass $m^*_x(x)$ along the channel. But here this effect
can be disregarded.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=7cm]{Fig3}%
\label{Fig3}
\caption{Band structure of [110]-oriented Si nanowire with cross-section as in Figure 1. The supercell lattice
parameter a is 1.92nm.}
\end{figure}
A second observation is that alignment of the bands in a pristine-oxidised-pristine wire arrangement
would yield a potential well of the order of a few meV for hole propagation in both subbands.
For the effective mass model, we take this into account as a phenomenological parameter
in Eq. \ref{eq4_c1} through the x-dependence of W. The conductance for
a potential well extending over a region of length $L \sim 1 nm$ is plotted in Figure 4.
Also in Figure 4, we show for comparison the result of a combined DFTB-Green's
function approach as well as the ideal hole conductance of a pristine hydrogenated wire.
It is evident that for both cases of an Si-O-H bond and an Si-O-Si back-bond
the simple model of considering the region around the oxidized Si site as
a shallow potential well yields a remarkable quantitative agreement.
This picture is consistent with ballistic transport and the positive oxidation state of Si.
We note that within the effective mass model only intrasubband scattering is considered,
thereby, implying that this is the dominant scattering mechanism. As an aside
we confirmed this by independent analysis of the quantum mechanical S-matrix in the atomic-scale
model.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=7cm]{Fig4a}%
\vspace{1cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=7cm]{Fig4b}%
\label{Fig4}
\caption{Landauer conductance of locally oxidized SiNWs corresponding to the
oxygen-related defects of Figure 2; models as indicated.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Sec4}
In conclusion, effective mass models are useful in analyzing measurements, model building
and for practical calculations of charge carrier transport in semiconductor wires.
To this end, we derived a simple picture within this framework to explain results of
hole-transport calculations in locally oxidized silicon nanowires grown in the [110] direction
using atomic-scale models in conjuction with Density Functional Theory (DFT).
This appoach points to an intra-subband scattering mechanism from a potential well
and may further apply in other impurity systems.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
P.~Drouvelis acknowledges financial support from the
Irish Research Council for Science Engineering and Technology
while at Tyndall National Institute where part of this work
was performed. The research of G.~Fagas is supported by
Science Foundation Ireland.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
The nature of intrinsic absorption in quasars has important implications for physical models of the AGN ``central engine'' and, in general, for developing the unified model.
The subclass of broad absorption line (BAL) quasars, characterized by strong, broad, and blueshifted absorption troughs in their spectra, is the main manifestation of the importance of outflows in the AGN phenomenon. While BAL objects are important in understanding the properties of quasars, the nature of BALQSOs remains poorly understood and there is still no consensus about whether BALQSOs differ intrinsically from non-BAL quasars. The small percentage of BALQSOs among quasars ($\sim 15\%$) is generally interpreted as an orientation effect in the unified model \citep[QSOs viewed at large inclination angles close to their equatorial plane,][]{1991ApJ...373...23W}. However, the properties of some low-ionization BALQSOs appear inconsistent with simple unified models and can be explained only by an evolutionary scenario, where BALQSOs are young or recently refueled quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{1992ApJ...397..442B, 2000ApJ...538...72B}. In this model, broad absorption lines appear when a nucleus blows off gas and dust during a dust-enshrouded quasar phase, evolving to non-BAL quasars. Some results for the radio, such as for radio BALQSOs that share several properties with young radio sources \citep[e.g.,][]{2008MNRAS.391..246L} and infrared, such as the 2MASS Infrared survey that contains an unusually high fraction of bright BALQSOs at high z \citep[see][]{2009ApJ...698.1095U} seem to be in favor of this idea.
Thus, the study of BALQSOs advances significantly not only our understanding of the structure and emission/absorption physics of AGN, but also helps in developing an evolutionary scenario of quasars.
While the UV and optical properties of BALQSOs are more or less understandable and fit in with our ideas about the expected properties of this kind of objects, the X-ray properties of BALs remain controversial. Theoretical modelling of BALs \citep[e.g., the radiatively driven disk-wind paradigm by][]{1995ApJ...451..498M, 2000ApJ...543..686P} require X-ray column densities around $10^{22}-10^{23}$~cm$^{-2}$ to prevent over-ionization of the wind by the soft X-rays generated near the central engine. Until recently, the number of X-ray analysed BALQSOs was rather small and, in many cases, the optically selected bright objects were undetectable in X-rays, implying high column densities of absorbing gas and, therefore, supporting theoretical predictions. The hardness ratio analysis of 35 X-ray detected BALQSOs by \citet[][]{2006ApJ...644..709G}, also detects significant intrinsic absorption ($N_{\rm{H}}\sim 10^{22}-10^{24}$~cm$^{-2}$). However, a sample obtained by cross-correlating the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Second XMM-Newton Serendipitous Source (2XMM) catalogues by \citet{2008A&A...491..425G} infers lower values of neutral absorption than found in optically selected BALQSOs samples. While this result is expected, given that we require that the sources be not just detected in X-rays, but also have enough counts to perform X-ray spectral analysis, questions about the real fraction of the absorbed BALQSOs and properties of the absorbed gas remain open. Moreover, if we know that BALQSOs $are$ objects with complex absorbers, outflows and ionized material \citep[as implied by the definition and confirmed by observations of a few bright sources, e.g.,][]{2003AJ....126.1159G}, how correct is the application of the simple neutral absorbed model and how might this influence our view of BALQSOs?
Another important issue today is the definition of BALQSOs itself, which is a bit diffuse. The traditional BALs are defined to have CIV absorption troughs broader than 2000 \kms, this width ensuring that the absorption is from a nuclear outflow and effectively excluding associated absorbers. However, it could potentially exclude unusual or interesting BALs \citep[see][]{2000ApJ...538...72B,2002ApJS..141..267H}. Therefore, \citet{2006ApJS..165....1T}, in their SDSS sample, also included in the BALQSO class BAL absorption features at lower outflow velocities (within 3000 \kms). As a result, a significantly higher fraction of QSOs can be classified as BALQSOs \citep[e.g., in the 2MASS survey, the fraction of BALQSOs increases by a factor of two with the new definition,][]{2008ApJ...672..108D} and BALQSOs are objects with both weaker and much narrower absorption troughs than previously assumed. Despite the obvious weak points of this approach \citep[see][]{2008MNRAS.386.1426K}, this classification is widely used nowadays. Thus, an important question arises: is there any difference in physical properties between the ``classical'' and ``new'' BALQSOs?
To explore all the questions mentioned above, we created the most complete sample of X-ray detected BALQSOs to date, based on XMM-Newton observations.
This paper is organized as follows. We present the sample in Section 2. In Section 3, we describe the observations and their reduction; the X-ray and optical data analyses are presented in Section 4. Section 5 shows the results obtained from the X-ray spectral and hardness ratio analyses. In Section 6, we discuss our results and implications for different models.
A concordance cosmology model with $H_0=70$~\kms~Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{\rm{M}}=0.3$ is used throughout the paper.
\section{The sample}\label{sec:sample}
Based on the material producing the BAL troughs, the BALQSOs are classified into high-ionization BALQSOs (HiBALs) and low-ionization BALQSOs (LoBALs). HiBALs contain strong, deep, and broad absorption troughs shortward of high-ionization emission lines and are typically identified by the presence of C~IV$\lambda 1549$ absorption troughs. In addition to HiBAL features, LoBALs show broad absorption troughs in the low-ionization species, such as Mg~II$\lambda 2798$ and Al~III$\lambda 1857$ lines. The rare subclass of LoBALs ($\sim 1\%$) exhibiting broad absorption in metastable Fe~II and Fe~III lines is called FeLoBAL. About 10 to 20\% of all quasars are BALQSOs. Out of these, about 15$\%$ are LoBALs.
Traditionally, BALQSOs are characterized by their BALnicity index \citep[BI,][]{1991ApJ...373...23W}, which is a modified velocity equivalent width of the C~IV. The ``traditional'' BALQSOs have BI$\,>0$\footnote{That is, at least 2000 \kms\ wide C~IV absorption trough, blueshifted by $> 3000$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the C~IV line. This definition is formally detailed in Sect.~\ref{sec:optic}.}. The ``extended'' definition uses the absorption index \citep[AI,][]{2002ApJS..141..267H,2006ApJS..165....1T} and includes BALQSOs that have absorption at outflow velocities within 3000 \kms\ of the emission-line redshift. We used both kinds of objects to create our sample.
We cross-correlate the 2XMM catalogue with the NASA Extragalactic Database
(NED)\footnote{The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.}, the largest extragalactic
sources database. We preselected objects with Galactic latitude greater than 20 degrees and high quality X-ray data corresponding to flag zero in the 2XMM catalogue. The queries to NED were launched in two different modes: either directly as a socket query or with a batch file. The condition for source matching was to fall within a distance of less than 5~arcsecs or 5 times the error in the position of the X-ray source queried. We finally stored only sources of known redshift. The detailed description of the cross-correlation and algorithm used is discussed in Gil-Merino et al. (2010, in preparation).
In this way, we include SDSS BALQSOs by \citet{2006ApJS..165....1T} and sources from individual random observations. In addition, we cross-correlate the 2XMM catalogue with other BALQSOs samples \citep[][]{2008ApJ...680..169S,2009ApJ...692..758G} based on the SDSS DR5 catalogue \citep {2007AJ....134..102S}. These recently published catalogues have not yet been included in NED and, therefore, are missed in our main cross-correlation procedure.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{13754fg0.ps}}
\caption{\label{fig:zdis} Redshift distribution of the BALQSOs in our sample. The dotted and dashed lines correspond to the HiBALs and LoBALs, respectively. The upper solid line shows the distribution for the total sample of 88 sources. Most of the sources of both types have z around 1.9, and constitute 45\% of all the sources.}
\end{figure}
Our final sample consists of 88 sources (70 HiBALs and 18 LoBALs) and spans the redshift range $0.15 < z < 5.8$ with a peak at $z \sim 1.9$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:zdis}). Among the selected BALQSOs, we performed a full X-ray spectral analysis of 39 sources and an X-ray hardness ratio spectral analysis of the remaining 49 sources.
The details of each source in our sample are presented in Table \ref{table:1}.
The first and second columns list the NED and 2XMM names, respectively. In the next columns, the redshift, the BAL type, the value of BALnicity Index (see details in Sect.~\ref{sec:optic}), an abbreviation for the performed X-ray analysis, and a number of the individual XMM-Newton observations are reported. The last column shows the notes on individual sources, i.e., details about the calculation of the BI or the reference from which we gathered information about the object.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
\subsection{X-ray data}
For the full spectral analysis, we selected sources with $\gtrsim 70$ counts detected by the EPIC-pn instrument in the $0.2-10$~keV energy band. For each observation, the X-ray data were retrieved from the {\textit{XMM-Newton}} Science Archive (XSA) and reduced with {\textit{SAS}} v8.0.0 and the latest calibration files. The background light curves at energies above 10 keV were used to filter the data and remove high background flaring periods. We used the \texttt{eregionanalyse} task for source region optimization and maximization of the signal-to-noise ratio. The \texttt{evselect} tool was used to extract the spectrum and background region, which was defined as a circle around the source, after masking out nearby objects. We extracted the spectra of each source for the pn, MOS1, and MOS2 detectors using only events with pattern 0--4 (single and double) for the pn and 0--12 for the MOS cameras. All spectra were extracted in the $0.2-10$~keV band, EPIC being the most accurately calibrated. For each spectrum, we generated a redistribution matrix file (RMF) and ancillary response file (ARF) using the \texttt{rmfgen} and \texttt{arfgen} tasks, respectively.
To improve statistics, MOS1 and MOS2 source spectra were combined into a mean MOS spectrum by summing the counts from the channels with the nominal energy range using our own \texttt{perl} script. The background spectra and calibration files were merged in the same fashion. We combined the spectra by weighting them for the exposure time of the individual detectors and taking into account the value of the \texttt{backscale} parameter. If the source was observed more than once at compatible off-axis angles, we merged the pn, mean MOS spectra, and the calibration files from one observation with the corresponding spectra and files from other observations. This approach allowed us to measure the time-averaged spectral properties (i.e., the flux and spectral shape), ignoring possible time variability of the sources.
\subsection{Optical data}
For sources with SDSS counterparts (69 out of 88), we retrieved optical spectra from the SDSS database\footnote{http://cas.sdss.org/astro/en/tools/search/SQS.asp}. Spectra for the remaining 19 objects were either provided by authors or reconstructed, using a special tool, from scanned graphs of the corresponding articles (see details in the last column of Table \ref{table:1}).
\section{X-ray and optical data analysis}
\subsection{X-ray Analysis}
A full spectral analysis was performed for a sample of 39 sources with the highest quality statistics, leading to proper values of $\Gamma$ and $N_{\rm{H}}$ in the source rest-frame. We used XSPEC v12.4.0 \citep{1996ASPC..101...17A} to perform the spectral analysis. All spectra were binned to a minimum of 3 counts/bin. We performed this minimal grouping to avoid channels with no counts, i.e., the spectrum is essentially unbinned and no spectral information is lost. Because of the small number of counts in our spectra, we decided to use the Cash-statistic \citep[XSPEC \texttt{C-stat,}][]{1979ApJ...228..939C}. The new version of XSPEC allows C-statistic fits to data for which background spectra are considered. Comparison of the fitting results from Cash and $\chi^2$ statistics (for our best quality spectra) reveals that the difference is negligible. Since C-stat does not indicate at all of quality of the fit, we computed its goodness using Monte Carlo probability calculations. For this purpose, we used the \texttt{goodness} command in XSPEC, which performs Monte Carlo simulations of 100 model spectra using the best-fit model and infers the percentage of simulated spectra that had a fit statistic less than that obtained from the fit to the real data. The `goodness of fit' should be around 50\%, if the observed data were produced by the fitted model. The obtained values were, indeed, around this value for all our spectra.
EPIC-pn and MOS data were fitted simultaneously using appropriate models. We, initially, fit the spectra with a model consisting of a power law with an intrinsic absorption component at the source redshift \texttt{zphabs}, and an additional photoelectric absorption component \texttt{phabs} that was fixed at the Galactic column density \citep{1990ARA&A..28..215D}. From our model fits, we computed the slope of a power-law spectrum (photon index $\Gamma$), the intrinsic rest-frame neutral column density $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}$, and the X-ray flux and luminosity in the $0.5-2$ and $2-10$ keV bands. For absorbed sources, the rest-frame luminosities were corrected for absorption by setting to zero the $N_{\rm{H}}$ values in the XSPEC best-fit model. Spectral analysis results are reported in Table \ref{table:2}.
Fourteen of the 39 BALQSOs ($\sim$36\%) have low intrinsic neutral absorption, $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}<5\times 10^{21}\:$cm$^{-2}$, confirming the result ($\sim$36\%) of \citet{2008A&A...491..425G} .
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{13754fg1.ps}}
\caption{\label{fig:gam-nh}. The power-law photon index $\Gamma$ versus rest-frame $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}$ for the analysed sample of 39 sources suitable for full spectral analysis. Solid black squares and red circles refer to LoBALs and HiBALs, respectively. Open red circles indicate HiBALs with BI$=$0. The parameter $\Gamma$ for our objects ranges from 1.18 to 2.72, the majority of the sources clustering around 1.9.}
\end{figure}
As noted in the Introduction, this result is difficult to understand in the context of any BALQSO scenario. For this reason, we decided to study the possibility that ionized (as opposed to neutral) gas is significantly present in our BALQSOs, and then characterise the properties of this ionized absorber. If BALQSOs $are$ special sources with strong outflowing ionized winds and ionized or partially covering intrinsic absorption, then we need to adopt a model that takes account of the presence of these features. To test this, we replaced the neutral absorber in our spectral model with an ionized intrinsic absorber, modelled using the XSPEC model \texttt{absori} \citep{1992ApJ...395..275D}. Owing to the low signal-to-noise ratio of the data, we forced the \texttt{absori} photon index to be fixed and equal to the continuum power-law index corresponding to $\Gamma$ obtained from the previous absorbed power-law model. The temperature of the absorbing material was fixed at $T=3.0 \times 10^{4}\;\rm K$ and its redshift was fixed to be the redshift of the source.
To constrain the output parameters of the ionized hydrogen column density $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ and ionization parameter $\xi$\footnote{$\xi=L/nr^{2}$, where $L$ is the ionizing luminosity of the source, $n$ is the number density of the absorber, and $r$ is the distance between the absorber and the ionizing source}, we varied the values of the parameter $\xi$ from 10 to 1000 erg cm s$^{-1}$ in steps of 50 erg cm s$^{-1}$\footnote{We choose this range of $\xi$ values in order to reproduce possible ionization states of the material, i.e., from almost neutral ($\xi<$ 50 erg cm s$^{-1}$) to highly ionized ($\xi\sim$ 1000 erg cm s$^{-1}$) absorption} to find best-fit values of $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$, and then we used these values of $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ to constrain $\xi$. Each of these steps was checked against the `goodness of fit' by the simulation of 100 model spectra. Using this approach, we found border values of two parameters for each of our sources. Almost as expected, this model produces higher values of absorption for all of our sources (only 3 sources out of 39 still have $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}<5\times 10^{21}\:$cm$^{-2}$). This is consistent with a scenario un which there is a significant amount of gas along our line of sight to the nuclei of BALQSOs, but this gas is likely to be ionized in most cases. The estimated parameters for the \texttt{absori} model are listed in Table~\ref{table:3}.
We performed a hardness ratio (HR) spectral analysis of our lower spectral quality sources (49 out of 88). The hardness ratio was calculated using the standard formula ${\rm HR} =(H - S)/(H + S)$, where $H$ and $S$ correspond to counts in the hard ($2.0-10.0$~keV) and soft ($0.5-2.0$~keV) energy bands, respectively. Using XSPEC, we calculated the HRs for a grid of power-law models with the canonical value of $\Gamma=1.8$ and neutral absorption in the range of 10$^{21}$ -- 10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ at the source redshift. Both the Galactic and intrinsic absorption were included in the model, details of the calculation being present in \citet{2009}. We then compared the observed hardness ratio of each source with the modelled ones, and derived the amount of the intrinsic absorption. The absorbing column densities and their 1$\sigma$ errors (propagated from count-rate errors) are reported in Table~\ref{table:4}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:nh-numbers}, we show the absorption distributions for our HiBAL (top panel) and LoBAL (bottom panel) subsamples. For each subsample, we plot the absorption values obtained from the HR analysis of our lower spectral quality sources and the fitted results for the 39 spectrally analysed sources.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{13754fg2.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{13754fg3.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:nh-numbers} Top panel: Distribution of neutral absorbing column densities for 70 HiBALs (top panel) and 18 LoBALs (bottom panel) in our sample. In both graphics, the red solid lines refer to values obtained from the full spectral analysis of our high quality spectra (30 HiBALs and 9 LoBALs, respectively), while black dashed lines refer to values obtained from the HR spectral analysis of the remaining sources. The insert in the top panel shows the observed distribution of absorption for the total sample of 70 HiBALs divided by values of the BALnicity Index. The thin black line refers to the 49 sources with BI$>$0 and thick blue line refers to the 21 sources with BI$=$0. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optical data analysis}\label{sec:optic}
Following the definition given by \citet{1991ApJ...373...23W}, we calculated the BALnicity index of C IV to be:
\begin{equation}
BI=\int^{25000}_{3000}\left [1-\frac{f(v)}{0.9} \right] C dv ,
\end{equation}
where $f(v)$ is the normalized flux (calculated from observed and fitted fluxes) as a function of velocity in km s$^{-1}$, and $C = 1$ at trough velocities greater than 2000 \kms\ from the start of a contiguous trough, and $C = 0$ elsewhere. In the case of the calculation of BI from Mg II, which is generally narrower than the high-ionization lines, the integral in Eq. (1) starts from $v=0$ \kms\ and $C = 1$ at trough velocities more than 1000 \kms. The BALnicity index can take on any value in the range 0~\kms$\leqslant$~BI~$\leqslant$20,000~\kms.
Because of the redshift range of our LoBALs, only for 3 sources do we have BI measurements from C IV, and for the remaining objects (at z $<1.8$) the Mg II BI is presented (see Table~\ref{table:1}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{13754fg4.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{13754fg5.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:nh} Top panel: The ionization level of absorbing material $\xi$ versus ionized column densities. Solid black squares and red circles refer to LoBALs and HiBALs, respectively. Open red circles indicate HiBALs with BI$=$0. Bottom panel: BALnicity index versus $\xi$. Solid black squares and red circles refer to LoBALs and HiBALs, respectively. The black stars refer to LoBALs with BI calculated from Mg II. }
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
To investigate the general X-ray properties of our sample of 39 BALQSOs (9 LoBALs and 30 HiBALs) using the highest quality statistics and compare the results with previous findings, we first measure $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}$ and $\Gamma$ by adopting an absorbed power-law model with neutral absorption. For the remaining 49 sources, upper and lower limits to $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}$ values can be placed using the hardness ratio spectral analysis.
We do not find any correlation between the photon index and intrinsic absorption (Fig.~\ref{fig:gam-nh}). The mean photon index is $\langle \Gamma\rangle=1.87$, typical of values found in X-ray analyses of radio-quiet type-1 AGN. We detect absorption $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}>5\times$10$^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ in 25 objects ($\sim$64\%). If we consider the whole sample of 88 BALQSOs, the fraction of absorbed sources increases to 67\%, still meaning that about one third of the sample is X-ray unabsorbed. We do not find any strong difference between the neutral absorption properties of the ``classical'' (BI$>$0) and those of ``new'' (BI$=$0) BALQSOs (Fig.~\ref{fig:nh-numbers}). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K--S) test infers the maximum value of the absolute difference between the two cumulative distribution functions, $D=0.25$ with a probability, $p$, that these objects are drawn from the same population of 0.88.
Taking into account the difference in spectral and HR analysis strategies (e.g., use of $\chi^2$ instead of \texttt{C-stat}, assuming different energy ranges for the calculation of HR), our results are in very good agreement with \citet{2008A&A...491..425G} for our overlapping 54 BALQSOs.
It is known that the complex structure of a spectrum (presence of ionized/partially covering absorption or additional features in the underlying continuum, such as the soft-excess or scattered component) can conspire to produce apparently lower values of the intrinsic absorption. Taking into account that BALQSOs $are$ sources with complex ionized structures by definition, we fit our 39 objects with the \texttt{absori} model.
This fit of a power law absorbed by ionized material leads to a slight improvement in the `goodness' with respect to the neutral absorbed power-law model, which is however not statistically significant in many cases, mainly because of the poor quality of the data) and provides an acceptable parameterization of the spectra. It should be emphasized that the need for an ionized absorber (instead of a neutral one) is certainly not required by the X-ray data, but by the likely physical condition of the absorbing gas. forthermore, our purpose is to study and constrain the possible ionized properties of BALQSOs, rather than compare the goodness of fit for different possible models.
In general, the \texttt{absori} model provides higher values of $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ for almost all our sources. We detected absorption $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}>5\times$10$^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$ in 36 sources ($\sim$92\%) and 7 of them showed an absorption $\sim$10$^{23}$~cm$^{-2}$. A plot of ionized column density versus ionization parameter $\xi$ is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:nh} (top panel). There is a clear correlation between $\xi$ and $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ for our HiBALs confirmed by both the Kendall's tau ($\tau=0.55$ with a probability of $p=1.99\times$10$^{-5}$) and Spearman's rho ($\rho=0.69$ with $p=2.41\times$10$^{-5}$) tests.
Some of the LoBALs appear as clear outliers in this graphic and, in general, these sources have lower values of $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ than HiBALs. The LoBALs also do not exhibit the stronger $neutral$ absorption that HiBALs do: only in 2 LoBALs (out of 18) do we detect $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}\sim$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, while most of the objects have lower values ($<$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$). The K--S test confirms that the LoBALs have a different absorption distribution than HiBALs ($p=0.067$ and $p=5.89\times$10$^{-3}$ for the ionized and neutral absorptions, respectively). The LoBALs-outliers show the highest ionization level of absorbing material (although it is poorly constrained) and the lowest values of absorption among the analysed sources, suggesting that the intrinsic nature of these objects must differ from the remaining BALQSOs. This result agrees with the idea that LoBALs (or at least some of them) may physically differ from HiBALs, and hence require the application of different models for describing their intrinsic properties (e.g., partial covering intrinsic absorption).
While we do not find any strong difference in the neutral absorption properties for our sample of HiBALs as a function of the BALnicity index, we $do$ observe a separation in the case of ionized absorption. For our 6 HiBALs with BI$=$0, we observe mean values of $\langle\xi\rangle=110$ erg cm s$^{-1}$ and $\langle N_{\rm{H}}^{i}\rangle=2.9\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, while the 24 ``classical'' BALQSOs show $\langle\xi\rangle=250$ erg cm s$^{-1}$ and $\langle N_{\rm{H}}^{i}\rangle=8.4\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. The K--S test indicates only a 10\% chance that these two samples of sources are drawn from the same population.
There is a marginal tendency to measure higher $\xi$ values with increasing BI (Fig.~\ref{fig:nh}, bottom panel). However, both Kendall's tau and Spearman's rho tests give weak support for a correlation. The Kendall's tau method gives $\tau=0.14$ with an associated probability of $p=0.41$, while the Spearman's rank correlation test gives $\rho=0.31$ with $p=0.17$. We also checked the correlations between BAL properties and the neutral/ionized X-ray absorption column density (measured through the X-ray spectral fit or HR analysis). While we do not see any strong dependence between these parameters in the case of neutral absorption (Fig.~\ref{fig:nh-bi}, top panel), there is an apparent trend of increasing ionized $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ with BI for HiBALs (Fig.~\ref{fig:nh-bi}, bottom panel). Applying the Kendall's tau and Spearman's rho tests, we obtain $\tau=0.32$ and $\rho=0.43$, corresponding to a probability that the ionized $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ and BI are uncorrelated of $p_{\tau}=0.02$ and $p_{\rho}=0.018$, respectively. Although the significance of the trend is only $\sim$98\%, it might have a very simple physical origin, for which the total amount of outflowing gas largely dictates the BI and the ionized absorption column density.
\section{Discussion}
As mentioned in the Introduction, an outstanding question about BALQSOs is whether they are all heavily absorbed or only a fraction of them are. Quite controversial results were presented by \citet{2006ApJ...644..709G} in their Chandra analysis of 35 Large Bright Quasar Survey BALQSOs (all sources have $N_{\rm{H}}^{n} > 10^{22}\:$cm$^{-2}$) and \citet{2008A&A...491..425G} in their XMM-Newton analysis of 54 SDSS BALQSOs, nearly half of the sources having N$_{\rm{H}}^{n} < 10^{22}\:$cm$^{-2}$.
Our final sample spans a wide range of intrinsic absorption column densities (derived from the neutral absorption model), although the main result, that $\sim$68\% of 88 BALQSOs have $N_{\rm{H}}^{n}~>~5~\times~10^{21}~\:$cm$^{-2}$, is in agreement with \citet{2008A&A...491..425G}. Thus, the BALQSOs class remains a class of, in general, absorbed sources. For comparison, a typical fraction of broad line AGN with neutral absorption is $\sim$3\% \citep[][]{2009arXiv}, although BALQSOs seem to be less absorbed than previously assumed.
As mentioned by \citet{2008A&A...491..425G}, some factors can influence this result. One possible explanations may be the different energy range used for the spectral analysis in Chandra and XMM-Newton data (0.5--8 keV and 0.2--10 keV, respectively). In addition, our work is biased toward the X-ray brightest sources, because we searched for all known BALQSOs with an X-ray detection, while previous works were mainly based on purely optically selected BALQSOs.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{13754fg6.ps}}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{13754fg7.ps}}
\caption{\label{fig:nh-bi} Dependences of BALnicity index on neutral (top panel) and ionized (bottom panel) absorptions. In both panels, the solid black squares and red circles refer to LoBALs and HiBALs, respectively. The black stars refer to LoBALs with BI calculated from Mg II. Open red pentagons and black triangles refer to HiBALs and LoBALs, whose values of $N_{\rm{H}}$ were obtained from HR analysis.}
\end{figure}
Does this result mean that we need to revise our ideas about the nature of BALQSO? The answer is not as obvious as it seems when we use physically more motivated approaches for the modelling of the inner absorption in these objects. Knowing the complicated nature of these sources, we used the \texttt{absori} model to constrain the ionized properties of BALQSOs. Using this model, we detected absorption $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}>5\times$10$^{21}\:$cm$^{-2}$ in $>$90\% of them. The average value of the absorption is in good agreement with the predictions of a radiatively driven accretion disk wind model by \citet{1995ApJ...451..498M}. The observed properties of LoBALs confirm the idea that these objects may physically differ from HiBALs.
Using our sample we also have the possibility of comparing properties of ``classical'' (BI$>$0) and ``new'' (BI=0) BALQSOs. We found that the sources with BI=0 lack significant X-ray absorption, and, in general, this subsample hosts the lowest $N_{\rm{H}}^{i}$ of the entire sample. In our study, the BI$>$0 subsample appears to be more X-ray absorbed and ionized than the BI=0 one, which is clearly consistent with any picture where the mass of outflowing gas largely determines both the optical/UV absorption troughs and the X-ray absorption. In other words, even if we cannot reject the possibility that there are unabsorbed, X-ray bright BALQSOs, it seems that the ``classical'' BALQSOs (i.e., with BI$>$0) are always X-ray absorbed.
Our results suggest that ``new'' BALQSOs are, likely, a different class of absorbed quasars from the ``classical'' BALQSOs. A similar conclusion is reached by \citet[][]{2008MNRAS.386.1426K}, who studied the QSO optical spectra in the SDSS DR3 catalogue. The differences in the observational properties of these two classes of objects may be related to the large angle between the line of sight and the axis of the accretion disk plane. In the QSO unification scheme of \citet[][]{2000ApJ...545...63E}, intrinsic absorption lines of different widths form in the same disc wind and are just representations of different lines of sight through the outflowing wind to the quasar continuum source. The different properties of quasars may also be due to real physical differences between the ``new'' and ``classical'' BALQSOs. In particular, the less ionized and weaker outflows of ``new'' BALQSOs may represent the late evolutionary stages (i.e., dissipation over time) of ``classical'' massive BAL winds \citep[see review by][]{2004ASPC..311..203H}. In our opinion, both factors (orientation and evolution of the flow) are likely to contribute to the observed differences between these two classes.
A purpose of this paper was also to study the relationship between the BAL properties and X-ray absorption. For the first time, we find a correlation between the ionized absorption and the BALnicity index (i.e., the UV absorption line properties). Although the correlation is significant at the 98\% level, our results demonstrate that the amount of X-ray absorption and the strength of UV absorption $are$ related when an ionized absorption model is used to model the X-ray data. The physics of this could be as simple as the mass of outflowing gas.
This result may help us to understand the difference between our $neutral$ absorbing column density values and those of the \citet{2006ApJ...644..709G} sample. If we assume a direct dependence between the BALnicity index and absorption, then in the samples with higher BI we must, in general, observe higher X-ray column densities. Although the mean value of the BI in the LBQS BALQSOs sample is $\langle$BI$\rangle=$3437 \kms, in our sample we have just a few objects with BI$>$ 3500 \kms ($\langle$BI$\rangle=$1077 \kms). The neutral column densities of almost all our high BI objects are $\gtrsim$10$^{22}\:$cm$^{-2}$ and, thus, compatible with the values from \citet{2006ApJ...644..709G}.
Summarizing our results, we can confirm the idea that the presence of the X-ray ionized absorption is important for launching BAL winds. While the influence of other factors on the properties of the wind cannot be rejected, it seems that this dependence is clear: the higher the X-ray absorption, the higher the UV absorption and, hence, the more powerful the outflow. However, the required absorption values for outflow launching mechanisms are not as high as has been previously supposed, which might actually be a selection effect of our X-ray selection bias.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. The first author would like to thank the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\'{o}n for a Juan de la Cierva contract. XB, FJC and RGM acknowledge financial support by the Spanish MICINN under project ESP2006-13608-C02-01. We also acknowledge the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (\url{http://www.sdss.org/}). Funding for the SDSS has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
Weak gravitational lensing has proven to be a versatile method for measuring the mass distribution of galaxy clusters. With the detection of cosmic shear it has turned into an important tool for providing constraints on cosmological parameters such as $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega$ (see \citet{fu}).
Common to all applications of weak lensing studies is the requirement for statistical analysis of a great number of objects. Single sheared galaxies, due to their unknown intrinsic ellipticity and further observational uncertainties, can only give a reasonable shear estimate as part of a large sample. The accuracy of shear estimation methods poses a bottleneck to observational cosmology. Especially as surveys are getting larger (Pan-STARRS-3$\pi$, DES, Euclid), shear calibration bias could annihilate the gain from improved statistics for larger galaxy samples.
For this reason several competitions for the calibration of shear measurement pipelines and the development of improved methods using simulated data have been hosted.\footnote{cf. STEP1 \citep{step1}, STEP2 \citep{step2}, GREAT08 \citep{great08results}} The elimination of biases among the many methods presented there has, however, only been partially successful.
In this paper we make use of artificial neural networks in order to improve the existing shear measurement pipeline introduced by \citet{ksb} (KSB) and further developed by \citet{luppino} and \citet{hoekstra}. We apply these to the data simulated by GREAT08 \citep{great08results} and show that existing biases can be almost entirely removed.
\section{Motivation}
The fundamentals of the KSB method are to measure galaxy shapes derived from second moments $Q_{ij}$ integrated within a circular Gaussian weight function. From these, \emph{polarizations} can be defined as
\begin{equation}
\bm{e}:=\frac{1}{Q_{xx}+Q_{yy}} \left(\begin{array}{c} Q_{xx}-Q_{yy} \\ 2Q_{xy} \end{array}\right) \; .
\end{equation}
Observed polarizations $\bm{e}^{\mathrm{obs}}$ must be corrected for PSF anisotropy $\bm{p}$ and their responsitivity to shear $\bm{g}$ as based on PSF size and the galaxy's shape. KSB achieves this by linear corrections, such that
\begin{equation}
\bm{e}^{\mathrm{obs}}=\bm{e}^{\mathrm{true}}+P^{\mathrm{sm}} \bm{p} + P^{\gamma}\bm{g} \; ,
\label{eqn:ksb1}
\end{equation}
where $P^{\mathrm{sm}}$ is the galaxy's smear polarizability tensor and $P^{\gamma}$ is calculated as
\begin{equation}
P^{\gamma}=P^{\mathrm{sh}} - P^{\mathrm{sm}} \frac{P^{\mathrm{sh},\star}}{P^{\mathrm{sm},\star}} \;
\label{eqn:ksb2}
\end{equation}
from smear polarizability tensors and shear polarizability tensors $P^{\mathrm{sh}}$ measured on the galaxy and the PSF (denoted with a star). These tensors are weighted fourth order moments of the respective light distributions.
Assuming that galaxies show no intrinsic alignment on the sky, one can thus obtain a shear estimate as
\begin{equation}
\langle \bm{g} \rangle = \langle P^{\gamma^{-1}} (\bm{e}^{\mathrm{obs}} - P^{\mathrm{sm}} \bm{p}) \rangle \; .
\label{eqn:ksb3}
\end{equation}
There exist a large number of implementations of KSB, differing from each other in subtle choices of the method for source extraction, determination of the radius for the weight function $r_g$, $P^{\gamma}$ tensor inversion, weighting, cuts (e.g., eliminating objects with large ellipticities or small values of $P^{\gamma}$), correction factors and further details \citep{step1}. It is not clear a priori and will likely depend on the particular data set which is the right choice on each of these points. Different decisions imply different biases (see STEP2, \citet{step2}), which have to be taken into account.
The bias introduced by not having calibrated a method correctly can only be avoided by carefully simulating the process for the very data that is to be analyzed.
This means that data with known shear have to be simulated. It must be the aim of these simulations to reproduce the properties of the respective sample of galaxies as accurately as possible (e.g., in terms of intrinsic light distribution, PSF, errors introduced by the data reduction and noise properties) in order for the calibrations to be appropriate.
In some cases using simulations a shear calibration bias has been found and corrected manually. For instance, T. Schrabback and \citet{mcinnes} multiply their shear estimates by $1/0.91$ and $1/0.82$, respectively, with factors found by calibration for STEP1 and STEP2 data. After such manual corrections, however, it is very likely that there is a residual bias, not only because the corrections done are usually very simple but also because bias likely differs for different galaxy properties and data sets.
We propose to make best use of the anyhow required simulations by letting neural networks analyze the data and estimate shear after training them on simulated data with known shear. Using a pipeline's ellipticity estimates and further parameters that might be indicative for the bias present on the respective galaxy, we test how well neural networks are able to eliminate biases and improve the shear estimate. Provided that such a scheme is successful, correct simulations allow for optimal calibration of shear measurement pipelines.
We point out that it is not the subject of this work to use neural networks on the pixelated light distribution of the galaxies itself, but to start from data which are quite close to an exact shear measurement already. The advantage of this method is that the network is fed with the most relevant parameters for shape estimates on a catalog basis, keeping training and application comparatively computation inexpensive.
\section{Neural networks}
Neural networks are nowadays commonly used in astronomy, be it for the detection and classification of objects or for finding photometric redshift estimates \citep{annz}. The flavor of networks most frequently used and also to be employed in this paper is multi-layer Perceptrons. From inputs $a^{\mathrm{in}}_i$ fed to an input layer of neurons, parameters are transferred through a number of hidden layers to finally make for one or more network outputs $x^{\mathrm{out}}_i$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:perceptron}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{perceptron.eps}
\caption{sketch of a Perceptron with two hidden layers}
\label{fig:perceptron}
\end{figure}
A neuron $i$'s output $x_i$ depends on the incoming signal from connected nodes $j$ in the previous layer, weighted by connection weights $w_{ji}$ and transformed by the neuron's activation function $f_i$:
\begin{equation}
x_i = f_i \left( \sum_j w_{ji} x_j \right) \; .
\end{equation}
While in general $f_i$ could be chosen differently for each node, it is usually taken to be the same nonlinear function for all hidden nodes and the identity for the input and output layers' nodes. In our case we use a sigmoidal function $f_i(a)=f(a)=(e^{-a}+1)^{-1}$, where node $i$ is a hidden node. The weights $w_{ij}$ of the connections between two adjacent layers' nodes $i$ and $j$ and from an additional bias node which accounts for an individual node threshold are to be optimized such that a cost function $E$ of the network output becomes minimal. A typical choice for the cost function is the sum over squared errors of outputs $x^{\mathrm{out}}_{k}$ on training sets $k$, for which true answers $\hat{x}_{k}$ are known. An additional term quadratic in the weights is added for regularization, penalizing large weights which characterize overfitting to specific data. Thus $E$ becomes
\begin{equation}
E=\sum_{k} (x^{\mathrm{out}}_{k} - \hat{x}_{k})^2 + \alpha \sum_{i,j} w_{ij}^2 \; .
\end{equation}
For training such a network, true answers for each training set have to be known, such that error back-propagation \citep{rum} can be used for optimizing the weights.\footnote{see appendix for a description of the algorithm, section~\ref{sec:bp}}
However, for weak lensing measurements we can only expect the network to return a true shear component $g_l=:\hat{x}_l$ \emph{on average} for a large sample $l$ of galaxies. Training with true shear as the expected network output for all single galaxy data is counterproductive. We would rather like the networks to minimize the squared error between $g_l$ and $\langle e_{k}\rangle_k^l=:\langle x^{\mathrm{out}}_{k} \rangle_k^l$, i.e. the average output of galaxies $k$ on a sample of galaxies $l$, for each shear/ellipticity component. We can express this with a cost function of the form
\begin{equation}
E=\sum_{l} (\langle x^{\mathrm{out}}_{k} \rangle_k^l - \hat{x}_{l})^2 + \alpha \sum_{i,j} w_{ij}^2 \; .
\label{eqn:costfunction}
\end{equation}
The back-propagation algorithm must in this case be adapted accordingly. We start from code provided by \citet{annz} and implement the algorithm as described in the appendix (section~\ref{sec:bpap}).
\section{Application to GREAT08 data}
For training and testing our network with the scheme described in more detail in the appendix, we use simulated galaxy images with known shear from the "RealNoise Blind" data sets of GREAT08 \citep{great08}.
\subsection{Sample selection}
\label{sec:samples}
Table~\ref{tbl:samples} gives an overview of the six samples analyzed in our work. Each of the samples contains sets of six image files of 10,000 simulated galaxies, each set being sheared with a true shear $(g_1,g_2)\in[-0.05,0.05]^2$ as plotted in Figure~A1 of \citet{great08results}.
From the 2700 sets of galaxies in the "RealNoise Blind" sample of GREAT08, we pick those 1500 sets from the fiducial (medium) signal to noise group which share the same PSF (the fiducial PSF also labeled PSF 1 by GREAT08) but differ in terms of galaxy size and type. In the following analysis we denote these as sample 1.
In order to find how well such corrections can work on galaxies with different signal-to-noise levels, we pick two more samples. As these are homogeneous in all galaxy property distributions, they are not as realistic as sample 1 but still can give an indication of the dependence of network performance on signal-to-noise ratio. Therefore, we perform a similar analysis with the 300 high signal to noise data sets (sample 2) and the 300 low signal to noise sets (sample 3), which all share the same galaxy properties and PSF. It should be noted, though, that in the latter case signal is so low that without an input catalog source extraction suffers a significant rate of false detections. On real single frame data with similar signal to noise ratio, the centroid position on stacked frames could be used to eliminate false detections and have well-defined centroid positions, improving the accuracy of the measurement. In our case we cross-correlate catalogs against the GREAT08 grid positions to achieve complete and clean detections.
\subsubsection{Circularized samples}
In order to study the influence of PSF circularization as an alternative method of PSF anisotropy correction, we repeat the analysis with three more samples.
A sample of all galaxies with medium signal-to-noise level is denoted as sample 1c. Unlike sample 1, it contains data with all three PSFs used in the GREAT08 challenge. For this sample we circularize all three PSFs to the same circular target PSF before running KSB. We are using the method described by \citet{al} in its implementation by \citet{arno}. The target PSF is similar to the initial ones but slightly larger and circular, with a Moffat profile of 3 pixels FWHM and $\beta=3.2$. After having built a model of the initial PSF using 100 stars each, we convolve the data with a kernel model consisting of a superposition of four Gaussians with $\sigma=1,3,9,0.1$ multiplied with polynomials in $x$ and $y$ of order $n=6,4,2,0$, respectively. We do a $\chi^2$ fit of the 50 model parameters to reach our target PSF by convolution with this kernel.
Due to the larger size of sample 1c, we reserve a larger number of galaxies for blind testing the networks later on. We prepare two more similarly circularized samples 2c and 3c using the data from samples 2 and 3. These data sets are homogeneous in all galaxy properties and therefore not as realistic as sample 1c.
\begin{deluxetable}{llllllll}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Properties of the six samples used for neural network analysis, see section~\ref{sec:samples}\label{tbl:samples}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{sample} & \colhead{galaxy sets\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{s/n\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{PSF\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{galaxy properties\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{gradient sets\tablenotemark{e}} & \colhead{validation sets\tablenotemark{e}} & \colhead{blind sets\tablenotemark{f}}
}
\startdata
\tableline
1 & 1500 & 20 & 1 & mixed & 1394 & 53 & 53\\
1c\tablenotemark{g}& 2100 & 20 & 1/2/3 & mixed& 867 & 33 & 1200\tablenotemark{h}\\
2 & 300 & 40 & 1 & fiducial & 260 & 10 & 30\\
2c\tablenotemark{g} & 300 & 40 & 1 & fiducial & 260 & 10 & 30\\
3 & 300 & 10 & 1 & fiducial & 260 & 10 & 30\\
3c\tablenotemark{g} & 300 & 10 & 1 & fiducial & 260 & 10 & 30\\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{each galaxy set contains 10000 galaxies}
\tablenotetext{b}{as defined by \citet{great08results}, the s/n estimate from the KSB$_S$ pipeline is considerably lower}
\tablenotetext{c}{using the PSF name convention as in \citet{great08}}
\tablenotetext{d}{GREAT08 simulate galaxy sets with different galaxy sizes and galaxy sets featuring either concentric bulge and disc, off-center bulge and disc or only one of either bulge or disc models; the fiducial group corresponds to medium size and concentric bulge and disc; as real data will typically contain a diversity of galaxy properties, samples 1 and 1c come closer to realistic samples}
\tablenotetext{e}{the sets used for training are split up randomly for each of the 500 differently initialized and trained networks into sets used for finding the gradient and sets used for validating the solution during the training process}
\tablenotetext{f}{these are galaxy sets put aside and not used for training, validating or selecting the networks}
\tablenotetext{g}{c stands for circularization; we have circularized all three anisotropic PSFs to the same circular PSF in this sample}
\tablenotetext{h}{a large number of blind sets have been reserved for extensive blind testing on this sample}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsection{Running KSB}
On the 2700 sets of 10000 galaxies each from the GREAT08 "RealNoise Blind" challenge we run a KSB implementation KSB$_S$, based on the version assembled by T. Schrabback and denoted as TS in \citet{step2}. (See also \citet{erben}).
After source extraction with SExtractor the pipeline uses \texttt{analyse} to calculate for each galaxy the tensors $P^{\mathrm{sm}}$ and $P^{\mathrm{sh}}$.\footnote{cf. eqn.~\ref{eqn:ksb1} to \ref{eqn:ksb3}} PSF anisotropy correction is done with this and $P^{\gamma}$ is computed as
\begin{equation}
P^{\gamma}_{ij} = P^{\mathrm{sh}}_{ij}-\frac{\mathrm{tr}(P^{\mathrm{sh,\star}})}{\mathrm{tr}(P^{\mathrm{sm,\star}})}P^{\mathrm{sm}}_{ij} \; ,
\end{equation}
stars denoting quantities measured on the PSF.
This tensor is applied to the measured polarizations using trace inversion to find individual galaxy shear estimates
\begin{equation}
\bm{e}^{\mathrm{iso}}=\frac{2(\bm{e}^{\mathrm{obs}} - P^{\mathrm{sm}} \bm{p})}{\mathrm{tr}(P^{\gamma})}
\end{equation}
Objects with $\mathrm{tr}(P^{\gamma})<0.1$ are discarded. The estimate labeled as KSB$_S$ in the following analysis is always $\bm{e}^{\mathrm{iso}}/0.91$, scaled with a calibration factor as optimized for this implementation of KSB using STEP1 data.
\subsection{Neural network training}
From the output of the KSB$_S$ pipeline we take $\bm{e}^{\mathrm{iso}}$ as the starting point for neural network analysis. As potential predictors for bias we add the weight function radius $r_g$ which in our pipeline is equal to SExtractor's \texttt{FLUX\_RADIUS}, the flux as measured by \texttt{analyse}, all four components of $P^{\gamma}$ and the pipeline's error estimates for the initial shape measurements $\Delta\bm{e}$.
The networks used feature three hidden layers of ten nodes each for both components and are trained using the algorithm described\footnote{see appendix, section~\ref{sec:bpap}} and the true shears published by GREAT08 after the end of the challenge. We split each sample into a subset used for training and a subset for later blind testing of network performance. Following the optimized ratio of gradient to validation sets derived by \citet{amari} for the asymptotic case of many available sets, we split the training sets again into subsets used for determining the gradient and others required for validation during training. The respective sizes of subsets are given in Table~\ref{tbl:samples}. For each sample the training process is iterated 500 times with different random initial weight configurations and a random allocation of training sets into gradient and validation sets.
\subsection{Selecting and blind testing networks}
It is necessary to ensure for evaluating the networks or any real-world application that the networks trained really perform consistently well on the data used for training and similar data not used for training or selecting the networks, in our case the blind sets (cf. Table~\ref{tbl:samples}).
Overtrained networks are generally characterized by some weights becoming comparatively large. While a penalization of large weights by the second term in eqn.~\ref{eqn:costfunction} already reduces overfitting to the training sample, where the number of training sets is sufficiently small overtraining may still occur because the reduction in errors from overfitting outweights the penalization due to large weights. For all following analyses, we therefore use the sum of squared weights,
\begin{equation}
S = \sum_{i,j} w_{ij}^2 \; ,
\end{equation}
to discard networks which are more than $1\sigma$ above the average in $S$ for the sample of networks cropped at 1.2 times the median $S$. This deselects about half of the networks on each of the samples, some of which might in fact not be overtrained. In the presence of larger samples, therefore, when more careful selection of networks is possible, performance might still increase. For all following analyses, we only use the weight-selected networks not discarded by these criteria.
To compare the performance of the networks left on training and blind data, we plot the root mean square error of the shear $g_i^o$ measured against the true shear $g_i^t$,
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{rms}=\sqrt{\langle (g_i^o - g_i^t)^2 \rangle} \; ,
\label{eqn:rms}
\end{equation}
which the weight-selected networks achieve on the data used for training and the blind sets. The plot shown in Figure~\ref{fig:blindr1} shows the result for sample 1c, component 1, for which the blind rms and training rms are equal within statistical uncertainty. For the other samples and components, due to the smaller number of blind sets, scatter is significantly larger and small constant offsets from the identity in both directions occur, likely due to the particular properties of the blind sets. In all cases, the networks performing best on the training data perform consistently well on blind data.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\plotone{cblindr1.a-b.ps}
\caption{Comparison of the performance (in terms of rms) on training data and blind data of the weight-selected networks trained on sample 1c, component 1. The dashed line is the identity.}
\label{fig:blindr1}
\end{figure}
We select the best networks on each sample and component simply by taking the network with the smallest squared errors on the training data, not taking into account their performance on the blind data. After having discarded overfitted networks according to their weights as described above, this results in networks performing consistently well on training data and blind data. We perform the following analyses on the blind data sets only. As the results found on training and blind data agree within the statistical uncertainty, we use the complete sample of data sets for the analysis done in Section~\ref{sec:sixpack}, as this is necessary here. For sample 1c, also the analysis in Section~\ref{sec:sixpack} is done exclusively on the blind sample.
\subsection{Shear measurement performance}
We analyze the performance of plain KSB$_S$ and the neural networks selected in the previous section. For each sample and component, we calculate both for the blind and the training sets a quality parameter
\begin{equation}
Q_{1}=\frac{10^{-4}}{\mathrm{rms}^2}\;,
\label{eqn:q}
\end{equation}
averaging the rms (cf. eqn. \ref{eqn:rms}) over all galaxy sets within each sample. Resulting values of $Q_1$ are shown in Tables~\ref{tbl:bias} and \ref{tbl:biasc}. Note that $Q_1$ is smaller than the GREAT08 quality parameter $Q=:Q_6$ because we do not average the residuals over similar sets\footnote{That is, sets that have the same true shear, PSF, signal-to-noise and galaxy properties.} until section~\ref{sec:sixpack}.
Results of the circularized samples 1c to 3c are generally better in comparison to similar sets with anisotropic PSFs which have to be corrected for by a $P^{\mathrm{sm}} \bm{p}$ term.\footnote{cf. eqn.~\ref{eqn:ksb3}} A more detailed discussion of the advantages of circularization combined with bias correction is given in section~\ref{sec:circ}.
\subsection{Bias analysis I: linear bias}
\label{sec:linbias}
We calculate additive and multiplicative biases, following \citet{step1} and \citet{step2}. We apply a linear fit of residual shears $g_i^o-g_i^t$ against true shears $g_i^t$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
g_i^o-g_i^t=m_i\cdot g_i^t + c_i \; .
\end{equation}
Results for the six samples are shown in Tables~\ref{tbl:bias} and \ref{tbl:biasc} and Figure~\ref{fig:linbias}. For neural network analysis, both multiplicative and additive bias are well within the range of most successful methods in the GREAT08 competition \citep{great08results}. The requirements for future surveys as computed by \citet{amara} are always fulfilled for medium and high signal to noise in terms of $c_i^2<10^{-7}$. For the multiplicative bias criterion, $m_i<10^{-3}$, the network estimate is successful at least within an order of magnitude. The higher the signal-to-noise ratio, the better multiplicative bias can also be corrected, while especially for smaller signal there seems to be a tendency of $m<0$ for the neural network estimate, potentially due to the weaker shear signal.
A modified plot of $c_i$ and $m$ at the three different signal-to-noise levels with all methods participating in GREAT08\footnote{cf. \citet{great08results} for explanations of the methods' acronyms} and including neural network blind estimates both with and without circularization is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cm}.
The fact that the $m$ and $c$ found for blind data are consistent with the $m$ and $c$ found on training data is additional evidence that the networks we use are not overfitted to the training data. In 22 out of the 24 sets, components and bias parameters, linear bias corresponds within 1$\sigma$, in the other two cases within 2$\sigma$ of the bias measurement uncertainty.
\begin{deluxetable}{lll|rr|rr|rr|rrrr}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\rotate
\tablecaption{Performance and bias of different shear estimation methods on non-circularized samples\label{tbl:bias}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{method} & \colhead{sample\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{comp.} & & \colhead{$c$\tablenotemark{b}} & & \colhead{$m$\tablenotemark{b}} & & \colhead{$Q_1$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$Q_6$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$\sigma$\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$b\times10^3$\tablenotemark{d}} \\
& & & blind\tablenotemark{e} & all\tablenotemark{f} & blind\tablenotemark{e} & all\tablenotemark{f} & blind\tablenotemark{e} & all/train\tablenotemark{g} & & & &
}
\startdata
KSB$_S$ & 1 & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$2.95\pm0.06\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-3.3\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$} &\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$7.4\pm0.3$} & $10.0\pm0.9$ & 0.20 & 3.06 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$5\pm6\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.4\pm0.3\times10^{-2}$} &\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$21.5\pm0.8$} & $81\pm7$ & 0.20 & 0.74 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$ aff\tablenotemark{h}& 1 & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm6\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$18.0\pm0.7$} & $47\pm4$ & 0.20 & 1.20 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm6\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm3\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$21.5\pm0.8$}& $82\pm7$ & 0.20 & 0.73 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$+NN\tablenotemark{i}& 1 & 1 & $0\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $5\pm5\times10^{-5}$ & $-2\pm1\times10^{-2}$ & $-7\pm2\times10^{-3}$ & $30\pm6$ & $26.2\pm1.0$ & $133\pm12$ & 0.19 & 0.37 \\
& & 2 & $0\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $-1\pm5\times10^{-5}$ & $-2\pm2\times10^{-2}$ & $-1.2\pm0.3\times10^{-2}$ & $31\pm6$ & $27.1\pm1.0$ & $141\pm13$ & 0.19 & 0.35 \\
\tableline
\tableline
KSB$_S$ & 2 & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$3.46\pm0.04\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$2.6\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$7.3\pm0.6$} & $8\pm2$ & 0.07 & 3.64 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-3.0\pm0.4\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$3.8\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$95\pm8$} & $160\pm30$ & 0.07 & 0.74 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$ aff\tablenotemark{h}& 2 & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm4\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$187\pm15$} & $1000\pm200$ & 0.07 & 0.13 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm4\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$210\pm20$} & $1300\pm300$ & 0.07 & 0.00 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$+NN\tablenotemark{i}& 2 & 1 & $0\pm1.5\times10^{-4}$ & $2\pm4\times10^{-5}$ & $2\pm5\times10^{-3}$ & $-1\pm2\times10^{-3}$ & $200\pm60$ & $220\pm20$ & $1000\pm200$ & 0.07 & 0.16 \\
& & 2 & $0\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $0\pm4\times10^{-5}$ & $-3\pm9\times10^{-3}$ & $-2\pm2\times10^{-3}$ & $160\pm50$ & $260\pm20$ & $1900\pm400$ & 0.06 & 0.00 \\
\tableline
\tableline
KSB$_S$ & 3 & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$8\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.83\pm0.07\times10^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$3.6\pm0.3$} & $5.0\pm1.0$ & 0.30 & 4.32 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$5\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.49\pm0.10\times10^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$5.4\pm0.4$} & $10\pm2$ & 0.32 & 2.87 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$ aff\tablenotemark{h}& 3 & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm7\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$7.2\pm0.6$} & $45\pm9$ & 0.37 & 0.00 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm1\times10^{-2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$6.9\pm0.6$} & $36\pm7$ & 0.38 & 0.63 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$+NN\tablenotemark{i}& 3 & 1 & $6\pm7\times10^{-4}$ & $3\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $-4\pm3\times10^{-2}$ & $-2.4\pm0.8\times10^{-2}$ & $7\pm2$ & $9.7\pm0.9$ & $45\pm9$ & 0.31 & 0.79 \\
& & 2 & $-4\pm5\times10^{-4}$ & $-2\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $-4\pm3\times10^{-2}$ & $-4\pm1\times10^{-2}$ & $12\pm3$ & $9.3\pm0.8$ & $41\pm8$ & 0.32 & 0.88 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{cf. Table~\ref{tbl:samples} for a description of the individual samples; sample 1 is the largest one with medium signal-to-noise and inhomogeneous galaxy properties and thus the most realistic one}
\tablenotetext{b}{additive and multiplicative bias for the individual component, as fitted in section~\ref{sec:linbias}}
\tablenotetext{c}{$Q_6$ is the quality parameter as used by GREAT08, averaging residuals over 'six-packs' of 60000 galaxies from the complete sample, $Q_1$ averages residuals over single sets of 10000 galaxies only; cf. eqn.~\ref{eqn:q}. $Q_6/Q_1\approx 6$ for unbiased methods, $Q_6/Q_1\approx 1$ where bias strongly dominates the noise at this sample size; cf. section~\ref{sec:sixpack}}
\tablenotetext{d}{estimates of the rms of individual galaxy scatter $\sigma$ and bias $b$, averaging over the whole sample}
\tablenotetext{e}{quantity measured for KSB$_S$+NN on the blind data only}
\tablenotetext{f}{quantity measured on the complete sample, using training and blind data for KSB$_S$+NN}
\tablenotetext{g}{quantity measured on the complete sample for KSB$_S$ and KSB$_S$ aff, on training data only for KSB$_S$+NN}
\tablenotetext{h}{these are KSB$_S$ outputs after an affine transformation with the $m_i$ and $c_i$ for the respective sample, such that the multiplicative and additive bias as fitted in section~\ref{sec:linbias} disappear; cf. eqn.~\ref{eqn:aff} and section~\ref{sec:sixpack}}
\tablenotetext{i}{these are the neural network corrected KSB$_S$ results}
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{deluxetable}{lll|rr|rr|rr|rrrr}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\rotate
\tablecaption{Performance and bias of different shear estimation methods on circularized samples\label{tbl:biasc}}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
\colhead{method} & \colhead{sample\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{comp.} & & \colhead{$c$\tablenotemark{b}} & & \colhead{$m$\tablenotemark{b}} & & \colhead{$Q_1$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$Q_6$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$\sigma$\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$b\times10^3$\tablenotemark{d}} \\
& & & blind\tablenotemark{e} & all\tablenotemark{f} & blind\tablenotemark{e} & all\tablenotemark{f} & blind\tablenotemark{e} & all/train\tablenotemark{g} & & & &
}
\startdata
KSB$_S$ & 1c & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-2.8\pm0.4\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$29.3\pm0.9$} & $84\pm4$ & 0.16 & 0.87 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.68\pm0.04\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$1.0\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$15.9\pm0.5$} & $24.0\pm1.3$ & 0.16 & 1.93 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$ aff\tablenotemark{h}& 1c & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm4\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$30.0\pm0.9$} & $89\pm5$ & 0.16 & 0.82 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm4\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$29.5\pm0.9$} & $77\pm5$ & 0.16 & 0.95 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$+NN\tablenotemark{i}& 1c & 1 & $-8\pm5\times10^{-5}$ & $-3\pm4\times10^{-5}$ & $-5\pm2\times10^{-3}$ & $-5.2\pm1.5\times10^{-3}$ & $37.4\pm1.5$ & $40\pm2$ & $200\pm20$\tablenotemark{j} & 0.16 & 0.22 \\
& & 2 & $-1.4\pm0.4\times10^{-4}$ & $-7\pm3\times10^{-5}$ & $-1.6\pm0.3\times10^{-2}$ & $-1.3\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$ & $41\pm2$ & $46\pm2$ & $180\pm20$\tablenotemark{j} & 0.15 & 0.44 \\
\tableline
\tableline
KSB$_S$ & 2c & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$9\pm5\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$2.5\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$100\pm8$} & $180\pm40$ & 0.07 & 0.67 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.94\pm0.04\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$3.6\pm0.2\times10^{-2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$21\pm2$} & $24\pm5$ & 0.07 & 2.03 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$ aff\tablenotemark{h}& 2c & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm5\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$172\pm14$} & $670\pm130$ & 0.07 & 0.25 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm4\times10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$210\pm20$} & $1300\pm300$ & 0.07 & 0.00 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$+NN\tablenotemark{i}& 2c & 1 & $0.3\pm1.2\times10^{-4}$ & $0\pm4\times10^{-5}$ & $2\pm5\times10^{-3}$ & $-1\pm2\times10^{-3}$ & $230\pm70$ & $230\pm20$ & $1000\pm200$ & 0.06 & 0.18 \\
& & 2 & $-1\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $-2\pm4\times10^{-5}$ & $-6\pm8\times10^{-3}$ & $-2\pm2\times10^{-3}$ & $160\pm50$ & $260\pm20$ & $1700\pm300$ & 0.06 & 0.00 \\
\tableline
\tableline
KSB$_S$ & 3c & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-2.8\pm0.2\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.35\pm0.07\times10^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$3.2\pm0.3$} & $4.1\pm0.8$ & 0.29 & 4.81 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-8\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$-1.08\pm0.09\times10^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$7.5\pm0.6$} & $16\pm3$ & 0.29 & 2.24 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$ aff\tablenotemark{h}& 3c & 1 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm7\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$8.5\pm0.7$} & $40\pm8$ & 0.33 & 0.82 \\
& & 2 & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm2\times10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$0\pm9\times10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{$9.2\pm0.7$} & $47\pm9$ & 0.32 & 0.61 \\
\tableline
KSB$_S$+NN\tablenotemark{i} & 3c & 1 & $5\pm6\times10^{-4}$ & $2\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $-9\pm3\times10^{-2}$ & $-3\pm1\times10^{-2}$ & $7\pm2$ & $11.0\pm0.9$ & $45\pm9$ & 0.29 & 0.91 \\
& & 2 & $-3\pm5\times10^{-4}$ & $-2\pm2\times10^{-4}$ & $1\pm3\times10^{-2}$ & $-2\pm1\times10^{-2}$ & $13\pm4$ & $12.0\pm0.9$ & $55\pm11$ & 0.28 & 0.69 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{cf. Table~\ref{tbl:samples} for a description of the individual samples; sample 1c is the largest one with medium signal-to-noise, inhomogeneous galaxy properties and different PSFs and thus the most realistic one}
\tablenotetext{b}{additive and multiplicative bias for the individual component, as fitted in section~\ref{sec:linbias}}
\tablenotetext{c}{$Q_6$ is the quality parameter as used by GREAT08, averaging residuals over 'six-packs' of 60000 galaxies from the complete sample, $Q_1$ averages residuals over single sets of 10000 galaxies only; cf. eqn.~\ref{eqn:q}. $Q_6/Q_1\approx 6$ for unbiased methods, $Q_6/Q_1\approx 1$ where bias strongly dominates the noise at this sample size; cf. section~\ref{sec:sixpack}}
\tablenotetext{d}{estimates of the rms of individual galaxy scatter $\sigma$ and bias $b$, averaging over the whole sample}
\tablenotetext{e}{quantity measured for KSB$_S$+NN on the blind data only}
\tablenotetext{f}{quantity measured on the complete sample, using training and blind data for KSB$_S$+NN}
\tablenotetext{g}{quantity measured on the complete sample for KSB$_S$ and KSB$_S$ aff, on training data only for KSB$_S$+NN}
\tablenotetext{h}{these are KSB$_S$ outputs after an affine transformation with the $m_i$ and $c_i$ for the respective sample, such that the multiplicative and additive bias as fitted in section~\ref{sec:linbias} disappear; cf. eqn.~\ref{eqn:aff} and section~\ref{sec:sixpack}}
\tablenotetext{i}{these are the neural network corrected KSB$_S$ results}
\tablenotetext{j}{$Q_6$ as found on the blind data only in the case of sample 1c}
\end{deluxetable}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\epsscale{.50}
\subfigure[sample 1/1c (medium signal to noise)]{
\plotone{mc.pnn.1.ps}
\plotone{mc.blindr.1.ps}
}
\subfigure[sample 2/2c (high signal to noise)]{
\plotone{mc.p1gv.1.ps}
\plotone{mc.rnrg.1.ps}
}
\subfigure[sample 3/3c (low signal to noise)]{
\plotone{mc.p1b.1.ps}
\plotone{mc.rnrb.1.ps}
}
\caption{Residual shear versus true shear for the neural network estimate KSB$_S$+NN on different data sets with linear fits for the additive and multiplicative shear measurement bias. Left panels: non-circularized data; right panels: circularized data. Plotted is always component 1, component 2 of the shear is very similar. Each data point corresponds to the shear estimate for one set of 10000 galaxies. Black points and solid lines correspond to blind data, grey points and dashed lines to all data.}
\label{fig:linbias}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[multiplicative bias]{
\includegraphics[clip, width=0.8\textwidth]{m_r3.ps}
}
\subfigure[additive bias]{
\includegraphics[clip, width=0.4\textwidth]{c_1_r3.ps}
\includegraphics[clip, width=0.4\textwidth]{c_2_r3.ps}
}
\caption{multiplicative and additive bias as a function of signal-to-noise ratio for methods participating in the GREAT08 competition (see legend and cf. \citet{great08results}) and neural network estimates on the blind samples with (dark grey) and without (light grey) circularization; the dashed black line is at $m=c_i=0$, which is also the result for KSB aff. as defined in section~\ref{sec:sixpack}}
\label{fig:cm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Bias analysis II: 'six-pack' effect}
\label{sec:sixpack}
The bias of a method likely differs depending on properties such as signal-to-noise ratio, PSF, galaxy size and profiles. Therefore in the case of inhomogeneous samples like sample 1 and 1c, the $c_i$ and $m$ we find for the whole sample are not necessarily equal to the true additive and multiplicative biases of each homogeneous subsample. For this reason, a method simply calibrated for $c_i=m\approx0$ by an affine transformation for the whole inhomogeneous sample is potentially still biased on each of the homogeneous subsamples and consequently for any real-world application. Thus in order to correctly analyze the bias by means of fitting multiplicative and additive biases, each sample would have to be splitted into homogeneous subsamples first. We develop another scheme of analyzing bias here which can be applied to homogeneous and inhomogeneous samples alike.
The GREAT08 data sets which we used for training the networks are made up of files containing 10,000 galaxies each, six of which again share the exact same shear values, observing conditions in terms of PSF, signal-to-noise ratio and galaxy properties. This is a very favorable setting for bias analysis, as the composition of errors from bias and scatter can be estimated by comparing the accuracy of shear estimates on single sets and on six times larger overall sets.
When measuring the shear of a very large homogeneous set $j$ of $n\rightarrow\infty$ galaxies with true shear $(g_1^j,g_2^j)$, the only residual for component $i$ will be the bias $b_i^j$. For a linear bias $m_i^j$ and $c_i^j$, we would find $b_i^j=m_i^j\cdot g_i^j + c_i^j$. In the limit of infinitely large sets the squared error of the shear estimate $\bar{e}_i^j$ will be
\begin{equation}
Q^{-1}=(\bar{e}_i^j-g_i^j)^2 \stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\rightarrow}(b_i^j)^2 \; .
\end{equation}
For smaller $n$, the scatter $\sigma_j$ of the individual galaxy measurement in that set will add to the errors, leading to
\begin{equation}
Q^{-1}=(\bar{e}_i^j-g_i^j)^2 = (b_i^j)^2 + \frac{\sigma^2}{n}\; .
\label{eqn:sixplot}
\end{equation}
This bias and the scatter will of course depend of the properties of the particular set $j$. For the following analysis, we are interested only in a decomposition of our total mean squared error into bias and scatter. We will thus calculate $\langle(\bar{e}_i^j-g_i^j)^2\rangle_j$ at two different sample sizes $n=(10,000, 60,000)$ to find the root mean square of the bias $b_i:=\sqrt{\langle(b_i^j)^2\rangle_j}$ and the scatter $\sigma:=\sqrt{\langle(\sigma^j)^2\rangle_j}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{sixplot.ps}
\caption{$Q$ at different sample sizes. Plotted are measured $Q$ values for $n=10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 60,000$ galaxies on component 1 of sample 1c for the neural network blind data estimate (triangles / solid line) and the affine transformation of KSB outputs with $m=0$, $c=0$ (squares / dashed line). The curves show the $Q(n)$ from eqn.~\ref{eqn:sixplot} for the bias and scatter as found in Table~\ref{tbl:biasc} for the two methods.}
\label{fig:sixplot}
\end{figure}
We perform the analysis on the six samples. We calculate $Q_6$, similar to equation~\ref{eqn:q} yet averaging residuals over the six sets before taking the square. This is what the leaderboard for the GREAT08 challenge used for ranking the submissions. Note that for pure scatter we would find $Q_6 / Q_1 = 6$, whereas for pure bias $Q_6 / Q_1 = 1$. This favors methods with low bias which perform consistently well for different conditions and galaxy parameters. For large future surveys it is of particular importance to achieve a bias which is low even compared to the smaller scatter of the large sample sizes (i.e. $Q_n / Q_1 \approx n$), regardless of the individual galaxy properties or observing conditions. Except for sample 1c where the number of blind sets available is large enough and completeness of the sets of 60000 galaxies has been conserved when separating the blind sets, we have to use the complete sample of galaxy sets (i.e. both the sets used for training and for blind testing) for calculating $Q_6$. Where both $Q_1$ and the linear bias are consistent between the training and blind sets, this is not expected to give different results than a test on purely blind data.
We also compare the network results to the results of KSB$_S$ output scaled with the parameters $m_i$ and $c_i$ found for KSB$_S$ on each of the samples in section \ref{sec:linbias}. The result, defined as
\begin{equation}
e_i^{\mathrm{KSB\;aff.}}=\frac{e_i^{\mathrm{iso}}/0.91-c_i}{m_i+1}\; .
\label{eqn:aff}
\end{equation}
is denoted as KSB aff. in Figure~\ref{fig:cm} and Tables~\ref{tbl:bias} and \ref{tbl:biasc}. By definition, KSB aff. has $m=c_i=0$ on any of the samples. Note that signal-to-noise dependence of the bias is likely the strongest influence on bias of all the GREAT08 parameters.\footnote{cf. Figures C3 and C4 in \citet{great08results}} A correction of this dependence by splitting into different signal-to-noise subsamples with different affine scalings, as has been done in the case of $e_i^{\mathrm{KSB\;aff.}}$, is therefore the most promising method if one additional parameter is taken into account for bias correction. The dependence of the bias on the signal-to-noise ratio has in fact been taken into account empirically in \citet{schrabback}. The fact that the neural network estimate outperforms $e_i^{\mathrm{KSB\;aff.}}$ on the inhomogeneous samples 1 and 1c shows that the networks successfully take other dependences of the bias into account. For direct comparison, a plot of the quality parameter $Q$ for the network estimate and KSB aff. as found for component 1 at different set sizes $n$ on the circularized sample 1c is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sixplot}. Drawn are measured $Q$ at sample sizes of $n=10000,20000,30000,60000$. Note that this corresponds very well with the curve for eqn.~\ref{eqn:sixplot} drawn in terms of $b$ and $\sigma$ as found in Table~\ref{tbl:biasc}. The larger residual bias of KSB aff. on the subsets of the inhomogeneous sample leads to a much smaller asymptotic $Q$ than for the neural network estimate, which is projected to reach $Q>1000$ at sufficiently large sample sizes.
Complete results for plain KSB$_S$, KSB aff. and the output of best networks are shown in Tables~\ref{tbl:bias} and \ref{tbl:biasc}. A plot of the composition of squared errors is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:mse}, while the GREAT08 quality parameter $Q_6$ as a function of signal-to-noise ratio is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:q6}.
The bias is predominant in plain KSB$_S$ outputs, especially for the first component. This is particularly harmful as sample size and signal strength increases. Despite lowered statistical uncertainty the strong bias leads to overall improvements being only slight.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[non-circularized samples] {
\plotone{shadehistmse.ps}
}
\subfigure[circularized samples] {
\plotone{shadehistmsec.ps}
}
\caption{Composition of mean squared errors (red: bias, blue: scatter) of the different methods (plain KSB$_S$: KSB; KSB$_S$ after affine transformation fitted to set multiplicative and additive bias to zero: aff.; KSB with neural network corrections: NN with total error as found for the blind sets) on samples with different signal-to-noise ratio. The middle blocks contains the medium signal-to-noise samples 1/1c with inhomogeneous galaxy properties most similar to real data.}
\label{fig:mse}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[non-circularized samples] {
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{qplot.ps}
}
\subfigure[circularized samples] {
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{qplotc.ps}
}
\caption{$Q_6$ as a function of signal-to-noise ratio for the neural network estimate (solid line, triangles), KSB aff. (dashed line, squares) and plain KSB (dotted line, circles) plotted for non-circularized (upper panel) and non-circularized (lower panel) samples.}
\label{fig:q6}
\end{figure}
Affine transformations according to a fit to the known true shears greatly reduce the bias on the homogeneous subsamples 2, 2c, 3 and 3c. This is not surprising, as data sets here only differ by the shear applied to them and the change in bias due to this can be accounted for. On samples with inhomogeneous galaxy properties such as samples 1 and 1c, however, bias cannot be removed by this and remains significant. Also, the remaining scatter due to noise and differences in bias depending on the individual galaxy properties within the sample cannot be decreased by the affine transformation.
Neural networks, on the contrary, greatly reduce the bias in any of the samples such that it does not dominate the statistical errors at this sample size. This works remarkably well even on the inhomogeneous samples. The observed reduction in scatter indicates that bias depending on the individual galaxy properties has been successfully reduced as well. For a bias reduction scheme to be applied to real data with diverse properties, this is of crucial importance. Therefore, as has been done with the neural networks, it can be seen that a linear bias of inhomogeneous samples close to zero should merely be achieved as a side effect of a proper overall calibration, which can be validated using other types of analyses as well.
\subsection{Circularization}
\label{sec:circ}
In order to compare the effects of PSF circularization to traditional $P^{\mathrm{sm}}$ anisotropy correction, we compare the results of sample 1, 2 and 3 to sample 1c, 2c and 3c. While these are similar in terms of signal-to-noise levels and galaxy properties,\footnote{Sample 1c contains 600 additional galaxies not in sample 1, which are of fiducial properties but convolved with PSF 2 or 3.} they differ in the method used for anisotropy correction.
From the individual measurement $\sigma$ calculated in Tables~\ref{tbl:bias} and \ref{tbl:biasc} we find that scatter can be reduced by circularization, especially for the more noisy data sets. This can also be seen from comparing the left and right panels of Figure~\ref{fig:linbias} and is not surprising as the smear responsitivity tensor $P^{\mathrm{sm}}$ of the individual galaxy otherwise used for anisotropy correction certainly is influenced by the noise. The additional term $P^{\mathrm{sm}}\bm{p}$ in eqn.~\ref{eqn:ksb3} adds to the scatter. Because $\bm{p}=0$ for a circular PSF, this is not the case in the circularized samples.
Circularization, however, appears to add to or at least change the bias present in the KSB$_S$ output. On the medium to low signal-to-noise data, calibration by the neural networks is successful such that the overall result can be improved. On the contrary, a fitted affine transformation of KSB$_S$ output on sample 1c is still strongly biased.
For sufficiently noisy data, circularization can thus successfully be used as a method of reducing scatter. Plain KSB$_S$ outputs, however, even after traditional corrections, do not greatly profit from this as the residual bias dominates here. In order to benefit from the reduced scatter in circularized samples one has to combine circularization with a means of reducing bias, as has been done with the neural networks in this work.
\subsection{Analyzing network output}
\label{sec:percentile}
We continue to analyze the single galaxy network output as a function of KSB $\bm{e}^{\mathrm{iso}}$ for different subsamples of GREAT08.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[sample 1c (medium signal to noise), both components]{
\plotone{single.blindr1.ps}
\plotone{single.blindr2.ps}
}
\subfigure[sample 2c (high) and 3c (low signal to noise)]{
\plotone{single.rnrg1.ps}
\plotone{single.rnrb1.ps}
}
\subfigure[branches from 1c with large and small galaxy FWHM]{
\plotone{single.blindr81.ps}
\plotone{single.blindr91.ps}
}
\caption{Percentiles (50th corresponding to the median, 14th and 86th ($1\sigma$), 2.5th and 97.5th ($2\sigma$), 0.2th and 99.8th ($3\sigma$) of single galaxy network output as a function of KSB $\bm{e}^{\mathrm{iso}}$ for circularized samples. The red line is the identity. Both components are plotted for the overall sample 1c in the top panel, component 1 is plotted for non-fiducial signal-to-noise sets 2c and 3c in the middle panel and for non-fiducial galaxy FWHM in the lower panel.}
\label{fig:percentiles}
\end{figure*}
The network output for shear component $j$ is a nonlinear function $f_j(\bm{v}^i)$ of the input vector with KSB shear estimates and additional parameters $\bm{v}^i$ of each galaxy $i$. One may interpret this, although not unambiguously, as an additive bias correction $-c_j(\bm{v}^i)$ and a weighting and multiplicative bias correction $w_j(\bm{v}^i)$
\begin{equation}
w_j(\bm{v}^i):=\left(1+m_j(\bm{v}^i)\right)^{-1}\cdot\frac{\langle\sigma_j^2\rangle}{\sigma_j^2(\bm{v}^i)} \; ,
\end{equation}
where $\langle\sigma_j^2\rangle$ is the average variance of the measurements from the sample galaxy $i$ has been taken from, $\sigma_j^2(\bm{v}^i)$ the variance of the measurement of the particular galaxy and $m_j(\bm{v}^i)$ a galaxy set property dependent multiplicative bias. The network output can then be written as
\begin{equation}
f_j(\bm{v}^i)=w_j(\bm{v}^i)\cdot\left(e^{\mathrm{iso},i}_j-c_j(\bm{v}^i)\right) \; .
\end{equation}
Consider now a version of the galaxy rotated by 90$^{\circ}$ so as to take the true ellipticity $e_j$ to its negative $e_j'=-e_j$ and $\bm{v}^i\rightarrow\bm{v}^{i'}$. As the variance $\sigma_j^2(\bm{v}^i)$ and multiplicative bias $m_j(\bm{v}^i)$ should remain constant under such a transformation, an ideal network should use an unchanged $w_j(\bm{v}^{i'})=w_j(\bm{v}^i)$. The additive bias correction should be taken such that $e^{\mathrm{iso},i}_j-c_j(\bm{v}^i)=-\left(e^{\mathrm{iso},i'}_j - c_j(\bm{v}^{i'})\right)$. This results in a point symmetric distribution of neural network outputs as a function of $e^{\mathrm{iso}}_j$ with respect to a zero shifted by the additive bias. Differences in $c_j$ for different galaxies will cause asymmetries in the distributions, but for $|c_j|\ll1$ these will only be slight. We therefore expect a non-overfitted network to give an almost point symmetric output distribution.
For $\bm{e}^{\mathrm{iso}}$ bins we find percentiles of the network output corresponding to the median and 1-3$\sigma$ in the case of a normal distribution. Plots of the resulting percentile curves of the networks trained on circularized data are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:percentiles}. They show point symmetry, which is additional evidence that the networks we use are not overfitted. The general shape can be interpreted as a high weighting of relatively circular galaxies and a downweighting of more elliptical galaxies. Slight differences can also be seen, for instance, between the output for the subsamples of sample 1c with larger and smaller than fiducial galaxy FWHM on the left and right of the lower panel, respectively. None of the network corrections can be interpreted as a single affine transformation.
The network output, therefore, must not be interpreted as the \emph{true} ellipticity of the galaxies. It is merely a quantity that, if averaged arithmetically, gives a good ensemble shear estimate. For different applications, such as shear correlation measurements, different network inputs and cost functions can be used. Apart from defining a figure of merit and constructing the cost function such that the figure of merit is being maximized during training, one may in these cases make use of the rotational and permutational invariance of the expected output.
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented a scheme of neural networks which is capable of reducing bias in KSB shear measurements to a level where it no longer inhibits the success of future surveys. Bias correction was most successful on the medium to high signal-to-noise data sets. This result might give hints as to the most promising setup of future pipelines.
We showed that circularization of the PSF reduces the scatter as compared to PSF anisotropy correction based on a single galaxy $P^{\mathrm{sm}}\bm{p}$ term. Therefore, circularization of varying PSFs in combination with neural networks seems to be very promising for shear measurement on real data.
Overall results in terms of shear measurement accuracy are very encouraging. By means of neural networks, it was possible to calibrate traditional KSB shape measurement to an accuracy competitive with the most successful methods and well above traditionally calibrated shape measurement approaches participating in the GREAT08 challenge. On real data KSB remains the method most commonly used, which makes this improvement extremely valuable. The neural network scheme presented in this paper is, however, also a general approach. It can be applied to any other shear measurement pipeline that is using single galaxy parameters to find true shears by an averaging procedure. We expect that neural networks are able to reduce bias in these methods as well.
The success of any shear measurement calibration scheme, including neural networks, depends on the availability of data with known shear similar to the data to be analyzed. In the case of the GREAT08 challenge, this was available from the simulations themselves. For the application on real data, it is necessary to simulate training data sets with known shear values from and similar to the real data. This can be done by either fitting galaxy models to the objects to be analyzed and simulating sheared data from the fitted profiles or by applying a finite-resolution shear operator \citep{fso} to the original image data itself.
\acknowledgements
\emph{This work was supported by the TR33 "The Dark Universe", the DFG
Cluster of Excellence on the "Origin and Structure of the Universe" and
the RTN-Network "DUEL" (Dark Universe through Extragalactic Lensing)
gravitational lensing. We thank the Bonn lensing group for an introduction to KSB and for providing us with some of their scripts. We are also grateful to A. Collister and O. Lahav for making available their neural network implementation ANNz which the scheme presented has been built upon.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Entanglement is a peculiarity of quantum systems and it represents one of the
most fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics. It essentially consists in the
impossibility of describing a quantum object without some knowledge on the rest
of the system.
More formally, it expresses the impossibility of factorizing the wavefuncion
of a composite system into the product of the wavefunctions of the components.
For photons or cold atoms, as well as for few solid state systems, entanglement
is largely investigated, both theoretically and experimentally \cite{Horodecki,
fazio}.
These achievements underpin and stimulate exploitation of this property for new applications like quantum cryptography, teleportation and computation. Besides,
the controlled generation of entanglement between nanoscaled objects allows to
explore the boundary between quantum and classical behaviour.
Molecular spin clusters represent a very interesting test bed in this context.
In fact, they represent complex but finite systems whose structural and physical features can be tailored at the synthetic level and whose collective properties
can be predicted by microscopic, albeit demanding, models. Recent achievements
on supramolecular chemistry, experiments and modeling appear extremely
encouraging in this field.\\
Here, we briefly review suitable molecules and linkers and illustrate methods
used for the experimental determination and rationalization of supramolecular
systems. With the help of specific examples, we discuss different issues
including the possibility of quantifying and probing entanglement in
supramolecular systems; besides, we provide hints to understand and control
the inter-molecular coupling.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig1}
\end{center}
\caption{Supramolecular structures based on Cr$_7$Ni rings. $a)$ two \textit{purple}
Cr$_7$Ni rings linked by bipyridine \cite{AngewChemGlued};
$b)$ two \textit{green} Cr$_7$Ni rings linked by a metallorganic group containing a
metal ion \cite{NanoNature}; $c)$ a tetramer formed \textit{purple} Cr$_7$Ni rings
\cite{AngewChemGlued}; $d)$ chain alternating Cr$_7$Ni rings with Cu ($s$=1/2) ions.}
\label{structures}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Molecular spin clusters}
Molecular spin clusters are molecules consisting of a magnetic core and an external non-magnetic shell. Typically, the inner part is made of transition metal (hydro-)
oxides bridged and chelated by organic ligands (typically chemical groups comprising
light elements like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.). Once synthesized,
magnetic molecules are generally stable and they can be dissolved in solutions.
From these, bulk crystals, comprising a macroscopic number of identical units aligned
along specific crystallographic directions, can be obtained. In general, molecules
are not interacting with each other and the behavior of a bulk crystal turns out to
be that of a collection of non-interacting, identical molecules.
This allows to use conventional solid state experimental techniques to investigate
molecular features, which is certainly one of the keys for success of these molecular objects. In the recent years, part of the interest in the field has turned at developing protocols to graft and study arrays of molecules on suitable substrates, aiming at addressing few or - eventually - single units. \\
Within each molecule, uncompensated electron spins are well localized on transition
metals with quenched orbital moments (Fe, Mn, Cr, Ni, Cu...) and interact with each other by (super-)exchange coupling.
These ferro- or antiferro-magnetic coupling dominates the intramolecular interactions and determines the pattern of magnetic eigenstates. Typically, the molecular spectra are well resolved at liquid-helium temperatures, while multiple level crossings can be observed at magnetic fields of few Teslas, that are easily achieved in laboratory. Anisotropy and antisymmetric terms in the spin Hamiltonian of the single molecule may arise from reduced local symmetries.\\
In the last years, most of the interest has been devoted to molecules like the prototypical Mn$_{12}ac$ or Fe$_8$, with high-spin ground state and high anisotropy barrier, that exhibit a characteristic hysteresis loop of the magnetization,
justifying the name of single molecule magnets (SMM) \cite{mmagnets}.
Intermolecular interactions can be reduced by diluting molecules in solid crystals \cite{Ga6, Fe18} or in frozen liquid solution. Intermolecular dipolar interaction is limited in the case of antiferromagnetic molecular clusters, characterized by
low-spin ground states. Among these, molecules with S=1/2 ground state, like V$_{15}$ \cite{V15a, V15b} or the heterometallic Cr$_7$Ni rings \cite{QC1} represent prototypical examples of mesoscopic effective two-level systems.\\
A relevant aspect is the coherence of the molecular spin dynamics. Generally speaking, SMM represent an ideal playground to observed quantum phenomena at mesoscopic scale \cite{mmagnets}.
The spectral definition of the SMM ground multiplet allowed to perform electron spin resonance experiments in Fe$_8$\cite{pulsedFe8}, Ni$_4$ \cite{Ni4} and Fe$_4$
\cite{pulsedFe4}; these capabilities inspired schemes for performing quantum
algorithms in Mn$_{12}ac$ or Fe$_8$ \cite{grover}, based on the massive exploitation
of linear superpositions and quantum intereference.
A special case of coherent spin dynamics is that observed in single rare earth ions diluted in a crystalline matrix \cite{pulsedEr}, that, however, do not represent a mesoscopic system.
More recently, time resolved experiments have shown that molecular electron spins can be coherently manipulated. In the case of antiferromagnetic clusters, Rabi
oscillations in the 10$^{-1}\,\mu$s time scale have been observed in V$_{15}$ while decoherence time $\tau_d$ as long as 3$\,\mu$s at 2K have been directly measured in molecular Cr$_7$Ni rings \cite{AA}.
Since the gate time $\tau_g$ to manipulate the effective S=1/2 in real experimental conditions is of the order of 10$\, ns$, it turns out that the figure of merit $Q=\tau_d/\tau_g$ exceeds 100 at 2K for Cr$_7$Ni.
For an isolated molecule the main source of decoherence remains the interaction with the nuclear spins both at the metal sites (specific isotopes) or in the organic environment (protons, fluoride, etc.). Molecules typically comprise few hundreds of atoms in well defined positions, so the interactions between the electron and the nuclear spins can be rationalized for each molecule \cite{deco}.
\subsection{chemical routes for linking molecules}
Entangling spins in supramolecular structures, such as nanomagnet dimers or oligomers, requires at least two separate steps:
1) the individuation of molecular building blocks with well defined features;
2) the establishment of inter-molecular magnetic coupling.
Concerning the first step, the synthesis
and the characterization of separate molecular units should be considered as prerequisite.
Ideally, each of the molecular units should be individually addressable;
this implies that they
should be either spatially or spectrally resolvable.\\
Different kinds of magnetic coupling between the units are compatible with the controlled generation of entangled states.
Dipolar interaction is long-range and might be desirable if one searches entanglement of a large collection of objects \cite{Ghosh}, but it is detrimental to control
entanglement between few molecular units within an oligomer, for
it tends to couple molecules belonging to different oligomers. Therefore, local types of magnetic interaction, such as exchange, are preferable. In practice, when organic linkers are used to exchange couple magnetic molecules there
are two main risks: 1) to form polymeric networks that tend to undergo long range magnetic order;
2) magnetic states of the single moiety can be heavily perturbed by the chemical link.
Recently different
aromatic groups have been successfully used to selectively link molecular spin clusters. G. Timco and
R.E.P. Winpenny in Manchester are currently using piridyne and pyrazole groups \cite{AngewChemGlued}
while the group of G. Aromi is using $\beta$-diketonates ligands \cite{aromiMn4, aromiCuNi}.
Probably the first case of molecular dimer reported in the literature is the
[Mn$_4$]$_2$ \cite{Mn4WW,Mn4SH}. The individual moiety,
[Mn$_4$O$_3$Cl$_4$(O$_2$CEt)$_3$(py)$_3$]\cite{Mn4} comprises three Mn$^{+3}$ and one Mn$^{+4}$ coupled together to give a S=9/2 ground molecular state and a uniaxial anisotropy.
Two Mn$_4$ are linked through hydrogen bonds to forms Mn$_4$ dimer in which the magnetic states of each moiety are antiferromagnetically coupled to each other.
The true problem of entanglement however was not considered there.\\
Another important case is that of heterometallic Cr$_7$Ni rings. Two species of Cr$_7$Ni rings have been synthesized: \textit{green} \cite{Cr7M} and \textit{purple}\cite{AngewChemGlued} Cr$_7$Ni, after their respective colour. The first attempt of
linking two \textit{green} Cr$_7$Ni rings was through the internal amine and
different metallorganic groups \cite{AngewChemCr7Ni}. From the chemical point of view this was successfull since two rings have been selectively linked. Yet, the magnetic coupling
resulted vanishingly small except in the case where a Ru$_2$ dimer was introduced in the linker \cite{Ru2}.
That was interesting since this Ru$_2$ dimer has redox properties and in principle its magnetic features
can be switched by an external electrical stimulus; however, the effectiveness of such a scheme still
needs to be proved. Important progress have been recently obtained exploiting the fact that the chemical
reactivity of the extra Ni is much faster than that of the rest of the Cr ions in the rings. Firstly, a chemical
group was attached to the carboxylate at Ni site in the \textit{green} Cr$_7$Ni \cite{NanoNature}; more
recently, nitrogen of heterocyclic aromatic groups was directly linked to the Ni in the \textit{purple} Cr$_7$Ni
\cite{AngewChemGlued}. Starting from these, the choice of the linker is virtually infinite \cite{Timco}.
In a first series of linked \textit{green} Cr$_7$Ni rings, transition metal ions (M) or dimers were inserted
in the linker thus forming Cr$_7$Ni-M$_{x}$-Cr$_7$Ni with x=1,2 \cite{NanoNature}.
By using \textit{purple} Cr$_7$Ni, a family of [Cr$_7$Ni]$_2$ with short or longer linkers was obtained,
thus allowing to tune the strength of the intramolecular coupling \cite{AngewChemGlued}. This strategy
can also be used to synthesize molecular trimers, tetramers (with or without central metal ions) or chains
alternating Cr$_7$Ni and metal ions or dimers (see Fig. \ref{structures}) \cite{AngewChemGlued,Timco}.
\subsection{measuring and quantifying the magnetic coupling}
The magnetic effectiveness of the intramolecular link can be experimentally evaluated.
According to what was previously discussed, we firstly check the integrity of each molecular sub-unit
and then we quantify the strength of the coupling. This may require the use of complementary
experimental techniques and, possibly, the systematic comparison within a series of derivatives,
from the individual molecule to complex aggregates. Magnetic susceptibility and magnetization loops
are primarily used to clarify the nature of the ground state of the system while specific heat measurement
directly evaluates the energy splitting of the lowest multiplets. Both need to be extended to very low
temperatures (typically T$\, < \,$1K) where the magnetic coupling becomes observable. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR)
spectra allow to evidence transitions that are permitted only when the magnetic coupling is effective and they are
sensitive to the anisotropy of the $g$-factor.\\
As an example, Figure \ref{magnetization} shows the magnetization loop $M(T,B)$ for a
[\textit{purple}-Cr$_7$Ni]$_2$ dimer with a trans-1,2-dipyridylethene ligand between two rings \cite{ent09}.
The $M(T,B)$ curves presented in the upper panels show the butterfly behaviour, typical of the
phonon-bottleneck regime, that becomes clearer as the sweeping rate dB/dt increses.
Zooming the magnetization curves $M(B)$ (lower panel), we can observe the presence of fleeble knees, that are clearly evident by taking the derivative of magnetization $dM/dB$ as shown in the insets.
These features are not present in the single purple-Cr$_7$Ni ring and they are clearly due to the intra-molecular coupling.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig2}
\end{center}
\caption{ Experimental magnetization curves M(T, B) taken for [Cr$_7$NiF$_3$(Etglu)(O$_2$CtBu)$_{15}$]$^{2-}$
(dipyet) (Etglu=N-ethyl-d-glucamine and dipyet= trans-1,2-dipyridylethene).
a) Data are taken at T=40 mK and different sweeping rates of the magnetic field \cite{ent09}.
b) Magnification of a). (Inset) dM/dB vs B curve taken for dB/dt=0.28 T/s.}
\label{magnetization}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{HC} we consider another typical case, the Cr$_7$Ni-Cu-Cr$_7$Ni molecular trimer,
for which the specific heat C(T) provided direct evidence and quantification of the supramolecular
coupling \cite{NanoNature}. This system comprises two Cr$_7$Ni rings with an S=1/2 ground state doublet and an S=3/2 first excited multiplet, and one Cu ion with S=1/2. The bumps in the C(T) curve
are the Schottky anomalies related to the energy splitting of specific multiplets.
In 5T the main anomaly is essentially related to the splitting
between the S=1/2 and S=3/2 multiplets, typical of the individual Cr$_7$Ni.
The overlap between the specific heat of Cr$_7$Ni-Cu-Cr$_7$Ni (circles in Fig. \ref{HC}) and that
of two times the C(T) of individual Cr$_7$Ni rings (dotted lines in Fig. \ref{HC}) is a direct evidence of the integrity
of the molecular rings. In zero field, a Schottky anomaly clearly appears below 1K for
Cr$_7$Ni-Cu-Cr$_7$Ni but it is not present for individual rings for which the ground state is
a Kramer doublet. This low temperature anomaly is a consequence of the coupling between
the three effective spins S=1/2 in Cr$_7$Ni-Cu-Cr$_7$Ni.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig3}
\end{center}
\caption{Low temperature specific heat of Cr$_7$Ni-Cu-Cr$_7$Ni molecular trimer
(circles). The -experimental- specific heat of two individual rings per unit cell is plotted as dotted lines.
Continuos lines are calculated by spin hamiltonian (see text) and they perfectly reproduce the experimental data.}
\label{HC}
\end{figure}
It's worth stressing the sophisticated level of description of these mesoscopic systems provided by microscopic spin Hamiltonians. Briefly, the spin Hamiltonian of a single Cr$_7$Ni ring reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H} & = &
J \sum_{i=1}^8 {\bf s}_{i} \cdot {\bf s}_{i+1} +
\sum_{i=1}^8 d_i\, [s_{z,i}^2-s_i (s_i +1)/3] \nonumber \\
& + &
\sum_{i<j=1}^8 {D}_{ij} [2 s_{z,i} s_{z,j}-s_{x,i} s_{x,j}-s_{y,i} s_{y,j}]
+ \mu_B \sum_{i=1}^8 {\bf B}\cdot {\bf g}_i \cdot {\bf s}_{i} ,
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $z$ axis coincides with the ring axis, site 8 corresponds to the Ni$^{2+}$
($s=1$) ion, sites 1-7 are occupied by Cr$^{3+}$ ($s=3/2$) ions,
and $ {\bf s}_9 \equiv {\bf s}_1 $. The first term
accounts for the isotropic exchange interaction, while the second and third ones are the dominant axial contributions to the crystal-field and the intracluster
dipole-dipole interactions, respectively. The last term represents the Zeeman coupling to an external
magnetic field.
The parameters entering the above Hamiltonian are determined by fitting the experiments performed with (ensembles of) single rings
(see Fig.\ref{HC}, for instance).
Intra-ring interactions are also responsible for the anomalies above few
K in the supramolecular structures; the analisis of these features shows that the parameters are not affected by the intermolecular coupling introduced in the ring dimers and oligomers.
Then, low temperature anomalies are described at a microscopic level by considering the interaction of Cu spin centre with Ni and Cr spins of
each rings \cite {NanoNature}. Considering also the projection of the rings dipolar and crystal fields, the effective interaction can be written as:
\begin{equation}\label{effham}
\mathcal{H}= J^* {\bf S}^{Cr7Ni} \cdot {\bf S}^{Cu}+D_{ex}^* [2S^{Cr7Ni}_z{S}^{Cu}_z -S^{Cr7Ni}_x{S}^{Cu}_x
- S^{Cr7Ni}_y{S}^{Cu}_y]
\end{equation}
for each Cr$_7$Ni - Cu pair. The $J^*$ and $D_{ex}$ parameters are evaluated by simultaneously
fitting complementary experimental results \cite{NanoNature}.
\subsection{ understanding the magnetic coupling}
\vspace{1cm}
How the organic linkers actually transmit spin information is an interesting issue that may help in designing organic linkers and new experiments.
The series of [Cr$_7$Ni]$_2$ dimers discussed in a previous section is quite instructive from this point of view.
The linker in those cases belongs to heteroaromatic organic groups (C-based benzene-like rings containing one or more nitrogen)
that have been long studied and intensively used in the '80s and '90s in order to carry electronic and magnetic
interactions between active molecular units through long (nm) distances,
as compared to standard organic bridges as single O or F atoms, hydroxides or carboxylates that, conversely,
work at atomic scale. Here the figure of merit, which discriminates between ``good'' and ``bad'' linker, is the level of
conjugation/delocalization of the electrons that carry the information. $p$ electrons are distributed over two types of orbitals,
the ones that bind the linker atoms together ($sp^3$ hybrids, with label $\sigma$ ) and $\pi$ electrons that occupies resonant
and delocalized bonds.
Magnetic interaction is optimal when large overlap (both in space and in energy) between the spin polarized orbitals
of the magnetic centers and orbitals of the linker atom anchored to the magnetic centers is found; symmetry matching is also
important. In principle, both $\sigma$ and $\pi$ electrons can carry magnetic interactions,
although only with $\pi$ electrons delocalization is strong enough to drive this interactions
over long distances. Experimental observation of such interactions have been supported by numerical calculations,
mostly performed by H\"uckel (extended) molecular orbital methods.
Some general rules have been suggested in the literature:
an interesting observation is that spin polarization of $\pi$ electrons is found to proceed
with an oscillating character, moving from one atom to the other through aromatic groups. This results in
ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic interaction between magnetic centers at the edges depending on where they
anchor \cite{cargillthompson1996,mccleverty1998}. The strength of the interaction also obeys such alternation rule,
as discussed by Richardson and Taube \cite{richardson1983}, that has been also interpreted
as arising from a quantum interference over magnetic paths with different lenghts \cite{marvaud1993}.
As a matter of fact, alternation in spin and charge polarization through an aromatic linker
can be theoretically explained by superexchange mechanism discussed by McConnell \cite{mcconnell1963} or,
alternatively, by resonant theories, as found by Longuet-Higgins \cite{longuet-higgins1950a}.
Another fact that has to be taken into account is that both occupied and unoccupied
orbitals can play a role, like in charge transport \cite{browne2006}.
Either $\pi$ occupied or unoccupied linker orbitals can be close in energy
to the magnetic frontier orbitals, depending if the heteroaromatic linker is $\pi$ rich or $\pi$ poor,
thus either HOMO- or LUMO-driven magnetic superexchange interaction can be promoted. \\
In order to illustrate this mechanism we present \textit{ab-initio} DFT calculations on model bicycle organic linkers, namely
on bipyridine, both in the (4,4$^{\prime}$ and 4,3$^{\prime}$ configuration), and bipyrazole.
Calculations have been performed with the NWChem quantum chemistry package \cite{nwchem};
an Ahlrichs valence double zeta (VDZ) contracted gaussian basis set has been used in conjunction with the hybrid
B3LYP exchange and correlation functional.
Let us focus on the 4,4$^{\prime}$ bipyridine bridge depicted in Fig. \ref{spindensity},
and assume that the anchoring site is the N atom, more electronegative than C.
Let us suppose also that the overlap between the magnetic frontier orbitals of the metal atoms
anchored to the N sites with the N orbitals is such that a small spin polarization of $\pm 0.1\mu_B$ is induced
on the N atoms (the signs refer to a ferro- or antiferromagnetic coupling between these two moments).
We impose such spin moment by means of the constrained DFT method as discussed in Ref. \cite{wu2005}.
We obtained spin polarized states in N with both $\sigma$ and $\pi$ characters, so that both symmetries can contribute to the
magnetic interaction, whereas most of the interaction is reasonably associated to the conjugated $\pi$ electron system.
In Fig. \ref{spindensity} we plot the spin-polarized electron
density isosurfaces for isovalues of $\pm 0.001$ electrons/a.u. in case of
antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic coupling between the N spin moments.
We can clearly see the alternation of spin polarization when moving from one atom to the next,
following the bond paths. In order to demonstrate the rules discussed above, we plot in Fig. \ref{spindensity} the spin densities
also for the 4,3$^{\prime}$ bipyridine and for bipyrazole organic bridges, always assuming that the metal
is anchored to N sites, and that a spin moment of $\pm0.1 \mu_B$ is transferred to N atoms.
Changing from 4,4$^{\prime}$ bipyridine to 4,3$^{\prime}$ bipyridine,
optimal coupling is attained when the spin polarization on the two N atoms has the same sign, i.e. magnetic
centers are more favourable ferromagnetically coupled, as compared to the antiferromagnetic coupling attained
for 4,4$^{\prime}$ bipyridine, as demonstrated by the larger spin polarization of the inner C atoms at the frontier
between the two pyridines. In bipyrazole, the spin densities, for both the antiferro- and
ferromagnetic states, do not reach the inner region and interference between the spin paths
hinder magnetic interaction between the two sides of the bridge. In Fig. \ref{spindensity} we report also the total energy
difference between the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic states, which indicates clearly how the size and the sign
of the coupling are completely consistent with the reasonings above.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{fig4}
\end{center}
\caption{Spin density isosurfaces for isovalue of +0.001 electrons/a.u. (blue
color), and -0.001 electrons/a.u. (red color), and FM-AFM energy splitting
for 4,4$^{\prime}$"-bipyridine, 4,3$^{\prime}$"-bipyridine and bipyrazole
bridges (see text for details). }
\label{spindensity}
\end{figure}
In order to predict the behaviour of real dimeric complexes, the full systems, not only the bridge, have to be simulated.
We analyze three supramolecular dimers of [Cr$_7$Ni]$_2$, which are characterized by identical
magnetic molecular centers, two \textit{purple} Cr$_7$Ni, but three different organic linkers, i.e. bipyridine, bipyrazole and
bipyridylethylene \cite{tobepublished}.
Magnetic frontier orbitals are supplied by Ni ions, and anchoring sites in the linkers are always
N atoms. Ni (II) ions have nominally a 3$d^8$ electronic configurations, so that only $d$ orbitals with \textit{e$_g$} symmetry
are spin-polarized. Although this in principle should imply that only $\sigma$ orbitals of the extended molecule are responsible
of the spin interaction between the two rings, we observe that polarization of both $\sigma$ and $\pi$ orbitals in the linker
is present. $\sigma$ polarization retains values only for the C atoms in the vicinity of the N atoms, while for more distant C atoms,
only $\pi$ orbitals attain a (small) spin-polarization.
Intramolecular Heisenberg $J^*$ parameters, which quantify the interaction between the two Cr$_7$Ni molecules
can be estimated from several experimental methods (as described in previous section) or calculated by total energy
(obtained by means of, e.g., DFT-B3LYP calculations) difference methods.
Here the microscopic interaction arises through the organic bridges between the two Ni spin moments, so that the
relevant microscopic Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
H = J^{*} S_{Ni^1} \cdot S_{Ni^2} \,\, ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the labels $1$ and $2$ indicate the Ni atoms belonging to different rings, and $S_{Ni^1}=
S_{Ni^2}=1$; $J^{*}$ is then given by 1/2 of the total energy difference between the singlet and triplet
states of the (Cr$_7$Ni)$_2$ dimer, and positive values are relative to a preferred antiferromagnetic coupling between the rings,
i.e. a singlet spin ground state. The calculated $J^{*}$ values evidence a stronger magnetic coupling for bipyridine-bridged dimers ($J^{*}$=0.021meV) while for bipyrazole- ($J^{*}$=0.004meV) or bipyridylethylene- ($J^{*}$=0.002meV) bridged
dimers interaction is sensibly smaller, in agreement with specific heat measurements that provide an estimate of the energy gap between the singlet and the barycenter of the triplet of 0.009meV for bipyrazole-bridged and weaker ones (0.005meV and 0.004meV) for bipyrazole- and bipyridylethylene-bridged respectively.
In case of bipyrazole, as anticipated above, quantum interference between the two paths seems to be
the responsible for the small J, despite the fact that the two Ni centers are closer to each other, as compared to bipyridine,
because of the shorter length of bipyrazole. In case of the bipyridylethylene bridge (not shown), the larger number of bonds that such
interaction should travel through plays a role, so that only a small fraction of spin-polarization survives in the two facing C atoms in the
center of the bridge \cite{tobepublished}.
These findings pave the way for a whole series of possible experimental investigations, by systematically varying the organic bridges
and the magnetic frontier atoms, in order to tune and choose the appropriate magnetic coupling for entanglement.
The reasonings above, that have been derived in dimeric complexes, apply as well for trimeric or tetrameric systems,
as the ones described in previous section; in these cases, some additional difficulties might be represented by the
many possible and simultaneous interaction paths, a circumstance that might prevent to prefigure the magnetic properties
of the systems by simple general conjectures, requiring that a full theoretical characterization has to be necessarily carried out.
\subsection{Switchable molecular links.}
Although switchability is not mandatory for entanglement and spin manipulation can also be obtained between
permanently coupled spins \cite{QC2}, we briefly discuss switchable organic linkers. We focus on three different
switching mechanisms, namely a mechanical, an electric field-induced and a photocromic one.
Critical issues like the switching rate or preservation of coherence are far beyond current discussion but,
at the end, they will constitute possible bottlenecks for switchable linkers.\\
Transport through aromatic bicycles linkers have been demonstrated to depend on the structural conformation of the linker
\cite{venkataraman2006}. In the recent work of Quek et al. \cite{quek2009}, it has been demonstrated that
transport properties of bipyridine-based molecular junction are modified by elonging or compressing the junction;
theoretical investigations have helped in
attributing this finding to modification in the internal angles of the linkers, and in bond lengths and angles
defining the pyridine-gold contact geometry. As discussed above, magnetic properties of supramolecular systems depend
similarly on the structural confomation of the linker and of the linker-molecule contacts, leading to the idea of mechanical switching
of the magnetic interactions. Another approach on the same line is the use of molecular shuttles \cite{molmotor} as possible switches.\\
Another possibility is to exploit a local electric field to rearrange the molecular orbitals and to disrupt/enhance energy
matching between orbitals of the linker and of the magnetic center.
As discussed by Diefenbach and Kim \cite{diefenbach2007} one can exploit the different spatial distribution
of the molecular orbitals in the linker, and more precisely their different polarizability; upon the application of a
(strong enough) electric field, the energetic order of the different orbitals might be modified, since second-order Stark
response might be very different for the different orbitals. In case of low lying excited spin states, crossings between
excited and ground states can be induced, which means that a different magnetic ground state can be fostered, that is,
magnetic swithing to on/off states can be achieved.
Switchability of the linker is often used in other solid state systems, like, for instance, quantum dots. In this respect,
an interesting case was proposed considering a molecular poly-oxometallate [PMo$_{12}$O$_{40}$(VO)$_2$]$^{q-}$
consisting of two (VO)$^{+2}$ moieties with spin 1/2 separated by Mo$_{12}$ cage \cite{POM}.
The cage may have different valence states and it can therefore be charged providing a switcheabe link between
the two S=1/2 spins. The implementation of a square-root-of-swap gate has been proposed \cite{POM} and
experimental work is in progress in this direction.\\
The latter switching method is the one exploiting photoexcitation processes.
Photocromic linkers belonging to the family of diarylethenes \cite{matsuda2000}, undergoes reversible conformational changes
upon irradiation in the visible or ultraviolet frequency range. They are optimal candidates because of their
resistance, rapid photo-response (in the range of picoseconds), and thermal stability of the two different isomers
(up to 100 $^{\circ}$C). Bonds form or brake, and conjugation is suppressed or enhanced, upon irradiation when moving
from one isomer to the other; magnetic interaction paths efficiency can be in this way controlled by photoirradiation.
These molecular switches are excellent candidates for large-scale integration too, since photocromic complexes have been
demostrated to react both in solution and in the crystalline phase, and last but not least, to be compatible
with coordination-driven self-assembly synthetic approaches.
\subsection{quantify and measuring entanglement in molecular spin clusters}
The existence of a magnetic coupling between the molecular spin clusters doesn't guarantee per se that these are in an entangled state, but its form plays a crucial role in the controlled generation of entanglement.
Therefore, the high degree of flexibility with which such coupling can be engineered through supramolecular chemistry represents a fundamental resource. To illustrate how the main concepts apply to the molecular systems, we consider two different approaches to the generation of entanglement in coupled Cr$_7$Ni rings, the first one based on equilibrium states $ \rho $ at low temperature, the second one on coherent manipulation of the system state by electron-paramagnetic resonance (EPR) pulses.
Being our interest focused on entanglement between the total spins of the nanomagnets that compose the supramolecular structure, we shall refer to the spin Hamiltonian approach.
Here, if the intermolecular interaction is small as compared to the
intramolecular exchange coupling $J$, it can be treated at a perturbative level, and mapped
onto an effective Hamiltonian $ \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AB} $
that depends only on the total spins $ {\bf S}_\alpha $ ($ \alpha = A , B , \dots $) of the coupled molecules.
Both the expression of $ \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AB} $ and the values of the effective parameters
are deduced from the underlying microscopic model.
In order for the equilbrium density matrix to be entangled, one typically needs
an intermolecular coupling Hamiltonian $ \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AB} $ with a non factorizable
ground state, and such that the energy separation from the first excited state is significantly larger than
the lowest temperature at which relevant experiments can be performed.
In the case of the (Cr$_7$Ni)$_2$ dimer ($ S_A = S_B = 1/2 $), the former condition
can be achieved if the dominant term in the coupling Hamiltonian is an antiferromagnetic exchange interaction.
Anisotropic intramolecular interactions give rise to additional effective terms, resulting in the following Hamiltonian:
$ \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AB} = (J_{AB}-D_{AB}) {\bf S}_A \cdot {\bf S}_B + 3 D_{AB} S^A_z S^B_z $.
For temperatures comparable with $J_{AB}$, the equilibrium state $ \rho $ includes
contributions from all four lowest eigenstates $ | S , M \rangle $ (being $S$
and $M$ the total spin and its projection along $z$, orthogonal to the plane of
the molecules), with Boltzmann probabilities $P^S_M$.
The entanglement between two 1/2 spins can be quantified by the concurrence
($\mathcal{C}$), whose value ranges from 0 for a factorizable $ \rho $ to 1
for maximally entangled states \cite{fazio}.
In the present case,
the expression of
$ \mathcal{C} $ corresponding to the equilibrium state reads:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C} ( P^S_M ) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\max \{ | P^1_0 - P^0_0 | - 2\sqrt{P^1_1 P^1_{-1}}, 0\}
& {\rm for} \max\{ P^1_0 , P^0_0 \} > \sqrt{P^1_{-1} P^1_1} \\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
In the presence of a magnetic field applied along the ring axis, the
expression of the concurrence reads:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}(\rho_{eq}^{AB}) =
\frac{ 1 - e^{-\frac{J_{AB}}{k_BT}} \left( e^{\frac{D_{AB}}{k_BT}} + 2e^{-\frac{D_{AB}}{2k_BT}} \right) }
{ 1 + e^{-\frac{J_{AB}}{k_BT}} \left[ e^{\frac{D_{AB}}{k_BT}} + 2e^{-\frac{D_{AB}}{2k_BT}} \cosh \left(\frac{\bar{g}_{zz}\mu_B B}{k_BT}\right) \right] } ,
\end{equation}
where $ \bar{g}_{zz} $ is the $z$ component of the effective g factor in the
ground state $ S = 1/2 $ doublet of the Cr$_7$Ni ring.
According to this expression, that holds as long as $ | S, M \rangle $ are the
dimer eigenstates, the molecular spin clusters $A$ and $B$ are entangled if the occupation
of either $ |0,0\rangle $ or $ |1,0\rangle $ is sufficiently larger than all
the others.
In particular, in the limit $ k_B T \ll ( J_{AB} - D_{AB} ) $, the equilibrium state
tends to the singlet ground state and $ \mathcal{C} \simeq 1 $.
Therefore, the larger $J_{AB}$, the wider the temperature range in which thermal
entanglement persists. In the present case,
the range of desirable values of $J_{AB}$ is however bounded from above by the
characteristic energy of the intramolecular spin excitations.
If this condition is not fulfilled, each nanomagnet within the dimer can no longer be regarded as effective two-level systems, for
intramolecular excitations corresponding to higher spin multiplets enter the composition of the dimer lowest eigenstates.
The concurrence exponentially decreases with the magnetic field, that we assume
for simplicity oriented along $z$. In fact, the field energetically favours the
factorizable ferromagnetic state ($M=1$) and reduces the occupation of the
singlet state. At zero temperature, an abrupt transition takes place as a
function of $B$, at the level crossing between $ | 1, 1 \rangle $ and
$ | 0, 0 \rangle $.
In general, the concurrence cannot be easily expressed in terms of observable
quantities. Its evaluation requires the knowledge of the system density matrix,
that is either derived experimentally from quantum state tomography or
indirectly through the determination and diagonalization of the system
Hamiltonian. The latter approach is in general viable in the case of a few
coupled molecular spin clusters, where a detailed knowledge of the system Hamiltonian can
be achieved by simulating a number of experimental techniques, including
specific heat, torque magnetometry, inelastic neutron scattering, electron
paramagnetic resonance as discussed in a previous paragraph.\\
The demonstration of quantum entanglement, however, can also be directly
derived from experiments, without requiring the knowledge of the system
state. This can be done by using specific operators - the so-called {\it entanglement
witnesses} - whose expectation value is always positive if the state $ \rho $
is factorizable. It is quite remarkable that some of these entanglement
witnesses coincide with well known magnetic observables, such as energy or magnetic susceptibility $ \chi = dM / dB $.
In particular, the magnetic susceptibility of $N$ spins $s$, averaged over three orthogonal spatial directions,
is always larger than a threshold value if their equilibrium state
$ \rho $ is factorizable: $ \sum_\kappa \chi_\kappa > N s / k_B T $ \cite{Wie}.
This should not be surprising, since magnetic susceptibility is proportional to the variance of the magnetization,
and thus it may actually quantify spin-spin correlation.
The advantage in the use of this criterion consists in the fact that it
doesn't require the knowledge of the system Hamiltonian, provided that this
commutes with the Zeeman terms corresponding to the three orthogonal
orientations of the magnetic field $ \beta = x,y,z $.
As already mentioned, in the case of the (Cr$_7$Ni)$_2$ dimer, the effective
Hamiltonian includes, besides the dominant Heisenberg interaction, smaller
anisotropic terms, due to which the above commutation relations are not
fulfilled. This might in principle result in small differences between the
magnetic susceptibility and the entanglement witness
$ \bar{\chi}_{EW} \equiv
\sum_\beta [ \sum_{\alpha , \beta} \langle S_z^\alpha S_z^\beta \rangle -
\langle \sum_\alpha S_z^\alpha \rangle ]$. Such difference is however negligibly
small if $ D_{AB} $ is small compared to $ J_{AB} $ and to the temperature (see Fig. \ref{fig7}).
Magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ was used as entanglement witness in the case of Cr$_7$Ni dimers \cite{ent09}.
In figure \ref{entwit2} the product $\chi$T is plotted vs temperature and compared with the expected threshold.
In fact, in this system the ratio $ J_{AB} / D_{AB} \simeq 4 $ is large enough
to make the difference between the magnetic susceptibility and the entanglement
witness negligible. \\
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig5}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) Concurrence of the ring dimer as a function of
temperature
and of the Zeeman splitting induced by the applied magnetic field. The
values of the physical parameters entering the effective Hamiltonian
$ \mathcal{H}^{AB}_{eff}$ are: $ J_{AB} = 40\, $mK and $ D_{AB} =
10\,$mK.
(b) Difference between concurrence in the presence of anisotropy
and concurrence without anisotropy ($ D_{AB} = 0$). }
\label{entwit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{Fig6}
\end{center}
\caption{Magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ used as entanglement witness in the case of Cr$_7$Ni dimers. Temperature dependence of the measured $\chi$T product (triangles). $ \chi_\perp $ (blue) is
the component perpendicular to the largest surface of the crystal; this direction
forms on average an angle of $16^\circ$ with the $z$-axis, perpendicular to the
rings plane. $ \chi_\parallel$ (green) refers to the directions parallel to the crystal
plane; rotation of magnetic field within this plane does not evidence changes in
the magnetic response.
The average $ ( \chi_\perp + 2 \chi_\parallel ) / 3 $ (black dots) is compared with
the threshold for a mole of dimers, $ N_A \mu_B^2 / 3 k_B $, in order to identify
the temperature range (T$\leq$50mK) where the two rings are entangled \cite{ent09}.}
\label{entwit2}
\end{figure}
An alternative approach to the generation of entangled states is represented by
the application of suitable EPR pulse sequences to an initially unentangled state.
Broadly speaking, this requires the implementation of a conditional dynamics,
where the effect produced by a given pulse sequence of a (target) nanomagnet
$A$ depends non-trivially on the state of a (control) nanomagnet $B$.
In the case where the dimer consists of two identical and equally oriented
molecular spin clusters, limitations arise from the impossibility of individually addressing
$A$ and $B$. In fact, it's easy to verify that an effective Hamiltonian such as
$ \mathcal{H}_{eff} = \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AB} + \sum_{\alpha = A,B} {\bf B} \cdot
\bf{g}_\alpha \cdot {\bf S}_\alpha $, with $ {\bf g}_A = {\bf g}_B = {\rm diag }
(g_\perp , g_\perp , g_\parallel ) $ doesn't allow to generate an entangled state
such as $ | S, 0 \rangle $, starting from a factorized one such as $ | 1 , \pm 1
\rangle $. These limitations can be overcome in the case of an asymmetric system,
where the coupling of the two effective spins $A$ and $B$ with the magnetic field
are different, due either to the different chemical composition of the two
molecular spin clusters or to their different spatial orientation, combined with the
anisotropy of the $g$ tensor ($ g_\parallel \neq g_\perp $). Alternatively, the
asymmetry of the intermolecular coupling can be exploited, such as that between
the green and the purple derivatives of Cr$_7$Ni \cite{Timco}.
Analogous features allow the controlled generation of entangled states in
tripartite systems. The (Cr$_7$Ni)-Cu-(Cr$_7$Ni) molecule, for example,
behaves as a system of three effective 1/2 spins ($ S_A = S_B = S_{Cu} = 1/2 $) \cite{NanoNature}.
Entanglement between three parties can manifest itself in fundamentally different
forms. In fact, two classes of equivalence have been defined, whose prototypical
states are the so-called GHZ and W states, respectively.
The GHZ states, whose expression in
the $ | M_A, M_B, M_C \rangle $ bases reads:
$ | \Psi_{GHZ} \rangle = ( | 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 \rangle + |-1/2,-1/2,-1/2 \rangle ) / \sqrt{2} $,
maximize the genuinely tripartite entanglement, i.e. the one that cannot be
reduced to pairwise correlations.
The expression of the W states reads instead:
$ | \Psi_{W} \rangle = ( | 1/2, 1/2,-1/2 \rangle + | 1/2,-1/2, 1/2 \rangle
+ |-1/2, 1/2, 1/2 \rangle ) / \sqrt{3} $,
and coincides with that of the $ | S, M \rangle = | 3/2 , 1/2 \rangle $.
In order for the controlled generation of both $ | \Psi_{GHZ} \rangle $ and
$ | \Psi_{W} \rangle $ to be possible, by applying suitable pulse sequences to
an initial ferromagnetic state $ | 3/2 , 3/2 \rangle $, the degeneracy between
the two transitions $ | \Delta M | = 1 $ within the $ S = 3/2 $ quadruplet needs
to be broken. This is indeed the case for the (Cr$_7$Ni)-Cu-(Cr$_7$Ni)
system, thanks to the anisotropic terms in the effective Hamiltonian
(see Eq. \ref{effham})
and to the resulting zero-field splittings.
It's finally interesting to note that quantum correlations can also be present
in the equilibrium state of the tripartite system described by the above
effective Hamiltonian $ \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AC} + \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{BC} $, for
suitable values of the parameters $ J_{AC}=J_{BC} $ and $ D_{AC} = D_{BC} $.
If the inter-ring interaction is dominated by the exchange term ($ J_{AC} \gg
D_{AC} $), the anisotropy can be perturbatively included in first order, and
the system eigenstates coincide with the vectors $ | S_{AB}, S, M \rangle $
($ {\bf S}_{AB} = {\bf S}_{A} + {\bf S}_{B} $).
In the case of a ferromagnetic coupling ($ J_{AC} < 0 $), the density matrix
in the low-temperature limit ($ k_B T \ll | J_{AC} | $) is given by a statistical
mixture of the $S=3/2$ eigenstates. If $ D_{AC} < 0 $ \cite{NanoNature},
the three pairs of subsystems are all unentangled.
In the case of an antiferromagnetic coupling between the rings, the ground state
coincides with the state
$ | S_{AB} = 1, S=1/2, M \rangle = (|1/2,-1/2,1/2 \rangle +
|-1/2,1/2,1/2 \rangle -2|1/2,1/2,-1/2 \rangle ) / \sqrt{6} $.
If the tripartite system is cooled down to this state ($ k_BT \ll J_{AC},
g\mu_B B$), each subsystem is entangled with the other two.
In fact, the reduced density matrix of any two subsystems is real and takes the
form:
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_{red}^{\alpha\beta} = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho_{11} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho_{22} & \rho_{23} & 0 \\
0 & \rho_{23} & \rho_{33} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \rho_{44}
\end{array}
\right) ,
\end{displaymath}
where we refer to the basis
$ \{ | 1/2, 1/2\rangle , | 1/2,-1/2\rangle ,
|-1/2, 1/2\rangle , |-1/2,-1/2\rangle \} $
and
$ \alpha, \beta = A, B, C $.
For $ \alpha\beta = AB $, the above matrix elements are:
$\rho_{11}=2/3$, $\rho_{22}=\rho_{33}=\rho_{23}=1/6$, and $\rho_{44}=0$.
The resulting entanglement between the two rings is given by
$ \mathcal{C} (\rho_{red}^{AB}) = 1/6 $.
Each ring is also entangled with the Cu ion. In fact, for $\alpha\beta = AC$,
the matrix elements are:
$\rho_{11}=1/6$, $\rho_{23}=-1/3$, $\rho_{22}=2/3$, $\rho_{22}=1/6$, and
$\rho_{44}=0$.
This results in a finite concurrence, namely
$ \mathcal{C} (\rho_{red}^{AC}) = 2/3 $.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{fig7}
\end{center}
\caption{Difference between the entanglement witness $ \chi_{EW} $ and
the magnetic susceptibility for the ring dimer, derived from the
effective Hamiltonian $ \mathcal{H}_{eff}^{AB} $ in the limit $ B \rightarrow 0 $.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\subsection{conclusions and perspectives.}
A quick look at the list of works cited here below tell us that entanglement in supramolecular systems has just
appeared as possible emerging topic, but the earliest results show great potentialities.
It is clear that advancements in this field may arrive only from the combined effort of chemists,
experimentalists and theoreticians.\\
From synthetic point of view, the list of suitable molecular building blocks and of organic ligands
working as efficient linkers is - if not infinite - certainly very long. We discussed the reasons why
molecular Cr$_7$Ni rings on one side and heteroaromatic ligands on the other side represent a
very good starting point to build weakly interacting molecular complexes. The combination of the
two (i.e. molecule + linker) is just limited by the rules of coordination chemistry, that may well
bring to several interesting cases.\\
Experiments to characterize systems are certainly not routine but quite accessible. The range of molecular
energies indeed spans between 0.01 to 10K that correspond to the energy of one electron in magnetic
field up to 10 Teslas and frequencies ranging from 0.01 to 20 cm$^{-1}$, that is microwaves with
low wavenumbers. Molecular spin clusters also represent an ideal test bed to perform experiments
targeted at directly probing and quantify entanglement in spin systems. Here we have just mentioned
the use of magnetic susceptibility, independently measured along its three components, as entanglement
witness but other quantities, like specific heat or neutron scattering, may well do this job.
In the next future it will be certainly interesting to use pulsed electron spin resonance to address
selectively molecular subensembles. Here the possibility of spectroscopically discern different molecules
will be certainly of interest. Design of specific pulse sequences will lead to implement quantum algorithms.\\
From the theoretical point of view, finite arrays of molecular spins are very appealing to develop models.
Here one may wonder which conditions (forms of spin hamiltonian, values of the spin S$\neq$1/2,
number of spin centers, etc.) maximize/minimize entanglement. As mesoscopic systems, molecular spin
clusters are paradigmatic cases to study crossover between quantum and classical behavior.
In particular it will be very instructive to study the role of decoherence mechanisms in details.
\subsection{acknowledgements}
We are indebted to Dr. Grigore Timco and Prof. Richerd Winpenny (University of Manchester, UK) for sharing and discussing their results with us. Magnetization measurements were taken by microSQUID in collaboration with Dr. Wolfgang Wernsdorfer in Grenoble (F). We thank Dr. Alberto Ghirri and Christian Cervetti (CNR and University of Modena, I) for contributing at low temperature characterization and Dr. S. Carretta, Prof. P. Santini and Prof. G. Amoretti (Univerity of Parma, I) for stimulating discussion.
This work is partially supported by the European projcet FP7-ICT FET Open "MolSpinQIP" project, contract N.211284.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
Scattering of particles by light has been the focus of many investigations since it was predicted by Kapitza and Dirac that a standing wave of light can diffract electrons~\cite{Kap33}. Several decades thereafter it was suggested that neutral atoms can experience much stronger diffraction effects by light fields~\cite{Afb66, Ash70}. Since then, many experimental observations of those effects were reported using optical gratings formed by optical monochromatic standing waves (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Mey01} and references therein). Three major regimes are usually distinguished~\cite{Mey01}~: the Raman-Nath, Bragg, and Stern-Gerlach regimes. In the first two cases, the width of the incident atomic beam is large in comparison with the period of the standing wave pattern. The latter case considers the inverse situation where this width is much smaller than this period. In that case, it is predicted that the light field gradients can produce state-selective deflection of an atomic beam in the plane formed by the standing wave and the atomic beam propagation axes. The first experimental verification of the optical Stern-Gerlach effect was reported by Sleator \textit{et al.}~\cite{Sle92}. There the atoms are considered fast enough so that their motion along their propagation axis can be considered as classical. In contrast the component of velocity along the standing wave axis is treated quantum mechanically and the Stern-Gerlach effect stems from the interplay between that motion, the internal degrees of freedom, and the light field gradients in the optical grating.
In this paper we are interested in considering a regime where the atoms sent through the standing light wave are rather very slow with a kinetic energy lower or of the same order of magnitude as their interaction energy with the light field. In that case the motion of the atoms along their propagation axis must be treated quantum mechanically. For one dimensional problems describing moving atoms in interaction with cavity light fields, it was shown that this regime gives rise to heaps of new phenomena~\cite{Eng91, *Scu96, *Mey97, *Lof97, *Bas03b, *Mar07}. We will focus on the situation where the wavepacket extension in the direction along the stationary light field axis is much smaller than the light wavelength. We consider further that the atoms are sent at an extremum of the standing light wave so as to avoid the Stern-Gerlach effect. This allows us not to consider the longitudinal motion along the standing light wave and to focus on the significant diffraction effects of the atomic beam in the transverse plane that are to be observed owing to the slowness of the incident atoms. The theoretical developments are made in the framework of cavity QED for which the atoms interact with the waist of a quantized field mode of a cavity. Throughout the paper we will be interested in symmetrical cavity mode functions (like the fundamental mode of a Fabry-Perot cavity) for which the powerful method of partial waves and phase shifts in two dimensions can be used. The cavity mode frequency is supposed to be equal to a transition of the incident atoms considered as two-level atoms.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{ModelSection}, the Hamiltonian and wave functions of the system under consideration are presented using the formalism of the two-dimensional scattering theory. We further derive the state-dependent differential and total scattering lengths, that are in a two-dimensional geometry what the scattering cross-sections are in three dimensions. These scattering lengths are then analyzed in Sec.~\ref{TSLSection} in two different regimes defined as a function of the incident atomic kinetic energy compared with the atom-field interaction energy. We finally draw conclusions in Sec.~\ref{SummarySection}.
\section{Model}
\label{ModelSection}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Geometry of the investigated scattering problem. Incident atoms with wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ are sent towards the beam waist of an open cavity and are scattered in the transverse $x-y$ plane. The $x$ axis is defined along the incident beam direction and the $z$ direction is along the cavity axis. In the plane of motion, $r$ and $\theta$ define the polar coordinates of the particles with the origin set at the cavity center.} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
We consider a two-level atom moving along the $x$ direction on the way to a cavity. The atom is coupled resonantly to a single mode of the quantized cavity field. The atomic center-of-mass motion is restricted to the $x-y$ plane (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}). This motion is described quantum mechanically and the usual rotating-wave approximation is made. In the interaction picture, the atom-field Hamiltonian reads
\begin{equation}
\label{Hamiltonian}
H = \frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2M
+ \hbar g \, v(\mathbf{r}) (a^{\dagger} \sigma + a
\sigma^{\dagger}),
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the atomic mass, $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{p}$ are, respectively, the atomic center-of-mass position and momentum in the $x-y$ plane, $\sigma$ is the projection operator $|b\rangle \langle a|$, with $|a\rangle$ [$|b\rangle$] the upper [lower] level of the atomic transition, $a$ and $a^{\dagger}$ are, respectively, the annihilation and creation operators of the cavity radiation field, $g$ is the atom-field coupling strength, and $v(\mathbf{r})$ is the cavity field mode function. Hereafter the global atom-field state is denoted by $|\psi(t)\rangle$ and the cavity field eigenstates by $|n\rangle$.
The incoming atom is described by a plane wave with wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ (monokinetic atom). It is supposed to be initially in the excited state $|a\rangle$ and the cavity field in the Fock state $|n\rangle$. The generalization to other initial states would proceed along the same lines. The initial atom-field wave function reads
\begin{equation}\label{decompdd}
\langle \mathbf{r}|\psi(0)\rangle= e^{ikx}|a,n\rangle = \frac{e^{ikx}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\hspace{0.5pt}|+_n\rangle+|-_n\rangle\right),
\end{equation}
where we have used the usual dressed-state basis vectors
\begin{equation}\label{basis}
|\pm_{n}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|a,n\rangle \pm |b,n+1\rangle\right).
\end{equation}
In that case the wave function components
\begin{equation}
\psi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r},t)=\langle \mathbf{r},\pm_n|\psi(t)\rangle
\end{equation}
read initially $\psi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r},0)=e^{ikx}/\sqrt{2}$ and obey the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqschro2dtime2}
i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r},t)
=\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}\nabla^2+V^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r})\right]\psi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r},t),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
V^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r})= \pm\hbar g\sqrt{n+1}\,v(\mathbf{r}).
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eqschro2dtime2}) expresses that the atom-field interaction reduces to a \emph{two-dimensional} scattering problem where each $\psi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ wave function component is subjected to the potential $V^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r})$.
Setting
\begin{equation}
|\psi(t)\rangle = e^{-iE_kt/\hbar}\,|\varphi\rangle
\end{equation}
with $E_k=\hbar^2k^2/2M$, the time-independent Schr\"{o}dinger equation reads in polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$
\begin{equation}\label{Schropm2dpol}
\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
\theta^2}+k^2\mp\kappa^2_n\:v(r,\theta)\right]\varphi^{\pm_n}(r,\theta)=0,
\end{equation}
with $\varphi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r}) \equiv \langle \mathbf{r}, \pm_n | \varphi \rangle$ and
\begin{equation}
\kappa^2_n=\kappa^2\sqrt{n+1}, \quad \kappa^2 = \frac{2M}{\hbar}\,g.
\end{equation}
Here we will consider mode functions having a cylindrical symmetry, i.e., $v(r,\theta) \equiv v(r)$. In that case the most general solution to Eq.~(\ref{Schropm2dpol}) that is symmetric with respect to the $x$-direction of the incoming particles is given by~\cite{Mor53, *Lap82, *Lap86}
\begin{equation}
\label{solgenpm2dpol}
\varphi^{\pm_n}(r,\theta)=\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}R^{\pm_n}_{m}(r)\cos(m\theta),
\end{equation}
where $R^{\pm_n}_{m}(r)$ is the most general solution to the radial equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqradpm}
\frac{d^2 R^{\pm_n}_{m}}{d r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{d R^{\pm_n}_{m}}{d r}+
\left(k^2\mp\kappa^2_n\:v(r)-\frac{m^2}{r^2}\right)R^{\pm_n}_{m}=0.
\end{equation}
By setting $u^{\pm_n}_m(r)=\sqrt{r}\,R^{\pm_n}_m(r)$, Eq.~(\ref{eqradpm}) turns into
\begin{equation}\label{eqnradm2d}
\frac{d^2u^{\pm_n}_m}{dr^2}+\left(k^2\mp\kappa^2_n\:v(r)-\frac{m^2-1/4}{r^2}\right)u^{\pm_n}_m=0.
\end{equation}
For $m>0$ the term $(m^2-1/4)/r^2$ is a centrifugal barrier that prevents a classical particle of energy $\hbar^2k^2/2M$ and angular momentum $m\hbar$ from coming closer to the origin than the critical distance $r_m$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{relle}
k r_m=\sqrt{m^2-1/4}.
\end{equation}
It is useful to express the stationary wave function components (\ref{solgenpm2dpol}) in a form having the asymptotic behavior
\begin{equation}
\label{asymptbehavior}
\varphi^{\pm_n}(r,\theta) \xrightarrow[r\rightarrow \,\infty]{} e^{i k x} + f^{\pm_n}(\theta) \frac{e^{i k r}}{\sqrt{r}},
\end{equation}
so as to identify the differential scattering lengths~\footnote{Scattering lengths are in a two-dimensional geometry what the scattering cross-sections are in three dimensions~\cite{Mor53}.}
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{\pm_n}(\theta) \equiv |f^{\pm_n}(\theta)|^2.
\end{equation}
For that purpose we divide the transverse plane into two regions separated by a circle of radius $R$ in such a way that the mode function $v(r)$ vanishes entirely for $r > R$. The region inside the circle is called the \emph{inside} of the cavity (region I) and the other one the \emph{outside} (region II). Outside the cavity, the solution
(\ref{solgenpm2dpol}) can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{psiBarrierVpmout}
\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{\pm_n}(r,\theta)={}&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_mi^m\cos(m\theta)J_m(k
r)\\
&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_mB^{\pm_n}_m\cos(m\theta)H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kr),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_m = 2 \,\,\, (m > 0), \quad \epsilon_0 = 1,
\end{equation}
$J_m$ is the Bessel function of the first kind of order $m$, $H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m$ is the
first Hankel function of order $m$~\cite{Abr70}, and $B^{\pm_n}_m$ are coefficients
determined from the continuity conditions of the wave functions and their derivatives at the interface between regions I and II (at $r = R$).
Equation~(\ref{psiBarrierVpmout}) behaves asymptotically as Eq.~(\ref{asymptbehavior})~: the first term on the right-hand side
is just the incoming plane wave $e^{ikx}/\sqrt{2}$ expanded in polar coordinates in terms of Bessel functions, whereas the second term
represents outgoing cylindrical waves.
Owing to the central symmetry of the cavity mode functions considered here, the total scattering lengths
\begin{equation}
\label{lambdapmn}
\lambda^{\pm_n} \equiv \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \lambda^{\pm_n}(\theta) d\theta
\end{equation}
may be written in the form~\cite{Mor53}
\begin{equation}
\label{lambdapmnsum}
\lambda^{\pm_n} = \frac{4}{k} \sum_{m = 0}^{\infty} \epsilon_m \sin^2 \delta_m^{\pm_n},
\end{equation}
where the sine arguments $\delta_m^{\pm_n}$ represent half of the phase shifts induced by the scattering potentials $V^{\pm_n}(r)$ in the presence of the centrifugal barrier between an ingoing and the corresponding outgoing scattered cylindrical waves~\cite{Mor53}. The $B^{\pm_n}_m$ coefficients of Eq.~(\ref{psiBarrierVpmout}) read in terms of these phase shifts
\begin{equation}\label{Bps}
B^{\pm_n}_m=\frac{i^m}{2}\left(e^{2i\delta_m^{\pm_n}}-1\right).
\end{equation}
For many purposes it is interesting to express everything in the $|\mathbf{r},\gamma_n\rangle \equiv$ $\{|\mathbf{r},a,n\rangle, |\mathbf{r},b,n+1\rangle\}$ representation. The wave function components $\varphi^{\gamma_n}(\mathbf{r})$ $\equiv \langle \mathbf{r},\gamma_n|\varphi\rangle$
are simply given by [see Eq.~(\ref{basis})]
\begin{align}
\varphi^{a,n}(r,\theta) & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \varphi^{+_n}(r,\theta) + \varphi^{-_n}(r,\theta)\right), \nonumber \\
\varphi^{b,n+1}(r,\theta) & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \varphi^{+_n}(r,\theta) - \varphi^{-_n}(r,\theta)\right),
\end{align}
and read here, considering Eq.~(\ref{psiBarrierVpmout}),
\begin{align}
\varphi^{a,n}(r,\theta) & = e^{ikr\cos\theta} +
\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_mB^{a,n}_m\cos(m\theta)H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kr), \nonumber \\
\label{compb2d} \varphi^{b,n+1}(r,\theta) & = \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_mB^{b,n+1}_m\cos(m\theta)H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kr),
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
B^{a,n}_m & \equiv \frac{B^{+_n}_m+B^{-_n}_m}{2} = \frac{i^m}{4}\left(e^{2i\delta_m^{+_n}}+e^{2i\delta_m^{-_n}}-2\right), \nonumber \\
\label{Bab} B^{b,n+1}_m & \equiv \frac{B^{+_n}_m-B^{-_n}_m}{2} = \frac{i^m}{4}\left(e^{2i\delta_m^{+_n}}-e^{2i\delta_m^{-_n}}\right).
\end{align}
The wave function components $\varphi^{\gamma_n}(\mathbf{r})$ exhibit the asymptotic behaviors
\begin{align}
\varphi^{a,n}(r,\theta) & \xrightarrow[r\rightarrow \,\infty]{} e^{ikr\cos\theta}+f^{a,n}(\theta)\;\frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{r}}, \nonumber \\
\varphi^{b,n+1}(r,\theta) & \xrightarrow[r\rightarrow \,\infty]{}
f^{b,n+1}(\theta)\;\frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{r}},\label{asymptjb}
\end{align}
with the scattering amplitudes
\begin{equation}\label{ampliadd}
f^{\gamma_n}(\theta)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi k}}\:\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_m\cos(m\theta)e^{-i(m\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{4})}
B^{\gamma_n}_m.
\end{equation}
These asymptotic behaviors highlight the initial state $|a\rangle$ of the incoming atoms since the wave function component $\varphi^{a,n}(r,\theta)$ is the only one to possess an incident plane wave $e^{i k x}$.
We then define the differential scattering lengths
\begin{equation}\label{dsl}
\lambda^{\gamma_n}(\theta)= |f^{\gamma_n}(\theta)|^2,
\end{equation}
as well as the total scattering lengths
\begin{equation}\label{tsl}
\lambda^{\gamma_n}
=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\lambda^{\gamma_n}(\theta)~d\theta,
\end{equation}
along with the \emph{dimensionless} scattering lengths $\tilde{\lambda}^{\gamma_n}(\theta)$ and $\tilde{\lambda}^{\gamma_n}$~:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\lambda}^{\gamma_n}(\theta) \equiv \frac{\lambda^{\gamma_n}(\theta)}{2R}, \quad \tilde{\lambda}^{\gamma_n} \equiv \frac{\lambda^{\gamma_n}}{2R}.
\end{equation}
Using Eqs.~(\ref{Bab}) and (\ref{ampliadd}) the total scattering lengths $\lambda^{\gamma_n}$ can be expressed in terms of the phase shifts $\delta_m^{\pm_n}$. We get
\begin{equation}
\label{lambdagamman}
\lambda^{\gamma_n}=\frac{4}{k}\,\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_m|B^{\gamma_n}_m|^2,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{tslabp}
\begin{aligned}
4|B^{a,n}_m|^2 = &
\sin^2(\delta^{+_n}_m-\delta^{-_n}_m) \\
& \, + 4\cos(\delta^{+_n}_m-\delta^{-_n}_m)\,\sin\delta^{+_n}_m\,\sin\delta^{-_n}_m,\\
4|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2 = & \sin^2(\delta^{+_n}_m-\delta^{-_n}_m).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The differential scattering length $\lambda^{a,n}(\theta)$ [$\lambda^{b,n+1}(\theta)$] represents
the proportionality relation between the incoming flux of excited
atoms and the outgoing flux of these atoms scattered around the angle $\theta$ while remaining in their excited state $|a\rangle$ [while emitting a photon in the cavity and being de-excited in their lower state $|b\rangle$]. In short we will call hereafter $\lambda^{a,n}(\theta)$ [$\lambda^{b,n+1}(\theta)$] the \emph{no-deexcitation [photon-emission] differential scattering length}, and accordingly for the \emph{total scattering lengths} $\lambda^{a,n}$ and $\lambda^{b,n+1}$.
\subsection*{Transverse constant mode}
It is particularly instructive to consider the case of a transverse
constant mode
\begin{equation}\label{mesacyl}
v_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \hspace{10pt} r \leqslant R \vspace{5pt}\\
0 & \hspace{10pt} r > R
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
for which a fully analytical solution exists. Inside the cavity
($r\leqslant R$), the wave function components
$\varphi^{\pm_n}(\mathbf{r})$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{psiBarrierVpm}
\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{+_n}(r,\theta)={}& \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_mA_m^{+_n}\cos(m\theta)\mathcal{I}_m(k^+_nr),\\
\varphi^{-_n}(r,\theta)={}&\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty}\epsilon_mA_m^{-_n}\cos(m\theta)J_m(k^-_n r),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $k^{\pm}_n=\sqrt{|k^2 \mp \kappa_n^2|}$ represent the modified wave number of the atoms inside the cavity in the presence of the constant interacting potentials $\pm \hbar^2 \kappa_n^2/2M$, $A_m^{\pm_n}$ are coefficients determined similarly to the $B_m^{\pm_n}$ coefficients from the continuity conditions of the wave functions at the interface between the inside and the outside of the cavity, and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}_m(k^+_n r) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
J_m(k^+_n r), &\hspace{10pt} k \geqslant \kappa_n,\vspace{8pt}\\
I_m(k^+_n r), &\hspace{10pt} k < \kappa_n,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
with $I_m$ the modified Bessel function of the first kind of
order $m$.
The continuity conditions yield
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
A_m^{+_n}={}&
\displaystyle\frac{-(2/\pi)i^{m+1}\epsilon_m}{k\,\mathcal{I}_m(k^+_n R)
{H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m}'(k R)-k^+_n\mathcal{I}'_m(k^+_n R)H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kR)},
\\
A_m^{-_n}={}&\displaystyle\frac{-(2/\pi)i^{m+1}\epsilon_m}{k\,J_m(k^-_n R)
{H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m}'(kR)-k^-_n J'_m(k^-_n R)H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kR)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{B_m^{+_n}}{A_m^{+_n}} & =\frac{i \pi}{2}\Big[k^+_n\mathcal{I}_m(kR)\mathcal{I}'_{m}(k^+_n R)
-k\,\mathcal{I}_m(k^+_n R)\mathcal{I}'_{m}(kR)\Big],
\\
\frac{B_m^{-_n}}{A_m^{-_n}} & =\frac{i \pi}{2}\Big[k^-_n J_m(kR)J'_{m}(k^-_n R)
-k\,J_m(k^-_n R)J'_{m}(kR)\Big],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the primes denote the derivatives of the functions with respect to their argument.
The phase shifts $\delta_m^{\pm_n}$ immediately follow from the relation [see Eq.~(\ref{Bps})]
\begin{equation}
\tan\delta_m^{\pm_n}=-\frac{iB_m^{\pm_n}}{i^m+B_m^{\pm_n}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Photon-emission and no-deexcitation scattering
lengths}\label{TSLSection}
In this section we investigate the photon-emission and no-deexcitation scattering lengths in the case of a transverse constant mode. We distinguish two regimes determined by the incident kinetic energy of the atom compared with the interaction energy $V^{+_n}$~: the high energy scattering or hot atom regime ($k \gg \kappa_n$) and the low energy scattering or cold atom regime ($k \ll \kappa_n$). In the cold atom regime, numerical results are also presented for a transverse gaussian mode.
\subsection{High energy scattering : hot atom regime}
In the hot atom regime, the phase shifts $\delta_m^{\pm_n}$ and the $B^{\pm_n}_m$ coefficients get negligible when the extension $r_m$ of the centrifugal barrier exceeds the inside region radius $R$ and prevents any ingoing cylindrical wave with wave number $k$ from being scattered by the potentials $V^{\pm_n}(r)$. According to Eq.~(\ref{relle}), this happens for $m \gtrsim m_{\ell}$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{melle}
m_{\ell} = \sqrt{(k R)^2 + 1/4}.
\end{equation}
This number yields the order of magnitude of the number of terms that is required in the sum~(\ref{lambdapmnsum}) for a good evaluation of the scattering lengths. It reads approximately $(k/\kappa) \kappa R$ and is thus significantly greater than the dimensionless \emph{interaction length} $\kappa R$.
Figure~\ref{figlembhot} shows two coefficients $|B^{\gamma_n}_m|^2$ ($m=0$ and $m=200$) as a function of the interaction length $\kappa R$. As expected from the paragraph herein before, the coefficients $|B^{\gamma_n}_m|^2$ almost vanish for $\kappa R < \kappa r_m$. For $\kappa R \gg \kappa r_m$, the coefficients $|B^{\gamma_n}_m|^2$ display oscillations with respect to the interaction length that are well captured by the simple analytical expressions
\begin{equation}\label{rabioc}
4|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2\simeq\sin^2\left(\frac{\kappa_n R}{k/\kappa_n}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{rabitl}
4|B^{a,n}_m|^2\simeq 4\sin^4\left(\frac{\kappa_n R}{2\,k/\kappa_n}\right).
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{rabioc}) is just like the Rabi formula for an atom
of velocity $v = \hbar k/M$ interacting resonantly with a single cavity mode during the time $\tau = 2R/v$. Similarly, Eq.~(\ref{rabitl}) is just like the
transition probability between two states of a three-level atom
coupled through a resonant two-photon transition during the time $\tau$~\cite{Yoo85}. This can be simply understood by noticing that the excited
scattered atoms are those atoms who have emitted a photon into and
subsequently absorbed another photon from the cavity field.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Plots of the $|B^{a,n}_m|^2$ (top) and $|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2$ (bottom) coefficients with respect to
the interaction length $\kappa R$ for a transverse constant mode and
the parameters $k/\kappa_n=10$ and $n=0$. Solid lines correspond to
$m=0$ and dashed lines to $m=200$. The grey shaded area is the
classically forbidden region for $m=200$ and $k/\kappa_n=10$.} \label{figlembhot}
\end{figure}
In the hot atom regime, the photon-emission differential scattering length $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)$
is given to an excellent approximation by (see the Appendix~\ref{AppendixA})
\begin{equation}\label{ledb}
\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)\simeq
\frac{(k/\kappa_n)^2}{4}\left[\frac{1-\sin\left(\frac{2\kappa_n R
\sqrt{(k/\kappa_n)^4\,\theta^2+1}}{k/\kappa_n}\right)}{\left[
(k/\kappa_n)^4\,\theta^2+1\right]^{3/2}}\right],
\end{equation}
with $\theta$ ranging from $-\pi$ to $\pi$. Furthermore, when $\kappa_n R \gg k/\kappa_n$, the dimensionless photon-emission total scattering lengths $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}$ and $\tilde{\lambda}^{a,n}$ are very well approximated by
\begin{equation}\label{letemapprox}
\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}\simeq\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\frac{\pi}{2}J_0\left(\frac{2 \kappa_n
R}{k/\kappa_n}\right)\right]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{letaapprox}
\tilde{\lambda}^{a,n}\simeq\frac{1}{2}\left[3-2\pi J_0\left(\frac{\kappa_n
R}{k/\kappa_n}\right)+\frac{\pi}{2}J_0\left(\frac{2\kappa_n
R}{k/\kappa_n}\right)\right].
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Polar plot of the differential scattering length $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)$
for $\kappa R=100$, $k/\kappa_n=10$ and $n=0$. Full dots correspond
to the approximated analytical formula (\ref{ledb}).
Note the different scales on the $x$ and $y$ axes.} \label{figled}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{figled} shows a typical polar plot of $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)$ in the hot
atom regime. The atoms are only very slightly scattered from the incoming
direction with a spread in angle $\Delta\theta$ scaling like
$(k/\kappa_n)^{-2}$ [see Eq.~(\ref{ledb})]. The same conclusions hold for any other cavity mode functions, in particular the fundamental gaussian mode of a Fabry-Perot cavity (see the Appendix~\ref{AppendixA}). Similar scattering effects with hot atoms passing through a light
grating were experimentally reported in Refs.~\cite{Mos83,Gou86,Jur04}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Total scattering lengths $\tilde{\lambda}^{a,n}$ (top dashed line) and
$\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}$ (bottom solid line) with respect to the interaction length
$\kappa R$ for $k/\kappa_n=10$ and $n=0$. Full [empty] dots correspond
to the approximated analytical formula (\ref{letemapprox}) [(\ref{letaapprox})].}
\label{figlet}
\end{figure}
We compare in Fig.~\ref{figlet} the total scattering lengths $\tilde{\lambda}^{a,n}$ and $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}$ computed
from the exact Eq.~(\ref{tsl}) with those computed from
the approximated analytical formulas (\ref{letemapprox}) and
(\ref{letaapprox}). As can be observed in the figure, already for $\kappa_n R \gtrsim 50$ the agreement between the two
values is excellent.
We can gain some insight into Eq.~(\ref{letemapprox}) (and similarly
Eq.~(\ref{letaapprox})) by calculating the average emission
probability of a flux of excited atoms passing through the light field when considering their motion classically and ignoring any deflection of
their motion during their interaction with the cavity.
In that case, the interaction time $t_{\mathrm{int}}$ depends merely on the impact parameter $b=R\sin\theta$ according to
$t_{\mathrm{int}}=(2R\cos\theta)/v$ with $v$ the atomic velocity $\hbar k / M$. By integrating the Rabi emission probability over
all trajectories, we get
\begin{align}
\overline{\mathcal{P}}_{a\to b}
&{}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\sin^2\left(g\sqrt{n+1}\:
\frac{2R\cos\theta}{v}\right)d\theta\nonumber\\
\label{formmoyen}&{}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\,J_0\left(\frac{2\kappa_n
R}{k/\kappa_n}\right)\right],
\end{align}
since~\cite{Abr70}
\begin{equation}
J_0(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\cos\big(z\cos(\theta)\big)\,d\theta.
\end{equation}
The resulting average emission probability [Eq.~(\ref{formmoyen})] differs from Eq.~(\ref{letemapprox}) only by the value of the coefficient in front of the Bessel function. The difference between these two expressions is the evidence that interference and deflection effects must be taken into account to give the proper result. Remarkably, Eq.~(\ref{formmoyen}) coincide with the photon-emission probability obtained by Saif~\textit{et al.}~\cite{Sai01} in their study of a micromaser operating on the atomic scattering from a resonant standing wave in the Raman-Nath regime. This can be understood by noticing that in that regime, the atomic wavepacket is much larger than the periodicity of the standing wave, hence the atom-field interaction must be averaged over a full period. The same formula also appears in the work of Vaglica~\cite{Vag95} on Jaynes-Cummings model with atomic wavepackets.
\subsection{Low energy scattering : cold atom regime}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Plots of the $|B^{a,n}_m|^2$ (top) and $|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2$ (bottom) coefficients with respect to
the interaction length $\kappa R$ for $k/\kappa_n=0.1$ and $n=0$.
Solid lines correspond to $m=0$ and dashed lines to $m=1$. The grey shaded area is the classical forbidden region for $m = 1$.}
\label{figlemcold}
\end{figure}
In the cold atom regime, the scattering lengths exhibit a completely different behavior. The number $m_l$ of terms that contribute significantly to the scattering lengths in the sum~(\ref{lambdapmn}) is extremely limited.
We first show in Fig.~\ref{figlemcold} two coefficients $|B^{\gamma_n}_m|^2$ ($m = 0$ and $m = 1$) as a function
of the interaction length $\kappa R$. In contrast to the high energy
regime, fine resonances are here observed and those coefficients can differ largely from zero in the classically forbidden region. This is a signature of tunnelling effects of the atoms through the centrifugal barrier. When $\kappa_n R$ is much larger than $\kappa r_m$, the $|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2$ resonances are very well approximated by the simple analytical formulas
\begin{equation}\label{Bbmcoldanalyticeven}
4|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2\simeq\frac{1-\cos \big(2\,\kappa_n R \sqrt{1+(k/\kappa_n)^2}\big)}{1+(k/\kappa_n)^{-2}\sin ^2\big(\kappa_n R \sqrt{1+(k/\kappa_n)^2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\big)},
\end{equation}
for even $m$, and
\begin{equation}\label{Bbmcoldanalyticodd}
4|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2\simeq\frac{1+\cos \big(2\,\kappa_n R \sqrt{1+(k/\kappa_n)^2}\big)}{1+(k/\kappa_n)^{-2}\cos^2\big(\kappa_n R \sqrt{1+(k/\kappa_n)^2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\big)},
\end{equation}
for odd $m$. In both cases the resonance width is determined by the finesse
$(k/\kappa_n)^{-2}$ which increases as the atoms get colder and colder.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{fig6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Effective potential $V^{-_n}_m(r)$ (black solid curve) felt by the radial wave function component $u_m^{-_n}(r)$ (green shaded curve) for $m = 3$, $k/\kappa_n=0.1$, $n=0$, and $\kappa R = 11.5287$. For that cavity size, the atomic kinetic energy matches a quasibound state energy of $V^{-_n}_m(r)$ (straight dashed line) and the stationary radial wave function is mainly located inside the potential well (tunnel effect), maximizing thereby the atom-field interaction and producing a resonance in the profile of $B^{b,n+1}_m$ and the related scattering lengths.}\label{quasibound}
\end{figure}
Very generally the position and width of
the resonances can be easily computed by noting that they are intimately linked to the quasibound states of the
effective potentials felt by the radial wave function components $u_m^{-_n}(r)$, i.e., the potentials
\begin{equation}\label{V}
V^{-_n}_m(r)=V^{-_n}(r)+\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}\frac{m^2-1/4}{r^2}.
\end{equation}
The quasibound states are those states related to unbound potentials containing a local minimum [like $V^{-_n}_m(r)$ for $m > 0$, see Fig.~\ref{quasibound}]. A particle initially confined in the potential well may remain there for an extremely long time, before escaping by tunnel effect to the lower potential region. A very similar situation is encountered in one-dimensional scattering of atoms by cavity fields subjected additionally to the action of gravity~\cite{Bas05a}.
The quasibound states are easily found by looking for the solutions of the stationary Schr\"odinger equation that represent a pure outgoing wave for $r \rightarrow \infty$~\cite{Lan65}. In the case of the transverse constant mode~(\ref{mesacyl}), these solutions are given by \begin{equation}\label{out}
u^{-_n}_m(r)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
A_m\,J_m(k^-_n\,r), & \hspace{5pt} r\leqslant R, \vspace{5pt}\\
B_m\,H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kr), & \hspace{5pt} r>R.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
The continuity conditions of this
wave function and its first derivative at $r=R$ leads to
a system of equations whose secular equation reads
\begin{equation}\label{secular}
k\,J_m(k^-_nR)\,{H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m}'(kR)-k^-_n\,J'_m(k^-_nR)\,H^{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}_m(kR)=0.
\end{equation}
The complex solutions of Eq.~(\ref{secular}) put in the form
\begin{equation}
\kappa R_0-i\,\Gamma/2
\end{equation}
determine both the peak positions $\kappa R_0$ and
widths $\Gamma$ of the resonances of the $B^{-_n}_m$ coefficients, and thereby of the $B^{a,n}_m$ and $B^{b,n+1}_m$ coefficients.
Figure~\ref{figletcold} shows the dimensionless photon-emission total scattering length $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}$ as a function of the interaction length
$\kappa R$. As $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}$ is the weighted sum of all $|B^{b,n+1}_m|^2$ coefficients [see Eq.~(\ref{lambdagamman})], all resonances of these coefficients add up and generate the ensemble of resonances that are observed in Fig.~\ref{figletcold}. This allows us to label these resonances by the integers $m$ of the $B^{b,n+1}_m$ coefficients they originate.
The $m = 0$ resonances are the only ones not to be linked to quasibound states since $V_0^{-_n}(r)$ is strictly attractive and does not contain any local minimum. They are the signature of a low energy scattering process upon a purely attractive potential and this explains why they are significantly broader.
When the resonances do not overlap, the differential scattering length $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)$ identifies to the squared absolute value of a single term of Eq.~(\ref{ampliadd}) and we have in excellent approximation
\begin{equation}\label{ledbcold}
\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta) \propto \frac{\cos^2(m\theta)}{kR}.
\end{equation}
We display accordingly in Fig.~\ref{figledcold} the scattering patterns $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)$ for four different interaction lengths corresponding to four resonances
of Fig.~\ref{figletcold}. In contrast to the high energy scattering
regime, cold atoms can be backscattered with a high probability.
Also by varying the interaction length $\kappa R$, the scattering
pattern can be tuned from a resonance pattern to another.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig7.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Dimensionless photon-emission total scattering length $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}$ with respect to the interaction length
$\kappa R$ for $k/\kappa_n=0.1$ and $n=0$. Each resonance is labelled
by the integer $m$ of the $B^{b,n+1}_m$ coefficient it stems from.} \label{figletcold}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig8.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Dimensionless photon-emission differential scattering length $\tilde{\lambda}^{b,n+1}(\theta)$ for $k/\kappa_n=0.1$, $n=0$ and four of the
five first resonances observed in Fig.~\ref{figletcold} : $\kappa R=0.72890$
($m=0$), $\kappa R=2.35741$ ($m=1$), $\kappa R=3.79243$ ($m=2$), and
$\kappa R=5.09697$ ($m=3$).} \label{figledcold}
\end{figure}
Finally we consider the case of a gaussian mode of standard deviation $\sigma$ [$v_{\mathrm{gauss}}(r)=\exp(-r^2/2 \sigma^2)$]. We show in Fig.~\ref{figletcoldgauss} a plot of the photon-emission total scattering length $\lambda^{b,n+1}/2\sigma$ with respect to the \emph{gaussian mode interaction length} $\kappa \sigma$. The results are qualitatively the same as those obtained for the transverse constant mode. This is not surprising since the underlying physical mechanisms are identical~: the attractive part of the gaussian potentials formed by the light field in combination with the centrifugal barriers exhibits quasibound states giving rise to resonances in the scattering length. Compared with the transverse constant mode, the resonances are here broader and overlap more significantly.
For well chosen interaction lengths, the differential scattering length displays similar patterns as those of Fig.~\ref{figledcold}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fig9.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Dimensionless photon-emission total scattering length $\lambda^{b,n+1}/2\sigma$ with respect to the interaction length $\kappa \sigma$ for a gaussian mode and for $k/\kappa_n=0.1$ and $n=0$.}
\label{figletcoldgauss}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{SummarySection}
In this paper, we have presented the quantum theory of the cold atom scattering by cavity fields in a two-dimensional geometry in a distinct regime from the usual Raman-Nath, Bragg and Stern-Gerlach regimes. General expressions for the photon-emission and no-deexcitation scattering lengths have been derived. The connection with the classical Rabi limit in the hot atom regime has been provided and approximated analytical results have been given following a semiclassical approach. In the cold atom regime, we have highlighted the very peculiar properties of the scattering process and their interpretation in terms of quasibound states of the atomic motion induced by the attractive potential of the cavity light field in combination with the centrifugal barriers. Realistic gaussian mode functions have been finally discussed.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work has been supported by the Belgian
Institut Interuniversitaire des Sciences Nucl\'eaires (IISN). J.M.\
thanks the Belgian F.R.S.-FNRS for financial support. T.B. thanks E.\ Solano and N. Zagury for fruitful discussions and hospitality at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ is one of the fundamental
parameters in the Standard Model.
Its precise determination from various sources provides a crucial test
of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).
Experimentally, it is obtained through high energy particle
scatterings involving quarks, such as
$e^+e^-\to \mbox{hadrons}$ (see \cite{Bethke:2009, Amsler:2008zzb} for a summary),
for which perturbative calculation of QCD is possible.
Among other measurements, the hadronic decay rate of tau lepton
\cite{Davier:2005xq} provides one of the most precise determinations of $\alpha_s$.
The tau-lepton hadronic decay rate is written in terms of a vacuum
polarization function (VPF) of weak currents.
Since the perturbative QCD calculation cannot be directly applied
for physical time-like momentum transfer (or the virtual $W$ boson mass)
$q^2$, one considers a total decay rate that involves an integral over $q^2$.
The decay rate is then calculated using three-loop perturbative
expansion and the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) to parametrize
corrections at low energies.
The final error in $\alpha_s$ contains those from the
perturbative expansion and uncertainties of condensates appearing in
OPE, both of which are non-negligible because the relevant energy
scale is of order of 1~GeV, {\it i.e.} lower than the tau lepton mass
$m_\tau$.
There is also an assumption of the quark-hadron duality, which is not
trivially satisfied.
Theoretically, the perturbative calculation and the extraction of
$\alpha_s$ become more transparent if the {\it experimental} data for
VPF are available at space-like momenta.
Although there is no such direct measurement, lattice QCD is able to
provide a non-perturbative {\it calculation} of VPF at space-like momenta.
Since the calculation is based on the first-principles of QCD, for
which the input parameters are low-lying hadron spectrum, it gives
another method to extract $\alpha_s$.
Using lattice QCD, one can calculate VPF of vector ($V$) and
axial-vector ($A$) channels from two-point functions of
those currents.
After a Fourier transformation in four space-time dimensions, VPF can
be obtained as a function of space-like momentum squared $Q^2$ ranging
from zero to the order of lattice cutoff squared.
Our recent lattice study with two flavors of dynamical overlap
fermions demonstrated that such data can indeed be used to extract
$\alpha_s$ combining with a perturbative calculation in the continuum
scheme \cite{Shintani:2008ga}.
The result is consistent with other lattice calculations in
two-flavor QCD \cite{DellaMorte:2004bc,Gockeler:2005rv}.
One of the main advantages of our method is that the calculation can
be done on existing gauge configurations produced for light-hadron
spectrum \cite{Aoki:2008tq}.
Furthermore, unlike other methods previously applied, there is no need
of multi-loop perturbative calculation on the lattice, which is so
complicated that one typically has to develop automated tool dedicated
for a given lattice action.
Finite volume effect is negligible for VPF at relatively large $Q^2$,
and discretization effect is carefully studied and is shown to be
under control.
The method therefore provides a reliable and economical way to extract
the most important parameter of QCD, {\it i.e.} $\alpha_s$.
A similar idea has also been applied for the charmonium two-point function
to determine $\alpha_s$ as well as charm quark mass \cite{Allison:2008xk}.
In this work, we extend our previous study to the case of realistic
three-flavor QCD with dynamical light and strange quarks.
We also improve the calculation by employing the conserved current for
the overlap fermion \cite{Kikukawa:1998py}, which simplifies the
possible form of the two-point function as it satisfies the
Ward-Takahashi (WT) identity on the lattice.
The extraction of VPF is thus made more straightforward.
The determination of the strong coupling constant uses the continuum
perturbative QCD formula up to four loops and OPE up to $1/Q^4$ terms.
The value of the quark condensate is calculated independently and used
as an input in this work.
The result is translated to the common definition, {\it i.e.}
$\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$, the strong coupling constant of five-flavor
QCD in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme at the $Z$ boson mass scale.
Numerical simulations of lattice QCD are carried out with 2+1-flavors
of dynamical fermions described by the overlap fermion formulation
\cite{Neuberger:1997fp,Neuberger:1998wv}.
We have data at a single lattice spacing with the inverse lattice
spacing $a^{-1}$ = 1.83(1)~GeV estimated using the static quark potential
with an input for the Sommer scale $r_0$ = 0.49~fm
(the associated error for this is discussed later).
The lattice volume is $16^3\times 48$, which leads to the physical
volume about (1.8~fm)$^3\times$(5.4~fm).
The gauge configurations are generated in the course of the dynamical
overlap fermion simulations by the JLQCD and TWQCD collaborations
\cite{Hashimoto:2008fc}.
The set of up and down quark masses $m_{ud}$ covers the range of
(0.2--0.8)$m_s^{\mathrm{phys}}$ and the set of the strange quark mass $m_s$
covers the range of (1.0--1.3)$m_s^{\mathrm{phys}}$ with
$m_s^{\mathrm{phys}}$ the physical strange quark mass.
The valence quark mass in the calculation of VPF is set equal to the
up and down sea quark mass.
For each combination of $m_{ud}$ and $m_s$, we use 260 configurations,
each of which is separated by 100 HMC trajectories.
Global topological charge of the gauge configurations is fixed to zero,
which may induce small finite size effect for long distance physical
quantities \cite{Aoki:2007ka}.
We expect that this gives negligible effects on the short distance
physics considered in this work.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:lattice}, we describe the details of the lattice
calculation of VPF, including the definition of the overlap fermion
used in this work and a construction of the conserved current for the
overlap fermion.
Section~\ref{sec:fit} discusses the fit of VPF to the perturbative
formula.
The possible systematic errors are discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:error}, followed by our final results.
Our conclusions are given in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Lattice calculation of vacuum polarization functions}
\label{sec:lattice}
In the continuum theory,
transverse ($\Pi_J^{(1)}(Q)$) and longitudinal
($\Pi_J^{(0)}(Q)$) parts of VPF are defined through two-point
functions $\langle J^a_\mu(x) J^b_\nu(0)\rangle$ of either
vector ($J_\mu=V_\mu$) or axial-vector ($J_\mu=A_\mu$) currents
with $a$, $b$ the flavor indices.
Namely, after a Fourier transformation to the momentum space, the
two-point functions are parametrized as
\begin{equation}
\langle J^a_\mu J^b_\nu\rangle(Q) = \delta^{ab}
\left[
(\delta_{\mu\nu}Q^2-Q_\mu Q_\nu)\Pi_J^{(1)}(Q)
- Q_\mu Q_\nu \Pi_J^{(0)}(Q)
\right],
\end{equation}
where the momentum $Q_\mu$ is space-like as we work on an Euclidean
space-time lattice.
Because of the WT identities, the longitudinal part of the
vector channel vanishes, $\Pi_V^{(0)}(Q)=0$,
while the axial-vector channel is proportional to the quark mass.
On the lattice, we employ the overlap fermion formulation
\cite{Neuberger:1997fp,Neuberger:1998wv}, whose action
$S_{\rm ov}=\sum_{x,y}\bar q(x)D_{\rm ov}(x,y)q(y)$
is specified by the massive overlap-Dirac operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:overlap}
D_{\rm ov}(x,y) = \left(m_0+\frac{m}{2}\right) +
\left(m_0-\frac{m}{2}\right) \gamma_5 \mathrm{sgn}[H_W(x,y;-m_0)]
\end{equation}
for a quark mass $m$.
Here, $m_0$ is a parameter to define the overlap kernel
$H_W(x,y;-m_0)=\gamma_5 (D_W(x,y)-m_0)$ with $D_W(x,y)$ the
conventional Wilson-Dirac operator.
In this study we take $m_0=1.6$.
(Here and in the following we set $a=1$, unless otherwise stated.)
The overlap action has an exact symmetry under a chiral rotation
defined with the modified chirality operator
$\hat\gamma_5(x,y)\equiv\gamma_5(\delta_{x,y}-D_{\rm ov}(x,y)/{m_0})$,
so that the continuum-like axial WT identities are hold on the lattice
at finite lattice spacings.
The conserved vector current for this action has a complicated form,
which can be written in a general form
$V^{0,\rm cv}_\mu(x) = \sum_{w,z}\bar q(w)K_\mu(w,z|x)q(z)$
with a non-local kernel $K_\mu(w,z|x)$.
$K_\mu(w,z|x)$ is determined such that it forms a Noether current
under a local vector transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta S_{\rm ov} &=& \sum_{x,y}\bar q(x) \left[
-\alpha(x)D_{\rm ov}(x,y)+D_{\rm ov}(x,y)\alpha(y)
\right] q(y)
\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{x,y,z} \bar q(x)\alpha(z)\partial^{z\,*}_\mu K_\mu(x,y|z)q(y)
\end{eqnarray}
with $\alpha(x)$ a local parameter \cite{Kikukawa:1998py}.
The derivative $\partial_\mu^{x\,*}$ denotes
a backward derivative operator
$\partial_\mu^{x\,*} V_\mu(x) \equiv V_\mu(x)-V_\mu(x-a\hat\mu)$
on the lattice.
Similarly, for flavor non-singlet transformations, we can derive
flavor non-singlet conserved vector and axial-vector currents as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_\mu^{a,\rm cv}(x) &=& \sum_{w,z}\bar q(w) t^a K_\mu(w,z|x)q(z),\\
A_\mu^{a,\rm cv}(x) &=& \sum_{w,z}\bar q(w) t^a K_\mu(w,z|x)[\hat\gamma_5 q](z),
\end{eqnarray}
where $t^a$ denotes the generator of $SU(N_f)$ normalized as
${\rm Tr}\,t^at^b=\delta^{ab}/2$.
For flavor SU(2), $t^a=\tau^a/2$ with $\tau^2$ the Pauli matrix.
In the following, we consider the flavor non-singlet currents.
In practical implementation for numerical calculations, we approximate
the sign function in (\ref{eq:overlap})
by a rational function with Zolotarev's optimized coefficients.
In our setup, the sign function is approximated to the level of
$10^{-(7-8)}$ with the number of pole $N\simeq$ 10.
(For details, see \cite{Aoki:2008tq} for instance.)
Accordingly, the kernel $K_\mu(w,z|x)$ is constructed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:kernel}
K_\mu(w,z|x) &=& m_0\left(1-\frac{m}{2m_0}\right)\gamma_5
\left[
\frac{d_0}{\lambda_{\rm min}}W_\mu(h_W^2+c_{2n})
\sum_{l=1}^N \frac{b_l}{h_W^2+c_{2l-1}}
\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&
\left.
\frac{d_0}{\lambda_{\rm min}}h_W
\sum_{l=1}^N (c_{2l-1}-c_{2n})\frac{b_l}{h_W^2+c_{2l-1}}
(W_\mu h_W+h_W W_\mu)\frac{1}{h_W^2+c_{2l-1}}
\right],
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
W_\mu(z,w|x) &=& -\frac{1}{2}\gamma_5
\left\{
(1-\gamma_\mu)U_\mu(z)\delta_{x+\hat\mu,w}\delta_{x,z}
-
(1+\gamma_\mu)U^\dag_\mu(z-\hat\mu)\delta_{x,w}\delta_{z-\hat\mu,x}
\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
and
$h_W(w,z)=H_W(w,z;-m_0)/\lambda_{\rm min}$, where $\lambda_{\rm min}$ is a
lower limit of the eigenvalue of $|H_W|$ to be approximated by the
rational function.
(In (\ref{eq:kernel}) the site indices of $W_\mu$ and $h_W$ are
omitted, but they are multiplied as matrices.)
The Zolotarev's coefficients $b_l$, $c_l$, $d_0$ are given in
\cite{Aoki:2008tq}.
In this study, we consider the two-point functions of
flavor non-singlet conserved and local currents
$\langle J_\mu^{a,\rm cv}(x) J_\nu^{b,\rm loc}(0)\rangle$, where
$J_\mu^{a,\rm loc}(x)$ is either
$V_\mu^{a,\rm loc}(x)=Z\bar q(x) t^a \gamma_\mu q(x)$ or
$A_\mu^{a,\rm loc}(x)=Z\bar q(x) t^a \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q(x)$.
The renormalization constant $Z$ needed for the local currents to match
their continuum counterpart is non-perturbatively determined as
$Z=1.39360(48)$ \cite{Noaki:2009xi}.
The lattice calculation of
$\langle J_\mu^{a,\rm cv}(x) J_\nu^{b,\rm loc}(y)\rangle$
is standard except for the complicated form of $J_\mu^{a,\rm cv}(x)$.
Namely, we calculate the quark propagator originating from a
fixed space-time point $y=0$ and construct the two-point function with
the conserved current $J_\mu^{a,\rm cv}(x)$ located at arbitrary space-time
point $x$.
We then apply the Fourier transform in all four dimensions to obtain
the two-point function in the momentum space.
Because of the current conservation of $J_\mu^{a,\rm cv}$, we may derive
the WT identities for the two-point functions
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum_\mu \hat Q_\mu\langle V_\mu^{a,\rm cv} V_\nu^{b,\rm loc}\rangle(Q) = 0, \label{eq:VWT}\\
&&\sum_\mu \hat Q_\mu\langle A_\mu^{a,\rm cv} A_\nu^{b,\rm loc}\rangle(Q)
- 2m_q\langle P^a A_\nu^{b,\rm loc}\rangle(Q)
= 0,
\label{eq:AWT}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a\hat Q_\mu = \sin(aQ_\mu)$ are a momentum definition
corresponding to the backward derivative operator $\partial_\mu^{x\,*}$.
We use a convention that the two-point function after the
Fourier transformation, such as
$\langle J^a_\mu J^b_\nu\rangle(Q)$,
is a function of $aQ_\mu=2\pi n_\mu/L_\mu$
with $L_{\mu=1\sim 4}$ the extent of the lattice in the $\mu$-th direction.
The second term in (\ref{eq:AWT}) represents the correlation function
of the pseudo-scalar density operator
$P^a(x)=\bar q(x)t^a\gamma_5(1-D_{\rm ov}/m_0)q(x)$ and the local axial-vector
current $A_\nu^{b,\rm loc}(y)$.
A possible term arising from the axial transformation of
$J_\nu^{b,\rm loc}(y)$ ($J=V$ or $A$)
vanishes when we take the vacuum expectation value,
since the vacuum has axis-interchange symmetry while the index $\nu$
remains in $J_\nu^{b,\rm loc}(y)$.
The vector and axial-vector VPFs are now given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle J^{a,\rm cv}_\mu J^{b,\rm loc}_\nu\rangle(Q) &=&
\delta^{ab} \left[
(\delta_{\mu\nu}\hat Q^2-\hat Q_\mu \hat Q_\nu)\Pi_J^{(1)}(Q)
- \hat Q_\mu \hat Q_\nu \Pi_J^{(0)}(Q) + \Delta^J_{\mu\nu}(Q)
\right].
\label{eq:JcvJloc}
\label{eq:JJlat}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\Pi_V^{(0)}(Q)$ vanishes because of the conservation of
$V_\mu^{a,\rm cv}$, while
$\Pi_A^{(0)}(Q)$ represents a remnant due to PCAC:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pi0}
\Pi_A^{(0)}(Q) =
-2m_q\langle P^a A_\nu^{a,\rm loc}\rangle(Q)/(\hat Q^2 \hat Q_\nu).
\end{equation}
(Repeated indices $a$'s are not summed.)
The transverse part $\Pi_J^{(1)}(Q)$ can be extracted as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pi1}
\Pi_J^{(1)}(Q) = \langle J^{a,\rm cv}_\mu J^{a,\rm loc}_\mu\rangle(Q)
/ (\hat Q^2-\hat Q_\mu\hat Q_\mu),
\end{equation}
(repeated indices $\mu$'s are not summed)
if one ignores the additional term $\Delta_{\mu\nu}^J(Q)$, which
reflects the violation of the current conservation of the local
current $J_\nu^{a,\rm loc}$.
Since the current conservation is recovered in the continuum limit,
this term can be expanded in terms of small $aQ_\mu$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_{\mu\nu}^J(Q) &=& \sum_{m,n=1}\Big(\delta_{\mu\nu}\sum_\rho
\hat Q_\rho^{2m} - \hat Q_\mu^{2(m-1)}\hat Q_\mu \hat Q_\nu\Big)Q_\nu^{2n}
F_{mn}(\hat Q).
\label{eq:delta}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{mn}$ denotes the scalar function depends on the index $m,n$ and momentum $Q$.
It satisfies the condition
$\sum_\mu \hat Q_\mu\Delta_{\mu\nu}^J(Q)=0$ coming from
the WT identity for $J_\mu^{a,\rm cv}$.
In this work, we confirmed that this term is numerically negligible in the
range $(aQ)^2<1$, and ignore its contribution as we discuss later.
\section{Fit with the perturbative formula}
\label{sec:fit}
Defining $\Pi_J(Q)=\Pi_J^{(0)}(Q)+\Pi_J^{(1)}(Q)$,
the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) of VPF,
$\Pi_{V+A}(Q)=\Pi_V(Q)+\Pi_A(Q)$,
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{V+A}|_{\rm OPE}(Q^2,\alpha_s) &=& c + C_0(Q^2,\mu^2,\alpha_s)\nonumber\\
&+& C_m^{V+A}(Q^2,\mu^2,\alpha_s)\frac{\bar{m}^2(Q)}{Q^2}\nonumber\\
&+& \sum_{q=u,d,s} C^{V+A}_{\bar qq}(Q^2,\alpha_s)\frac{\langle m_q\bar q q\rangle}{Q^4}\nonumber\\
&+& C_{GG}(Q^2,\alpha_s)\frac{\langle(\alpha_s/\pi) GG\rangle}{Q^4}
+ \mathcal O(Q^{-6})
\label{eq:pi_J_OPE}
\end{eqnarray}
for large $Q^2$.
The perturbative expansion of the coefficients $C_X^{(V+A)}$
($X=0$, $\bar qq$ and $GG$) is known up to two- to four-loop order
in the continuum renormalization scheme, {\it i.e.} the
$\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme, depending on the terms.
The first term $c$ in (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}) is a scheme-dependent
constant, divergent in the limit of infinite ultraviolet cutoff.
For the Adler function $D(Q^2)=-Q^2 d\Pi(Q^2)/dQ^2$, which
is a physical observable, the first term disappears and the contributions
from other terms remain finite.
The coefficients in the second and third terms are perturbatively
calculated to four-loop order in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme
\cite{Surguladze:1990tg,Gorishnii:1990vf,Chetyrkin:1996};
the expression explicitly contains $\alpha_s^{(3)}(Q)$ defined in the
$\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme.
(The superscript (3) stands for the number of flavors.)
The third term contains the running mass $\bar{m}(Q)$ whose
anomalous dimension is known to three-loop order
\cite{Chetyrkin:1985kn,Chetyrkin:1993}.
The fourth and fifth terms represent higher order effects in OPE
containing dimension-four operators.
Their Wilson coefficients are calculated at three-loop order
\cite{Chetyrkin:1985kn}.
In addition to the terms represented by the continuum OPE
(\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}),
there are discretization effects of $\mathcal O(a^2Q^2)$ at finite
lattice spacings.
These can be eliminated by an extrapolation to the continuum limit, in
principle.
In our calculation obtained at a single lattice spacing, however,
the error has to be carefully investigated.
We use a lattice perturbation theory to estimate the discretization
effects at large $a^2 Q^2$ regime as described below.
We also note that the exact symmetries of the overlap fermion partly
eliminate unphysical terms of $\mathcal O(a^2Q^2)$ that
violate the WT identities \cite{Shintani:2008ga}.
We therefore use (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}) without including correction
terms describing the discretization effects when we fit the lattice data
of VPF extracted through (\ref{eq:Pi0}) and (\ref{eq:Pi1}).
In our previous study in two-flavor QCD \cite{Shintani:2008ga}, we had
to use more complicated method to extract the physical VPFs, because
of non-conserved (axial-)vector currents.
We now discuss a fit of the lattice VPF data to the OPE formula.
In this analysis the renormalization scale is set to $\mu=2$~GeV when
necessary, though the final result should not depend on $\mu$ up to
higher order perturbative corrections.
The gluon condensate $\langle(\alpha_s/\pi)GG\rangle$ is defined only
through the perturbative expression like (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}) because
of the renormalon ambiguity \cite{Martinelli:1996pk},
hence we treat
$\langle(\alpha_s/\pi)GG\rangle$ as a free parameter to describe
associated $1/Q^4$ corrections.
On the other hand, the quark condensate $\langle \bar{q}q\rangle$ is
well-defined in the massless limit, as there is no mixing with
lower dimensional operators because of the exact chiral symmetry of
overlap fermion.
Thus, the quark mass dependence of
$\Pi_{V+A}|_{\rm OPE}(Q^2,\alpha_s)$, which comes from the third and
fourth terms in (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}), is given only as a function
of $\alpha_s$, once the quark condensate is determined elsewhere.
The running quark mass $\bar{m}(Q)$ is set to the value
corresponding to the quark mass used in the lattice calculation.
First, we obtain the value at 2~GeV using the non-perturbatively
calculated $Z$-factor as
$\bar{m}(2\mathrm{~GeV})= Z_m({\rm 2\,GeV})m_q$
with $Z_m({\rm 2\,GeV})$ = 0.806(12)(24)($^{+\ 0}_{-11}$)
\cite{Noaki:2008iy}.
Then, it is evolved to $Q^2$ using a three-loop running formula
\cite{Chetyrkin:1985kn,Chetyrkin:1993}.
For the quark condensate of up and down quarks, we use the value
obtained in the recent analysis of the spectral density
\cite{Fukaya:2009fh},
{\it i.e.}
$\langle\bar qq\rangle$ = $-$[0.242(04)($^{+19}_{-18}$) GeV]$^3$,
which is defined in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme at 2 GeV.
The strange quark condensate $\langle\bar ss\rangle$ appears only as a
contribution from sea quark and the associated coefficient
$C_{\bar{s}s}^{V+A}(Q^2,\alpha_s)$ starts from $O(\alpha_s)$.
For the value of $\langle\bar ss\rangle$, we use the same value as the
one of up and down quarks.
In the fit of VPF using (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}), there are three unknown
parameters, $\alpha_s$, $c$ and $\langle(\alpha_s/\pi)GG\rangle$.
The QCD scale $\Lambda^{(3)}_{\overline{MS}}$ controls the running
coupling constant $\alpha_s^{(3)}(Q)$, which is evaluated using the
four-loop formula \cite{van Ritbergen:1997va,Czakon:2004bu}.
\begin{figure}[p]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{PiV+A_high.ms0.08.eps}
\vskip 5mm
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{PiV+A_high.ms0.10.eps}
\caption{
$(aQ)^2$ dependence of VPF, $\Pi_{V+A}(Q)$, at all valence quark
masses:
$m_q=0.015$ (circle), $0.025$ (square), $0.035$ (diamond), and
$0.050$ (triangle).
Top half is a result at $m_s=0.08$ while the bottom is at $m_s=0.10$.
Solid curves show a fit function at each quark masses.
Filled symbols are the points for which each momentum component is
equal to or smaller than $2\pi/16$ in the lattice unit.
}
\label{fig:PiV+A}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{diffpdef_PiV+A_mq0.015.eps}
\caption{
Comparison of $\Pi_{V+A}(Q)$ with different momentum
definitions.
Lattice data at $m_q=0.015$.
}
\label{fig:diff_pdef}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:PiV+A} shows a $(aQ)^2$ dependence of $\Pi_{V+A}(Q)$
in a window $0.4\le (aQ)^2\le 1.0$.
Fit curves shown in this plot are those of (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}) with
the value of parameters extracted from the fit in the range
$0.463\le (aQ)^2\le 0.994$.
The upper limit of the range is chosen to avoid significant lattice
artifact, which is estimated by a difference of the lattice momentum
$aQ_\mu$ from the other definition $a\hat Q_\mu$.
In fact, the result is unchanged within $1\sigma$ level when we use
these different definitions of the momentum as
Figure~\ref{fig:diff_pdef} shows, as far as $(aQ)^2$ is lower than 1.0.
Beyond this value we observe significant deviations between the
different definitions.
We also impose a constraint $aQ_\mu < \pi/4$ for each momentum
component to avoid large lattice artifacts.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=110mm]{fitdep_sim.eps}
\caption{
Dependence of the fit parameters on the lower limit of the fit range.
The maximum value is fixed at $(aQ)^2\simeq 0.994$.
Open and filled symbols show the results with and without the
$1/Q^4$ terms in (\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}).
(Thus, there is no filled symbol in the middle plot.)
}
\label{fig:fitdep}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to determine the lower limit, we investigate the stability of
the fit results.
Figure~\ref{fig:fitdep} shows the dependence of fit parameters on the
value of the lower limit $(aQ)^2_{\rm min}$.
We observe that around $(aQ)^2_{\rm min}=$ 0.4--0.5 all the parameters
are stable.
It is interesting to see where the $1/Q^4$ term becomes significant.
In Figure~\ref{fig:fitdep}, the fit results without the $1/Q^4$ terms
are also shown by filled symbols.
It turned out that the value of
$\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(3)}$
is consistent with the $1/Q^4$ fits when $(aQ)^2_{\rm min}$ is greater
than 0.5, which means that the $1/Q^4$ terms become relevant below
this value.
In fact, if we extend this fit including the data points slightly below
$(aQ)^2=0.5$, the value of $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}^{(3)}$
becomes significantly lower;
the $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ of the fit becomes too large ($\sim$ 3.0),
which suggests that the fit is no longer valid.
Strictly speaking, $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ does not have a statistical
meaning as the correlation among the data at difference $Q^2$ is
ignored in the fit used here.
We discuss on the statistical correlations among the data points
in the next section.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=110mm]{diffPiV+A_fit_allqm.eps}
\caption{
Difference between the lattice data and the fit function
(\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}).
Dashed line shows a guiding line representing the $1/Q^6$
behavior.
}
\label{fig:diffPiV+A}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The limitation of the OPE formula including up to $1/Q^4$ terms can be
investigated by looking at its departure from the lattice data at
lower values of $Q^2$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:diffPiV+A} we plot the difference of the lattice
data from the fit curve including the $1/Q^4$ terms.
The $Q^2$ region in this plot is extended towards the value below
$(aQ)^2_{\rm min}$.
From this plot, we observe that the next order $1/Q^6$ contribution
becomes significant below $(aQ)^2\simeq$ 0.4.
We therefore set $(aQ)^2_{\rm min}= 0.463$ in our analysis including
the $1/Q^4$ terms.
After doing a simultaneous fit of the VPF data at all sea quark
masses, the QCD parameter is obtained as
$\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(3)}$ = 0.247(5)~GeV.
By matching onto four- and then to five-flavor QCD at charm and bottom
quark masses respectively,
the strong coupling constant is obtained
as $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181(3)$
at the $Z$ boson mass scale.
Here, the error is statistical only.
Various sources of the systematic error are discussed in the next
section.
\section{Systematic errors and final result}
\label{sec:error}
\subsection{Uncorrelated fit}
First of all, our fit procedure of VPF may induce systematic error
due to the use of uncorrelated fit.
Namely, in the fit described above, we did not take the correlation
among different $Q^2$ points into account and estimated the
statistical error for the fit parameters using the jackknife method.
In order to estimate the associated error, we calculated the
statistical correlation of different $Q^2$ points and found it very
strong (50--100\%).
If we construct $\chi^2$ taking account of the correlation, the value
of $\chi^2$/dof is of order 100.
This unacceptably large value occurs because the fit function
(\ref{eq:pi_J_OPE}) does not contain the discretization effects that
violate Lorentz symmetry.
Indeed, if we restrict the data points for those that each momentum
component is equal to or smaller than $2\pi/16$,
the $\chi^2$/dof is reduced to 1.7, without changing the central
values of the fit parameters.
The restricted data points are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:PiV+A} by
filled symbols.
In the main analysis we use all the data points that satisfy the
condition $aQ_\mu < 4\pi/16$ in order to use as much information from
the lattice data as possible with the uncorrelated fit.
In particular, we can take a wider range of $Q^2$ with this choice,
that improves the stability of the fit.
In other words, with the limited data points ($Q_\mu\le 2\pi/16$) the
$\chi^2$ fit is sometimes trapped in a local minimum depending on the
initial values for the fit parameters.
We therefore decided to use the uncorrelated fit for the enlarged data
points ($Q_\mu < 4\pi/16$) to obtain the fit parameters,
and then to check the value of $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ for the limited
data points ($Q_\mu\le 2\pi/16$) taking account of the correlation.
Since the value of $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ is 1.7, we do not expect
the bias due to this procedure larger than one standard deviation,
assuming that the full correlated fit should give
$\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}\sim 1$.
Thus, we conservatively assign a systematic error $\pm 0.003$ for
$\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$, which is equal to the size of the statistical
error of one standard deviation.
This procedure can be avoided if the lattice data are obtained at
finer lattice spacings so that one can cover the same physical range of
$Q^2$ with smaller lattice momenta.
\subsection{Discretization effect}
As described above, the discretization effect is significant in our
lattice data especially when we try to cover large enough $Q^2$ range.
We estimate the associated error using lattice perturbation theory.
Since the discretization effect is most important in the large
momentum region, the perturbation theory can be used to estimate its
size.
We calculate the one-loop diagram of VPF, $\Pi_{V+A}^{\rm PT}(Q)$,
with local and conserved currents in lattice perturbation theory, and
compare them with the continuum perturbation theory.
This provides an estimate of the discretization effect at the zeroth
order of $\alpha_s$.
Because the discretization error itself is a small effect, its
calculation at the leading order gives a reasonably precise estimate.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{VP_cv_v1.eps}
\caption{
$(aQ)^2$ dependence of one-loop VPF $\Pi_{J=V,A}(Q^2)$ in lattice
perturbation theory.
Dashed line shows the leading logarithm term plus a constant,
which corresponds to the continuum perturbation theory.
Solid lines show the function including lattice artifact of
$O((aQ^2))$.
The shaded band represents an uncertainty due to the higher
order effects.
The red diamond denotes the value at the upper limit of our fit
of VPF.
}
\label{fig:latPT}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:latPT} shows the result as a function of $(aQ)^2$.
Since the lattice regularization violates rotational invariance, the
result is not a completely smooth function of $(aQ)^2$, as shown by
squares in the plot, which correspond to representative points of
$(aQ)^2$ in our lattice calculation.
The perturbative result may be parametrized as
$\Pi_{V+A}(Q^2)^{\rm latt.pert}
=c-1/(2\pi^2)\ln(aQ)^2+0.0062(40)(aQ)^2$ for small $a$.
The logarithmic term is the same as in the continuum perturbation
theory and $c$ is the scheme dependent constant as already noticed.
The term $+0.0062(40)(aQ)^2$ comes from the discretization effect.
The error includes a fluctuation of numerical integral as well as the
non-smooth behavior due to higher order discretization effects.
The non-smooth behavior appears because of different assignments of
momentum components $aQ_\mu$.
In the plots we took several values of $(aQ)^2$ (and so $aQ_\mu$) that
also appear in the lattice calculation.
We observe that the pattern of non-smooth behavior in the one-loop
calculation actually well reproduces that occurring in the numerical
simulation.
It suggests that our estimate of the discretization effect is
reasonably realistic.
As the plot shows, this error band is taken so that the result of the
lattice perturbation theory calculation is covered.
By subtracting this estimate of the $\mathcal{O}((aQ)^2)$ effect from the
lattice data,
the final result for $\alpha^{(5)}(M_Z)$ changes by $+0.0002(1)$.
We therefore take $+0.0003$ as our estimate of the systematic error
from this source, without changing the central value to be conservative.
The estimated error in the negative direction is thus taken to be zero.
Although the perturbative calculation is done only at the one-loop
level, we expect that the higher order effects are suppressed by an
additional factor of $\alpha_s$ and thus well below $\pm 0.0001$.
\subsection{Non-conserved current}
The discretization effect may also come from the non-conserved local
current $J_\nu^{\rm loc}$ in (\ref{eq:delta}), which is represented by
the term $\Delta_{\mu\nu}^J(Q)$ in (\ref{eq:JcvJloc}).
We estimate its leading contribution
$\Delta^J_{\mu\nu}(Q)=(\delta_{\mu\nu}\hat Q^2-\hat Q_\mu\hat Q_\nu)
Q_\nu^2 F^J_{11}(Q)$
in the expansion (\ref{eq:delta}) in terms of small $aQ_\mu$,
by solving linear equations (\ref{eq:JcvJloc}) for different sets of
$\mu$ and $\nu$.
We find that the maximum magnitude of
$(\delta_{\mu\nu}\hat Q^2-\hat Q_\mu\hat Q_\nu) Q_\nu^2 F^{V+A}_{11}(Q)$
is less than 1\% of $\Pi_{V+A}(Q)$ in the fit range
$0.463\le(aQ)^2\le 0.994$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{diff_diod_PiV.eps}
\caption{
Difference between $\Pi_V^{\rm diag}(Q)$ and $\Pi_V^{\rm offd}(Q)$ at
all valence quark masses
$m_q=0.015$ (circles), $0.025$ (squares), $0.035$ (diamonds), and
$0.050$ (triangles).
Top panel is the result at $m_s=0.08$ and the bottom is in $m_s=0.10$.
}
\label{fig:diff_diod}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The contribution of $\Delta_{\mu\nu}^J(Q)$ may also be estimated by
looking at a difference between VPFs obtained with $\mu=\nu$ (diag) and
with $\mu\not=\nu$ (offd) components, {\it i.e.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_J^{\rm diag}(Q) &=& \langle J^{\rm cv}_\mu J^{\rm loc}_\mu\rangle(Q)
/ (\hat Q^2-\hat Q_\mu\hat Q_\mu),\\
\Pi_J^{\rm offd}(Q) &=& \langle J^{\rm cv}_\mu J^{\rm loc}_\nu\rangle(Q)
/ (-\hat Q_\mu\hat Q_\nu),
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
Figure \ref{fig:diff_diod} shows
$\Pi_V^{\rm diag}(Q)-\Pi_V^{\rm offd}(Q)$
as a function of $(aQ)^2$.
The maximum magnitude of the difference in the range
$0.463\le (aQ)^2\le 0.994$ is 0.003, which is the same order as the
estimate from $F^{V+A}_{11}(Q)$.
Adding or subtracting this amount of systematic effect from the
lattice data, we repeat the whole analysis to estimate the systematic
error due to the Lorentz (or WT) violating terms, which gives
$\pm 0.0002$ in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$.
\subsection{Quark condensate and $Z_m$}
The uncertainty due to the quark condensate is estimated as
$\pm 0.0001$ for $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$
by varying the input value from $-[0.220\,{\rm GeV}]^3$ to
$-[0.265\,{\rm GeV}]^3$, which correspond to the lower and upper
limits of the estimate of $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle$ in \cite{Fukaya:2009fh}.
The uncertainty due to $Z_m$ is also estimated as $\pm0.0001$
for $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ by varying $Z_m$ within its estimated error
(from 0.777 to 0.832).
\subsection{Perturbative expansion}
The truncation effect of the perturbative expansion can be estimated
by comparing the results with different orders of the perturbative
expansion.
Fortunately, the four-loop calculation is known for
$C_0(Q^2,\mu^2,\alpha_s)$ \cite{Chetyrkin:2006,Boughezal:2006px},
and we can explicitly estimate the effect of
${\mathcal O}(\alpha_s^3)$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{piVA_PT.eps}
\caption{
$C_0(Q^2,\mu^2,\alpha_s)-c+1/(2\pi^2)\ln(aQ)^2$
as a function of $(aQ)^2$.
The perturbative results at two-loop (solid), three-loop
(dashed), and four-loop (dotted) calculations are shown.
The logarithm at the leading order is subtracted
in order to enhance their small differences.
}
\label{fig:pi_C0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A comparison of two-, three- and four-loop calculations of
$C_0(Q^2,\mu^2,\alpha_s)$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pi_C0}.
They correspond to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$,
$\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$, and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ calculations,
respectively.
We observe that the difference between three-loop and four-loop is
of order of 0.0001 for $\Pi_J(Q)$, which is much smaller than other
systematic effect.
Strictly speaking, the smallness of the four-loop contribution does
not guarantee that the unknown higher orders are even smaller.
We therefore attempted to fit the data with a formula including
unknown $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^4)$ term $c_0^{(4)}\alpha_s^4(Q)$.
The fit gives $c_0^{(4)}\sim \mathcal{O}(10)$ with a shift of
resulting $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ by $+0.0003$.
We therefore put a conservative systematic error from the truncation
of the perturbation series as $\pm 0.0003$.
This can only be reduced by including the data at higher $Q^2$ values,
which needs finer lattice spacings.
\subsection{$1/Q^2$ expansion}
As previously discussed, the size of neglected $1/Q^6$ terms in the
OPE formula is at most 0.001 for $\Pi_J(Q)$ at the lower end of the
fitting range $(aQ)^2_{\rm min}=0.463$
(see Figure~\ref{fig:diffPiV+A}).
This is less than 1/5 of the estimated discretization effect discussed
above.
We therefore expect that the impact on $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is
smaller than 0.0001.
\subsection{Charm and bottom quark mass}
The uncertainty of charm and bottom quark masses, $m_c$ and $m_b$ used in
a perturbative matching of $\alpha_s^{(3)}$ onto $\alpha_s^{(5)}$ is
$+0.0001$ and $-0.0003$, which are the maximum and minimum values when
$m_{b,c}$ are changed within $1\sigma$ in the analysis.
The input values
$\bar{m}_c(\bar{m}_c)$ = 1.27($^{+07}_{-11}$)~GeV and
$\bar{m}_b(\bar{m}_b)$ = 4.20($^{+17}_{-07}$)~GeV are taken from
\cite{Amsler:2008zzb}.
\subsection{Lattice spacing}
The uncertainty of the lattice spacing is the largest source of the
systematic error.
Our main result is quoted with the Sommer scale $r_0$ = 0.49~fm as an
input, with which we obtain $a^{-1}$ = 1.83(1)~GeV.
This quantity is convenient because its numerical calculation is
very precise and also because its sea quark mass dependence is mild.
On the other hand, $r_0$ does not have a direct relation to any
physical observables and one has to resort to some model to fix the
central value.
For this reason, one prefers other physical quantities to set the
scale.
One possible candidate is the pion decay constant $f_\pi$, which is
also precisely measurable on the lattice at unphysical values of sea
quark masses.
The problem for this quantity is that it may have rather non-trivial
sea quark mass dependence as predicted by Chiral Perturbation Theory
(ChPT).
Using the next-to-next-to-leading order formula in ChPT, we obtain
$a^{-1}$ = 1.97(4)~GeV \cite{Noaki:2009sk}.
In this analysis we observed a rather large dependence on the sea
quark mass and more importantly a strong curvature that bends the
extrapolation to the lower value of $af_\pi$, thus the higher value of
$a^{-1}$.
We therefore need more careful analysis on possible systematic errors
in this determination.
One of the most popular quantities to set the scale in recent lattice
calculations is the $\Omega$ baryon mass.
Since the $\Omega$ baryon is made of three strange quarks, the
dependence on up and down quark masses only comes from quark loop
effect, which is expected to be small.
A possible problem is that its determination has to be combined with
the strange quark mass determination, which is non-trivial.
In addition, the finite volume effect could be more important for
baryons.
Our result is
$a^{-1}$ = 1.76(8)($^{+5}_{-0}$)~GeV,
with the second error being our estimate of the finite volume effect,
that is set by calculations on a larger volume lattice
($24^3\times 48$) but at limited values of sea quark mass.
Since each determination has its own advantage and disadvantage, we
decided to take $r_0$ as our central value and others ($f_\pi$ and
$M_\Omega$) to estimate the systematic uncertainties.
The shift of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ due to the choice of $f_\pi$ and
$M_\Omega$ is $+0.0013$ and $-0.0010$, respectively, which we quote as
the systematic error from the scale setting.
This uncertainty also affects the matching points $m_c$ and $m_b$,
which is included in the above error band.
\subsection{Final result}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline\hline
Sources & Estimated error in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_z)$ \\
\hline
Uncorrelated fit & $\pm$0.0003 \\
Lattice artifact ($\mathcal{O}(a^2)$ effect) & $+$0.0003 \\
$\Delta^{V+A}_{\mu\nu}$ & $\pm$0.0002 \\
Quark condensate & $\pm$0.0001 \\
$Z_m$ & $\pm$0.0001 \\
Perturbative expansion & $\pm$0.0003 \\
$1/Q^2$ expansion & $<$ 0.0001 \\
$m_{c,b}$ & $^{+0.0001}_{-0.0003}$ \\
Lattice spacing & $^{+0.0013}_{-0.0010}$ \\
\hline
Total (in quadrature) & $^{+0.0014}_{-0.0012}$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Summary of systematic errors in $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$.
}
\label{tab:systematic_errors}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:systematic_errors} shows a summary of our estimate of
the systematic errors in our determination of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.
We quote final result of the strong coupling constant at the $Z$ boson
mass scale as
\begin{equation}
\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1181(3)(^{+14}_{-12}).
\end{equation}
Here, the first error is statistical error and the second is a sum of
the various systematic errors in quadrature.
This result is consistent with other recent lattice QCD results
0.1174(12) \cite{Allison:2008xk},
0.1183(8) \cite{Davies:2008sw},
0.1192(11) \cite{Maltman:2008bx},
0.1205(8)(5)($^{+\ 0}_{-17}$)\cite{Aoki:2009tf},
and with the world average 0.1184(7) including various high-energy
experiments \cite{Bethke:2009, Amsler:2008zzb} (updated on-line in 2010).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Determination of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(\mu)$ may be
achieved through a perturbative expansion of any physical quantity in
terms of $\alpha_s(\mu)$ at a given scale $\mu$.
Experimental determination typically uses a perturbative amplitude of
quarks at high energy.
Comparison with the lattice QCD calculation provides a highly
non-trivial test of QCD, as lattice uses low-energy hadron spectrum or
matrix elements to set the scale.
In the lattice calculation, there are variety of choices for the
quantity to be expanded in $\alpha_s(\mu)$.
In order to achieve good enough accuracy, the perturbative expansion
must be known to higher orders or evaluated at very high energies.
The latter may be achieved by calculating the scaling towards the high
energy regime non-perturbatively using the so-called step-scaling
technique (see, {\it e.g.} \cite{DellaMorte:2004bc,Aoki:2009tf}).
The former is numerically less intensive but requires analytic
perturbative calculations beyond one-loop level.
This work demonstrates that the vacuum polarization function can be
used for the precise determination of $\alpha_s$.
The important points are
(i) the perturbative expansion can be done in the continuum theory and
is known to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$,
and
(ii) the non-perturbative lattice calculation with controlled
systematic errors is possible.
The discretization error was a concern as the large $Q^2$ points
have to be calculated, but it turned out to be under control with
currently available lattice setups by careful estimates of systematic
effects.
The use of the overlap fermion is certainly desirable as the massless
limit of quarks is uniquely defined and the use of the continuum OPE
is justified.
With the lattice fermions that violates chiral symmetry, one expects
dangerous terms such as $m a^{-3}/Q^4$, whose numerical impact has
to be carefully studied.
Extension of this work is straightforward.
Since the largest uncertainty comes from the scale determination, a
consistent determination of the lattice scale with various low-energy
inputs is necessary in order to significantly improve the accuracy.
This requires extensive simulations at larger volumes, smaller quark
masses and smaller lattice spacings.
The discretization effect in VPF considered in this work will also be
significantly reduced by going to finer lattice that will become
available within a few years.
\begin{acknowledgments}
E.S. thanks Y. Kikukawa for correspondence and discussion.
The work of HF was supported by the Global COE program
of Nagoya University called ``QFPU'' from JSPS and MEXT of Japan.
Numerical calculations are performed on IBM System Blue Gene Solution
and Hitachi SR11000 at High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK)
under a support of its Large Scale Simulation Program (No.~07-16).
This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid of the Japanese Ministry of Education
(No.
18740167,
19540286,
19740121,
20105005,
20340047,
20105001,
20105002,
20105003,
20025010,
21105508,
21674002,
21684013).
\end{acknowledgments}
\input{ref}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro} \label{Section.1}
\noindent In this paper we study a class of Markov semigroups $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ whose generators are defined in H\"ormander form by an infinite family of non-commuting fields as follows
\begin{equation}\label{I.1}
\mathcal{L}\equiv \sum_{\gamma} \mathbf{X}_\gamma^2.
\end{equation}
In particular we will be interested in the situation when we have ``locally preserved quantities'', that is when any operator
\[
\mathcal{L}_\Lambda\equiv \sum_{\gamma\in\Lambda} \mathbf{X}_\gamma^2,
\]
defined with a finite set of indices $\Lambda$, has a non-trivial set of harmonic functions, while for the full generator $\mathcal{L}$, this is not the case. One should therefore expect that the corresponding semigroup is ergodic. We will assume that the fields $\mathbf{X}_\gamma$ are homogeneous of the same degree, in the sense that there is a natural dilation generator $D$ such that
\[
[D,\mathbf{X}_\gamma]=\lambda \mathbf{X}_\gamma,
\]
with $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ independent of $\gamma$. However, unlike in H\"ormander theory, we admit a situation when a commutator of the degenerate fields of any order does not remove degeneration.
To model such a situation we consider an infinite product space
and fields of the following form
\[
\mathbf{X}_{\bf ij}\equiv\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{\bf j} - \partial_{\bf j}V(x)\partial_{\bf i},
\]
with $\partial_{\bf i}$ denoting the partial derivative with respect to the coordinate with index ${\bf i}$, and $\partial_{\bf i}V(x)$ indicating some (polynomial) coefficients.
Generators of a similar type appear in the study of dissipative dynamics in which certain quantities are preserved --- see for example \cite{B2007, B-O} and \cite{F-N-O}, where systems of harmonic oscillators perturbed by conservative noise are considered. A special case of the system we investigate (see Example \ref{ex:GeneratorMainExample} below) can be thought of as a limiting case of the models considered in these works, when the conservative noise dominates the deterministic interaction between oscillators. It is interesting that our results (see Corollary \ref{cor:ConvergenceRate}) show ergodicity of the system even in such situations!
A further example of a physical model very closely related to our set-up is the heat conduction model discussed in \cite{B2008} and \cite{G-K-R}.
For more information in this direction, in particular in connection with an effort to explain the so-called Fourier law of heat conduction, we refer to a nice review \cite{BLRB00}, as well as \cite{BLLO} and the references therein.
The classical approach to studying the asymptotic behaviour of conservative reversible interacting particle systems employs either functional inequalities and some special norm-bound
of the semigroup (see for instance \cite{BZ99, BZ99b} and \cite{PKZ}),
or some kind of approximation of the dynamics by finite dimensional ones, together with sharp estimates of their spectral gaps (\cite{JLQY1999, LY2003}). The approach we take is quite different, in the sense that we do not use any approximation techniques, but rather exploit the structure of the Lie algebra generated by the corresponding vector fields to derive the necessary estimates directly. We would like to note that a straight-forward application of the classical approach in our case is not possible. This is because any finite dimensional approximation cannot be ergodic, since there is a formal fixed point --- this is discussed in more detail below. A different possibility would be to consider the restriction of the finite dimensional dynamics to the conservation surface. This approach will be considered elsewhere in a forthcoming manuscript by Z. Brze\'zniak and M. Neklyudov.
One other motivation to study the semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ associated to this particular generator comes from the fact that, since $V$ is formally conserved under the action of $P_t$, we can see that there is a family of invariant measures formally given by ``$e^{-\frac{V}{r}}dx$" for all $r>0$.
On the one hand, the semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$ is quite simple, since we can calculate many quantities we are interested in directly. On the other hand, standard methods from interacting particle theory \cite{Lig04, LZ2007} do not help because they require some type of strong non-degeneracy condition such as H\"{o}rmander's condition, which is not satisfied in our case. Another difficulty stems from the intrinsic difference between the infinite dimensional case we consider, and the finite dimensional case i.e. the case when $V$ depends on only a finite number of variables, and instead of the lattice we use its truncation with a periodic boundary condition. Indeed, as already mentioned, in the finite dimensional case we can notice that $V$ is a non-trivial fixed point for $P_{t}$, and therefore the semigroup is strictly not ergodic.
This reasoning turns out to be incorrect in the infinite dimensional case. The situation here is more subtle because the expression $V$ is only formal (and would be equal to infinity on the support set of the invariant measure).
We give a detailed study of the case
when the coefficients of the fields are linear, providing analysis of the corresponding spectral theory and showing that the system is ergodic with polynomial rate of convergence to equilibrium.
The organisation of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the basic notation and state an infinite system of stochastic differential equations of interest to us.
In Section 3 we show the existence of a mild solution and continue in Sections 4 and 5 with some discussion of general properties of the corresponding semigroup,
such as the existence of a family of invariant measures, strong continuity, positivity and contractivity properties in $L^p$-spaces. Because of the special non-commutative features of the fields and the form of the generator, these matters are slightly more cumbersome than otherwise.
Section 6 provides a certain characterisation of invariant (Sobolev-type) subspaces, while Section 7 is devoted to the demonstration of ergodicity with optimal rate of convergence to equilibrium. In Section 8 we use previously obtained information to derive Liggett-Nash-type inequalities. In Section 9 we consider a generalised dynamics
of a similar type, allowing now the inclusion of a first order term $-\beta D$ with some parameter $\beta\in[0,\infty)$ in the generator. We show that in such families one observes a change in the behaviour of the decay to equilibrium from exponential to algebraic (when the additional control parameter $\beta$ goes towards zero).
Finally in the last section we provide a further application of our ergodicity results.
\section{The system}
\label{The system} \label{Section.2}
Throughout this paper we will work in the following setting.
~
\paragraph{\textit{The Lattice:}}
Let $\mathbb{Z}^N$ be the $N$-dimensional square lattice for some fixed $N\in\mathbb{N}$. We equip $\mathbb{Z}^N$ with the $l_1$ lattice metric $dist(\cdot, \cdot)$
defined by
\[
dist({\bf i}, {\bf j}) := |{\bf i} -{\bf j}|_1 \equiv \sum_{l=1}^N|i_l - j_l|
\]
for ${\bf i}=(i_1, \dots, i_N), {\bf j} = (j_1, \dots, j_N) \in \mathbb{Z}^N$. For ${\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ we will write ${\bf i} \sim {\bf j}$ whenever
$dist({\bf i}, {\bf j}) =1$. When ${\bf i} \sim {\bf j}$ we say that ${\bf i}$ and ${\bf j}$ are neighbours in the lattice.
\paragraph{\textit{The Configuration Space:}} Let $\Omega\equiv (\mathbb{R})^{\mathbb{Z}^N}$.
Define the Hilbert spaces
\[
E_\alpha = \left\{ x \in \Omega : |x|^2_{E_\alpha} := \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}x_{\bf i}^2e^{-\alpha |{\bf i}|_1} <\infty\right\}
\]
for $\alpha>0$, and
\[
H = \left\{ (h^{(1)}, \dots, h^{(N)}) \in \left(\Omega\right)^N: |(h^{(1)}, \dots, h^{(N)})|^2_H := \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}
\sum_{k=1}^N\left(h_{\bf i}^{(k)}\right)^2 < \infty\right\},
\]
with inner products given by
\[
\langle x, y\rangle_{E_\alpha} := \sum_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}x_{\bf i}y_{\bf i}e^{-\alpha|{\bf i}|_1}
\]
for $x, y\in E_\alpha$ and
\[
\langle (g^{(1)}, \dots, g^{(N)}), (h^{(1)}, \dots, h^{(N)})\rangle_H : = \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} \sum_{k=1}^Ng_{\bf i}^{(k)}h_{\bf i}^{(k)}
\]
for $ (g^{(1)}, \dots, g^{(N)}), (h^{(1)}, \dots, h^{(N)})\in H$ respectively.
\paragraph{\textit{The Gibbs Measure:}}
Let $\mu_{\bf G}$ be a Gaussian probability measure on $(E_\alpha, \mathcal{B}(E_\alpha))$ with mean zero and covariance ${\bf G}$. We assume that
the inverse ${\bf G}^{-1}$ of the covariance is of finite range i.e.
\[
{\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} := {\bf G}^{-1}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} = 0\quad \mathrm{if}\ dist({\bf i},{\bf j})>R,
\]
and that $|{\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}|\leq M$ for all ${\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$.
\paragraph{\textit{The System:}}
Let
\[
W = \left\{\left(W^{(1)}, \dots, W^{(N)}\right)\right\}
\]
be a cylindrical Wiener process in $H$ (see for instance \cite{D-Z}).
We introduce the following notation: for ${\bf i}=(i_1, \dots, i_N)\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ define for $k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$
\[
{\bf i}^{\pm}(k) := (i_1, \dots, i_{k-1}, i_k \pm 1, i_{k+1}, \dots, i_N).
\]
We also define, for $x\in E_\alpha$, ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$,
\[
V_{\bf i}(x) := \sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}x_{\bf i}{\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}x_{\bf j},
\]
which is finite since ${\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} =0$ if $dist({\bf i}, {\bf j})>R$, and for all finite subsets $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{Z}^N$ set
\[
V_{\Lambda}(x) := \sum_{{\bf i}\in\Lambda} V_{\bf i}(x).
\]
Using the formal expression
\[
V(x) := \frac12\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} V_{\bf i}(x),
\]
it will be convenient to simplify the notation for $\partial_{\bf i} V_{\bf i}$ as follows
\begin{align*}
\partial_{\bf i}V(x) = \frac12\partial_{\bf i}\left(\sum_{{\bf j},{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}x_{\bf j} {\bf M}_{{\bf j},{\bf l}}x_{\bf l}\right)
\equiv \sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}{\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}x_{\bf j}= \partial_{\bf i} V_{\bf i}.
\end{align*}
We consider the following system of Stratonovich SDEs:
\begin{align}
\label{SDE system strat}
dY_{\bf i}(t) & = \sum_{k=1}^N\left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))\circ dW_{{\bf i}^-(k)}^{(k)}(t) - \partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\circ dW_{{\bf
i}}^{(k)}(t)\right),
\end{align}
for ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and $t\geq0$.
\section{Existence of a mild solution} \label{Section.3}
\label{solution}
In this section we show that the system \eqref{SDE system strat} has a mild solution $Y(t)$ taking values in the Hilbert space $E_\alpha$.
For the existence of a mild solution, the first step is to write \eqref{SDE system strat} in It\^o form. To this end we have
\begin{align}
\label{Ito1}
dY_{\bf i}(t) & = \sum_{k=1}^N\left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t)) dW_{{\bf i}^-(k)}^{(k)}(t) - \partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t)) dW_{\bf
i}^{(k)}(t)\right) \nonumber \\
& \quad + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\left( d\left[\partial_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}V(Y(\cdot)), W^{(k)}_{{\bf i}^-(k)}(\cdot)\right]_t - d\left[\partial_{{\bf
i}^{+}(k)}V(Y(\cdot)), W^{(k)}_{\bf i}(\cdot)\right]_t \right)
\end{align}
for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and $t\geq 0$, where $[\cdot,\cdot]_t$ is a quadratic covariation (see for example p.~61 of \cite{[Ikeda-1981]}).
Hence, by It\^o's formula,
\begin{align}
&\left[\partial_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}V(Y(\cdot)), W^{(k)}_{{\bf i}^-(k)}(\cdot)\right]_t = \left[\sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\int_0^\cdot\partial_{\bf j}
\partial_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}V(Y(s))dY_{\bf j}(s), \int_0^\cdot dW^{(k)}_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}(s)\right]_t \nonumber \\
&\quad = \sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\left[\int_0^\cdot \partial_{\bf j}\partial_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}V(Y(s))\partial_{{\bf j}^-(k)}V(Y(s))dW_{{\bf
j}^-(k)}^{k}(s), \int_0^\cdot dW_{{\bf i}^-(k)}^k(s)\right]_t \nonumber\\
&\qquad - \sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\left[\int_0^\cdot \partial_{\bf j}\partial_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}V(Y(s))\partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)}V(Y(s))dW_{\bf j}^{k}(s),
\int_0^\cdot dW_{{\bf i}^-(k)}^k(s)\right]_t \nonumber\\
& \quad = \int_0^t \partial^2_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(s))\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(s))d
- \int_0^t\partial^2_{{\bf i}^{-}(k)}V(Y(s))\partial_{\bf i}V(Y(s))ds.\nonumber
\end{align}
By a similar calculation, and using this in \eqref{Ito1}, we see that
\begin{align}
\label{Ito2}
dY_{\bf i}(t) & = \sum_{k=1}^N\left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t)) dW_{{\bf i}^-(k)}^{(k)}(t) - \partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t)) dW_{\bf
i}^{(k)}(t)\right)\nonumber \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\left\{\left(\partial^2_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))+ \partial^2_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\right)\partial_{\bf i}V(Y(t))\right.
\nonumber \\
& \quad \qquad - \left.\partial^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t)) - \partial^2_{{\bf i},{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\right\}dt
\end{align}
for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}^N$.
Recall now that $\partial_{\bf j}V(x) = \sum_{{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}{\bf M}_{{\bf j}, {\bf l}}x_{\bf l}$ for all $j\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, so that $\partial^2_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}V(x) = {\bf
M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}$, $\forall i,j\in\mathbb{Z}^N$. Thus the system \eqref{Ito2} can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{Ito3}
dY_{\bf i}(t) & = \sum_{k=1}^N\left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t)) dW_{{\bf i}^-(k)}^{(k)}(t) - \partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t)) dW_{\bf
i}^{(k)}(t)\right)\nonumber \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\Big\{\left({\bf M}_{{\bf i}^-(k), {\bf i}^-(k)} + {\bf M}_{{\bf i}^+(k), {\bf i}^+(k)}\right)\partial_{\bf i}V(Y(t))
\nonumber \\
& \quad \qquad - {\bf M}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^-(k)}\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t)) - {\bf M}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\Big\}dt
\end{align}
for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and $t\geq0$.
We now claim that we can write this system in operator form:
\begin{equation}
\label{Ito op form}
dY(t) = AY(t)dt + B(Y(t))dW(t),
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a bounded linear mapping from $E_\alpha$ to $E_\alpha$ given by
\begin{align}
\label{A}
(Ax)_{\bf i} &:= \sum_{k=1}^{N}a_{\bf i}^{(k)}(x), \quad {\bf i} \in \mathbb{Z}^N,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\label{alpha}
a_{\bf i}^{(k)}(x) & = - \frac{1}{2}\left\{\left({\bf M}_{{\bf i}^-(k), {\bf i}^-(k)} + {\bf M}_{{\bf i}^+(k), {\bf i}^+(k)}\right)\sum_{{\bf
l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}{\bf M}_{{\bf l}, {\bf i}}x_{\bf l}\right. \nonumber \\
& \quad \qquad - \left.{\bf M}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^-(k)}\sum_{{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}{\bf M}_{{\bf l}, {\bf i}^-(k)}x_{\bf l} - {\bf M}_{{\bf i}, {\bf
i}^+(k)}\sum_{{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} {\bf M}_{{\bf l}, {\bf i}^+(k)}x_{\bf l}\right\},
\end{align}
and $B: E_\alpha \to L_{HS}(H, E_\alpha)$ (here $L_{HS}(H, E_\alpha)$ denotes the space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators from $H$ to $E_\alpha$) is a bounded linear operator given by
\begin{align}
\label{B}
\left(B(x)(h^{(1)}, \dots, h^{(N)})\right)_{\bf i} := \sum_{k=1}^N \left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(x)h^{(k)}_{{\bf i}^-(k)} - \partial_{{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(x)h^{(k)}_{\bf i}\right)
\end{align}
for $x\in E_\alpha, (h^{(1)}, \dots, h^{(N)})\in H$ and ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$.
Indeed, the fact that $A:E_\alpha \to E_\alpha$ is a bounded linear operator follows from the fact that the constants ${\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}$ are
assumed to be uniformly bounded. To show that $B\in L(E_\alpha, L_{HS}(H, E_\alpha))$, first define, for ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, $e({\bf i})\in\Omega$ by
\[
(e({\bf i}))_{\bf j} :=
\begin{cases}
1 & \mathrm{if}\ {\bf j}={\bf i}, \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\]
and for ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N, k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$, let $f_{\bf i}^k$ be the element in $H$ given by
\[
f_{\bf i}^k := (0,\dots, e({\bf i}), \dots, 0),
\]
where the $e({\bf i})$ occurs in the $k$-th coordinate. Then
\[
\left\{f_{\bf i}^k: {\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N, k\in\{1, \dots, N\}\right\}
\]
is an orthonormal basis for $H$. Let $x\in E_\alpha$. Then
\[
\|B(x)\|^2_{HS} = \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left|B(x)(f^k_{\bf i})\right|^2_{E_\alpha}.
\]
Now by definition
\[
\left(B(x)(f^k_{\bf i})\right)_{\bf j} = \partial_{{\bf j}^-(k)}V(x)\left(e({\bf i})\right)_{{\bf j}^-(k)} - \partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)}V(x)(e({\bf
i}))_{\bf j}
\]
so that
\begin{align}
\left|B(x)(f_{\bf i}^k)\right|^2_{E_\alpha} &= \sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\left(\partial_{{\bf j}^-(k)}V(x)\left(e({\bf i})\right)_{{\bf j}^-(k)} -
\partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)}V(x)(e({\bf i}))_{\bf j}\right)^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf j}|_1} \nonumber \\
&= \left(\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\right)^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf i}^+(k)|_1} + \left(\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(x)\right)^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf i}|_1}\nonumber \\
&\leq Ce^{(R+1)\alpha}\left[\left(\sum_{{\bf l}:|{\bf l}-{\bf i}|_1\leq R}x_{\bf l}^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf l}|_1}\right) + \left(\sum_{{\bf l}:|{\bf
l}-{\bf
i}^+(k)|_1 \leq R}x_{\bf l}^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf l}|_1}\right)\right]\nonumber
\end{align}
where $C=((2R)^N+1)M^2$. Thus
\begin{align*}
\|B(x)\|_{HS} &= \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left|B(x)(f^k_{\bf i})\right|^2_{E_\alpha} \\
&\leq Ce^{(R+1)\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\left[\left(\sum_{{\bf l}:|{\bf l}-{\bf i}|_1\leq R}x_{\bf l}^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf l}|_1}\right) +
\left(\sum_{{\bf l}:|{\bf l}-{\bf i}^+(k)|_1 \leq R}x_{\bf l}^2e^{-\alpha|{\bf l}|_1}\right)\right] \\
&= 2N((2R)^N+1)Ce^{(R+1)\alpha}|x|^2_{E_\alpha},
\end{align*}
which proves the claim that $B\in L(E_\alpha, L_{HS}(H, E_\alpha))$.
We thus have the following existence theorem for our system.
\begin{prop}
\label{existence}
Consider the stochastic evolution equation
\begin{equation}
\label{system}
dY(t) = AY(t)dt + B(Y(t))dW(t), \qquad Y_0 = x\in E_\alpha,\ t\geq0,
\end{equation}
where $A$ and $B$ are given by \eqref{A} and \eqref{B} respectively, and $(W(t))_{t\geq0}$ is a cylindrical Wiener process in $H$. This equation has
a mild solution $Y$ taking values in the Hilbert space $E_\alpha$, unique up to equivalence among the processes satisfying
\[
\mathbb{P}\left(\int_0^T|Y(s)|_{E_\alpha}^2ds < \infty\right) = 1.
\]
Moreover, it has a continuous modification.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have shown above that $A:E_\alpha\to E_\alpha$ is a bounded linear operator, so that it is the infinitesimal generator of a $C_0$-semigroup on
$E_\alpha$ ($A$ can be thought of as a bounded linear perturbation of $0$, which is trivially the generator of a $C_0$-semigroup). We have also shown
that $B\in L(E_\alpha, L_{HS}(H,E_\alpha))$. Hence the result follows immediately from Theorem 7.4 of \cite{D-Z}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{generator}
The mild solution $Y$ to \eqref{system} solves the martingale problem for the operator
\[
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N:{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}(\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{\bf j} - \partial_{\bf
j}V(x)\partial_{\bf i})^2.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By It\^o's formula, we have for any suitable function $f$ that
\begin{align*}
f(Y(t))& = f(Y(0)) + \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\int_0^t\partial_{\bf i}f(Y(s))dY_{\bf i}(s) \\
&\qquad + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\int_0^t\partial^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf j}}f(Y(s))d\left[Y_{\bf i}, Y_{\bf j}\right]_s.
\end{align*}
We can then calculate from \eqref{Ito3} that
\[
d[Y_{\bf i}, Y_{\bf j}]_t :=\\
\begin{cases}
-\partial_{\bf i}V(Y(t))\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))dt & \mathrm{if}\ {\bf j}={\bf i}^-(k),\\
\sum_{k=1}^N\left\{ \left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))\right)^2 + \left(\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\right)^2\right\}dt & \mathrm{if}\ {\bf j}={\bf i},\\
-\partial_{\bf i}V(Y(t))\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))dt & \mathrm{if}\ {\bf j}={\bf i}^-(k),\\
\end{cases}
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{{\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\int_0^t\partial^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf j}}f(Y(s))d\left[Y_{\bf i}, Y_{\bf j}\right]_s \\
& = \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\int_0^t\partial^2_{\bf i}f(Y(s))\sum_{k=1}^N\left\{ \left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))\right)^2 + \left(\partial_{{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(Y(t))\right)^2\right\}dt \\
& - 2\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\int_0^t\partial^2_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^-(k)}f(Y(s))\partial_{\bf i}V(Y(t))\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(Y(t))dt. \\
\end{align*}
Thus, using \eqref{Ito2}, the generator of the system is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} &= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left\{ \left(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(x)\right)^2 + \left(\partial_{{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(x)\right)^2\right\}\partial^2_{\bf i} \\
& - \sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{k=1}^N \partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(x)\partial^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^-(k)}\\
& - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left\{\left(\partial^2_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(x)+ \partial^2_{{\bf i}^+(k)}V(x)\right)\partial_{\bf
i}V(x)\right. \nonumber \\
& \quad \qquad - \left.\partial^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^-(k)}V(x)\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}V(x) - \partial^2_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^+(k)}V(x)\partial_{{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(x)\right\}\partial_{\bf i}.
\end{align*}
One can then check by direct calculation that we have
\[
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N:{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}\left(\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{\bf j} - \partial_{\bf
j}V(x)\partial_{\bf i}\right)^2.
\]
\end{proof}
For $n\in \{0,1,\dots\}$, let $\mathcal{U}C_b^n \equiv\mathcal{U}C_b^n(E_{\alpha}),\alpha>0$ denote the set of all functions which are uniformly continuous and bounded, together with their Fr\'echet derivatives up to order $n$.
\begin{cor}
\label{rep}
The semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$ acting on $\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha}),\alpha>0$ corresponding to the system \eqref{system} is Feller and can be represented
by the formula
\[
P_tf(\cdot) = \mathbb{E} f\left(Y(t, \cdot)\right), \quad t\geq0,
\]
where $Y(t, x)$ is a mild solution to the system \eqref{system} with initial condition $x\in E_{\alpha}$.
Furthermore, $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$ satisfies Kolmogorov's backward equation, and solutions of the system are strong Markov processes.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The result follows immediately from Theorems 9.14 and 9.16 of \cite{D-Z}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:GeneratorMainExample}
Suppose that, for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}^N$,
\[
{\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}} = 1, \quad {\bf M}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} =0\quad \mathrm{if}\quad {\bf i}\neq {\bf j}.
\]
Then $\partial_{\bf i}V(x) = x_{\bf i}$, and the system \eqref{Ito3} becomes
\[
dY_{\bf i}(t) = -\sum_{k=1}^N Y_{\bf i}(t)dt + \sum_{k=1}^N \left(Y_{{\bf i}^-(k)}(t)dW^{k}_{{\bf i}^-(k)}(t) - Y_{{\bf i}^+(k)}(t)dW^{k}_{\bf
i}(t)\right)
\]
for all $i\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, which has generator
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:GeneratorMainExample}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N:{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}\left(x_{\bf i}\partial_{\bf j} - x_{\bf j}\partial_{\bf
i}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Very closely related generators are considered in the physical models for heat conduction described in \cite{B2007, B2008, B-O, F-N-O} and \cite{G-K-R}. A related model is also considered \cite{Carmona}. However, there are some major differences between the system considered there and the one we investigate. Indeed, in \cite{Carmona} H\"ormander's condition is assumed to be satisfied, and the system is finite dimensional. Moreover, it is shown that there is a unique invariant measure for such a system, which as we will see, is not the case in our set-up.
\end{example}
\begin{rem}
Let $(r_{\bf i,j},\theta_{\bf i,j})$ be polar coordinates in the plane $(x_{\bf i},x_{\bf j})$. Then
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_{\bf i,j}}=x_{\bf i}\partial_{\bf j} - x_{\bf j}\partial_{\bf
i}.
\]
Therefore in Example \ref{ex:GeneratorMainExample}
\[
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N:{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta_{\bf i,j}^2}.
\]
Note that the operator $-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta_{\bf i,j}^2}$ is the Hamiltonian for the rigid rotor on the plane. Thus, the operator $-\mathcal{L}$ is the Hamiltonian of a chain of coupled rigid rotors.
\end{rem}
\section{Invariant measure}\label{Section.4}
\label{Invariant measure}
Suppose now that $(Y(t))_{t\geq0}$ is the unique mild solution to the evolution
equation \eqref{system} in the Hilbert space $E_\alpha$ i.e.
\[
dY(t) = AY(t)dt + B(Y(t))dW(t)
\]
where $A, B$ are given by \eqref{A} and \eqref{B} respectively, and $(W(t))_{t\geq0}$ is a cylindrical Wiener process in $H$. Let $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$ be the corresponding semigroup, defined as above.
For ${\bf i}, {\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, define
\[
\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} = \partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{\bf j} - \partial_{\bf j}V(x)\partial_{\bf i}
\]
so that by Lemma \ref{generator},
\[
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N:{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}^2
\]
is the generator of our system.
We will need the following Lemma:
\begin{lem}
\label{antisym}
\[
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(f\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}g\right) = - \mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}f\right)
\]
for all $f,g\in \mathcal{U}C_b^2(E_{\alpha})$, ${\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and $r>0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For finite subsets $\Lambda\subset\mathbb{Z}^N$ and $\omega\in\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{Z}^N}$, denote by $\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega$ the conditional measure of $\mu_{r\bf G}$, given the
coordinates outside $\Lambda$ coincide with those of $\omega$. Then we have that
\[
\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega(f) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^\Lambda}f(x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c})\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2r}\sum\limits_{{\bf k}\in\Lambda}V_{\bf
k}(x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c})}}{Z_\Lambda^\omega}dx_\Lambda
\]
where $x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c}$ is the element of $\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{Z}^N}$ given by
\[
(x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c})_{\bf i}=
\begin{cases}
x_{\bf i} & \mathrm{if}\ {\bf i}\in\Lambda, \\
\omega_{\bf i} & \mathrm{if}\ {\bf i}\in\Lambda^c,
\end{cases}
\]
and $Z_\Lambda^\omega$ is the normalisation constant.
Now fix ${\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and suppose that $\Lambda$ is such that $\{{\bf i},{\bf j}\}\subset\Lambda$. Then for $f,g\in
\mathcal{U}C_b^2(E_{\alpha})$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega\left(f\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}g\right) &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^\Lambda}f(x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c})
\mathbf{X}_{\bf i,j}
g(x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c})\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2r}\sum\limits_{{\bf k}\in\Lambda}V_{\bf k}(x_\Lambda\cdot\omega_{\Lambda^c})}}{Z_\Lambda^\omega}dx_\Lambda\\
&= - \mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega\left(g \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}f\right) \\
&\qquad +\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega\left(fg\left[\partial_{\bf i}\partial_{\bf j}V(x) - \partial_{\bf j}\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\right]\right)\\
&\qquad +\frac{1}{r}\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega\left(fg\left[\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{\bf j}V(x) - \partial_{\bf j}V(x)\partial_{\bf i}V(x)\right]\right
= - \mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\omega\left(g\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}f\right)
\end{align*}
by integration by parts. Thus we have that
\[
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(f\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}g\right) = \mu_{r\bf G}\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\cdot\left(f\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}g\right) = -\mu_{r\bf G}\mathbb{E}_\Lambda^\cdot\left(g
\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}
f\right)
= -\mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}f\right).
\]
\end{proof}
The following result shows that for $r>0$, $\mu_{r\bf G}$ is reversible for the system \eqref{Ito op form}.
\begin{thm}
\label{symmetric measure}
For all $f,g\in \mathcal{U}C_b^2(E_{\alpha})$ and $r>0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{reversible}
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(fP_tg\right) = \mu_{r\bf G}\left(gP_tf\right).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that \eqref{reversible} holds for $f,g\in \mathcal{U}C_b^2(E_{\alpha})$ depending only on a finite number of coordinates.
Indeed, we can find sequences of cylindrical functions
$\{f_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty},\{g_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathcal{U}C_b^2(E_{\alpha})$ which approximate general $f, g\in\mathcal{U}C_b^2(E_{\alpha})$.
In view of this, suppose $f(x) =
f\left(\{x_{\bf i}\}_{|{\bf i}|_1\leq n}\right)$ and $g(x) = g\left(\{x_{\bf i}\}_{|{\bf i}|_1\leq n}\right)$ for some $n$.
Note that the generator $\mathcal{L}$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}
&= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}^2.
\end{align*}
We decompose this operator further. Indeed, we can write
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf m}\in\{0, \dots, R+1\}^N} \left(\sum_{{\bf i}\in\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} +
m_\sigma\right)} \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^+(k)}^2\right)
\end{align*}
and define for ${\bf m} = (m_1, \dots, m_N)\in\{0,...,R+1\}^N$, $k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$
\[
\mathcal{L}_{\bf m}^{(k)} := \sum_{{\bf i}\in\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} + m_\sigma\right)}\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^+(k)}^2
\]
so that
\[
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf m}\in\{0, \dots, R+1\}^N}\mathcal{L}_{\bf m}^{(k)}.
\]
Note that by construction, for fixed $k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$ and ${\bf m}\in\{0,...,R+1\}^N$, we have for any ${\bf i},{\bf j} \in
\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} + m_\sigma\right)$ that
\[
\left[\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf j}, {\bf j}^+(k)}\right] =0.
\]
For ${\bf i}={\bf j}$ this is clear. If ${\bf i}\neq {\bf j}$, we have
\[
\left[\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf j}, {\bf j}^+(k)}\right] = \left[ \partial_{\bf i}V(x)\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)} - \partial_{{\bf
i}^+(k)}V(x)\partial_{\bf i}, \partial_{\bf j}V(x)\partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)} - \partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)}V(x)\partial_{\bf j}\right]
\]
and
\[
\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{\bf j}V(x) =0.
\]
Indeed, $\partial_{\bf j}V(x)$ depends only on coordinates ${\bf l}$ such that $|{\bf j}-{\bf l}|_1\leq R$, and for all such ${\bf l}$
\begin{align*}
|{\bf i}^+(k) - {\bf l}|_1 &\geq |{\bf i}^+(k)-{\bf j}|_1 - |{\bf j} - {\bf l}|_1\\
&\geq R+1 - R\\
&=1
\end{align*}
so that $\partial_{\bf j}V(x)$ does not depend on coordinate ${\bf i}^+(k)$ for any $k$. Similarly
\[
\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)}V(x) = \partial_{\bf i}\partial_{\bf j}V(x) = \partial_{\bf i}\partial_{{\bf j}^+(k)}V(x) =0,
\]
which proves the claim. Thus for any $k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$ and ${\bf m}\in\{0,...,R+1\}^N$,
\[
S_t^{(k, {\bf m})} :=e^{t\mathcal{L}^{(k)}_{\bf m}}= \prod_{{\bf i}\in\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} + m_\sigma\right)}
e^{t\mathbf{X}^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}}
\]
i.e. $S_t^{(k,{\bf m})}$ is a product semigroup.
We now claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{claim}
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(fS_t^{(k,{\bf m})}g\right) = \mu_{r\bf G}\left(gS_t^{(k,{\bf m})}f\right)
\end{equation}
for $k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$ and ${\bf m}\in\{0,...,R+1\}^N$. Let $k=1$ and ${\bf m} = {\bf 0}$ (the other cases are similar). Since $g$ depends on coordinates ${\bf i}$ such that $|{\bf i}|_1\leq n$, we have
\[
S^{(1,{\bf 0})}_tg(x) = \prod_{\substack{{\bf i}\in\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} + m_\sigma\right)\\ |{\bf i}|_1\leq n+R+2}}e^{t\mathbf{X}^2_{{\bf i},
{\bf
i}^+(k)}}g(x),
\]
which is a finite product. As a result of Lemma \ref{antisym}, we then have that
\begin{align*}
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(fS^{(1,{\bf 0})}_tg\right) &= \mu_{r\bf G}\left(f\prod_{\substack{{\bf i}\in\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} + m_\sigma\right)\\
|{\bf i}|_1\leq n+R+2}}e^{t\mathbf{X}^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}}g\right) \\
&=\mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\prod_{\substack{{\bf i}\in\otimes_{\sigma=1}^N\left((R+2)\mathbb{Z} + m_\sigma\right)\\ |{\bf i}|_1\leq n+R+2}}e^{t\mathbf{X}^2_{{\bf i}, {\bf
i}^+(k)}}f\right) \\
&= \mu_{r\bf G}\left(gS^{(1,{\bf 0})}_tf\right)
\end{align*}
as claimed.
To finish the proof, we will need to use the following version of the Trotter product formula (see \cite{T-Z}):
\begin{thm}
\label{zabczyk}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ be two Hilbert spaces, and $F_i\in Lip(\mathcal{E},\mathcal{E}), U_i\in Lip(\mathcal{E},
L_{HS}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{E}))$
for $i=1,2,3$. Let $(W(t))_{t\geq0}$ be a cylindrical Wiener process in $\mathcal{H}$. Consider the SDEs, indexed by $i=1,2,3$, given by
\[
dY_i(t) = F_i(Y_i(t))dt + U_i(Y_i(t))dW(t), \qquad Y_i(0) = x\in \mathcal{E},
\]
and let $(\mathcal{P}^i_t)_{t\geq0}$ be the corresponding semigroups on $\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$. Assume that
\[
F_3 = F_1 + F_2, \qquad U_3U_3^* = U_1U_1^* + U_2U_2^*,
\]
and that the first and second Fr\'echet derivatives of $F_i$ and $U_i$ are uniformly continuous and bounded on bounded subsets of $\mathcal{E}$.
Then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\mathcal{P}_{\frac{t}{n}}^1\mathcal{P}_{\frac{t}{n}}^2\right)^nf(x) = \mathcal{P}_{t}^3f(x)
\]
for all $f\in \mathbb{K}$, where $\mathbb{K}$ is the closure of $\mathcal{U}C_b^2(\mathcal{E})$ in $\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$, and the convergence is uniform in $x$ on any
bounded subset of $\mathcal{E}$.
\end{thm}
By above, we have that the generator of our system can be decomposed as
\[
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf m} \in \{0, \dots, R+1\}^N}\mathcal{L}_{\bf m}^{(k)}
\]
where, for $k\in\{1, \dots, N\}$ and ${\bf m}\in\{0,...,R+1\}^N$, $\mathcal{L}_{\bf m}^{(k)}$ is the generator of the semigroup $S_t^{(k, {\bf m})}$. The
associated SDE is given by
\[
dY(t) = A_{\bf m}^{(k)}Y(t)dt + B_{\bf m}^{(k)}(Y(t))dW(t),
\]
where $A_{\bf m}^{(k)} : E_\alpha \to E_\alpha$ and $B_{\bf m}^{(k)} \in L\left(E_\alpha, L_{HS}(E_\alpha, H)\right)$ are such that
\[
A= \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf m}\in\{0, \dots, R+1\}^N}A_{\bf m}^{(k)}
\]
and
\[
BB^* = \sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{{\bf m}\in\{0, \dots, R+1\}^N} B_{\bf m}^{(k)}\left(B_{\bf m}^{(k)}\right)^*.
\]
We can then apply Theorem \ref{zabczyk} iteratively to get the result. Indeed, order the set
\[
\{1, \dots, N\}\times\{0, \dots, R+1\}^N =\{ \iota_1, \dots, \iota_S\}
\]
where $S=N(R+2)^N$. If $\iota_l = (k, {\bf m}) \in\{1, \dots, N\}\times\{0, \dots, R+1\}^N$, write
\[
A_{\bf m}^{(k)}=A_{\iota_l}, \quad B_{\bf m}^{(k)} = B_{\iota_l}, \quad \mathcal{L}_{\bf m}^{(k)} = \mathcal{L}_{\iota_l}, \quad S^{k,{\bf m}}_t =
S^{\iota_l}_t.
\]
Then define for $1\leq l \leq S$
\[
\qquad \tilde{A}_{l} := \sum_{j=1}^lA_{\iota_j}
\]
and $\tilde{B}_l\in L\left(E_\alpha, L_{HS}(E_\alpha, H)\right)$ to be such that
\[
\tilde{B}_l\tilde{B}_l^* := \sum_{j=1}^{l}B_{\iota_j}B_{\iota_j}^*.
\]
Consider the SDE
\[
d\tilde{Y}_l(t) = \tilde{A}_l\tilde{Y}_l(t)dt + \tilde{B}_l\left(\tilde{Y}_l(t)\right)dW(t),
\]
which has generator $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_l = \sum_{j=1}^l\mathcal{L}_{\iota_j}$. Let $(\tilde{P}^l_t)_{t\geq0}$ be the semigroup on
$\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})$ associated with
$\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_l$.
By a first application of Theorem \ref{zabczyk}, for all $f\in \mathbb{K}$, we have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(S^{\iota_1}_{\frac{t}{n}}S^{\iota_2}_{\frac{t}{n}}\right)^nf(x) = \tilde{P}^2_tf(x)
\]
where the convergence is uniform on bounded subsets. Moreover, by claim \eqref{claim} above and the dominated convergence theorem, we have
\begin{align}
\label{iteration1}
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(f\tilde{P}^2_tg\right) &
= \lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_{r\bf
G}\left(f\left(S^{\iota_1}_{\frac{t}{n}}S^{\iota_2}_{\frac{t}{n}}\right)^ng\right)\nonumber\\
&
= \lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\left(S^{\iota_1}_{\frac{t}{n}}S^{\iota_2}_{\frac{t}{n}}\right)^nf\right
=\mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\tilde{P}^2_tf\right)
\end{align}
for all $f,g\in\mathcal{U}C^2_b(E_{\alpha})$. Similarly, for all $f\in \mathbb{K}$, we have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\tilde{P}^2_{\frac{t}{n}}S^{\iota_3}_{\frac{t}{n}}\right)^nf(x) = \tilde{P}_t^3f(x)
\]
where again the convergence is uniform on bounded sets, so that
\begin{align*}
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(f\tilde{P}_t^3g\right) &= \lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_{r\bf G}\left(f\left(\tilde{P}^2_{\frac{t}{n}}S^{\iota_3}_{\frac{t}{n}}\right)^ng\right)\nonumber\\
& = \lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\left(\tilde{P}^2_{\frac{t}{n}}S^{\iota_3}_{\frac{t}{n}}\right)^nf\right
=\mu_{r\bf G}\left(g\tilde{P}^3_tf\right),
\end{align*}
using identities \eqref{claim} and \eqref{iteration1}. Continuing in this manner, we see that $P_t = \tilde{P}^{S}_t$, the semigroup
corresponding to
the generator $\mathcal{L}=\sum_{j=1}^{s}\mathcal{L}_{\iota_j}$, is such that
\[
\mu_{r\bf G}\left(fP_tg\right) = \mu_{r\bf G}\left(gP_tf\right)
\]
for all $f,g\in \mathcal{U}C^2_b(E_{\alpha})$, as required.
\end{proof}
Finally, by standard arguments, we can extend the above result to functions in $L^p(\mu_{r\bf G})$.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:SemigroupReversibility}
The semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$ acting on $\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})$ can be extended to $L^p(\mu_{r\bf G})$ for any $p\geq1$, $r>0$.
Moreover we have
\[
\mu_{r\bf G}(fP_tg) = \mu_{r\bf G}(gP_tf)
\]
for any $f, g\in L^2(\mu_{r\bf G})$ and $r>0$.
\end{cor}
\section{Weak and strong continuity}\label{Section.5}
In this section we will show that the semigroup $(e^{-\beta t}P_t)_{t\geq 0}$, is weakly continuous for some $\beta>0$ in the sense of definition given
in \cite{[Cerrai-1994]}.
This will allow us to deduce the closedness of the generator $\mathcal{L}$ in $L^2(d\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$ and the strong continuity of
$(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$. Another approach to strong continuity of diffusion semigroups and connected questions is discussed in \cite{G-K}.
Let $\mathcal{E}$ be an arbitrary separable Hilbert space. The following definition is found in
\cite{[Cerrai-1994]}.
\begin{defin}
\label{weak cont}
A semigroup of bounded linear operators $(S_t)_{t\geq
0}$ defined on $\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$ is said to be weakly continuous
if
\begin{trivlist}
\item[(i)] the family of functions $\{S_t\phi\}_{t\geq 0}$ is
equi-uniformly continuous for every $\phi\in\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$;
\item[(ii)] for every $\phi\in\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$ and for every
compact set $K\subset H$
\begin{equation}
\label{WeakCont_1} \lim\limits_{t\to 0}\sup\limits_{x\in
K}|S_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|=0;
\end{equation}
\item[(iii)] for every $\phi\in\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$ and for every
sequence $\{\phi_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}\subset \mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$ such
that
\begin{displaymath}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\sup\limits_{j}|\phi_j|_{L^{\infty}}&<&\infty,\\
\lim\limits_{j\to\infty}\sup\limits_{x\in K}|\phi_j(x)-\phi(x)|&=&0,\ {\mathrm\ for\ all\ compact\ }K\subset\mathcal{E},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{WeakCont_2}
\lim\limits_{j\to\infty}\sup\limits_{x\in
K}|S_t\phi_j(x)-S_t\phi(x)|=0,
\end{equation}
for every compact set $K\subset E$, and furthermore the limit is uniform
in $t\geq 0$;
\item[(iv)]
there exist $\mathcal{M},\omega>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
|S_tf|_{\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})}\leq \mathcal{M}e^{-\omega t}|f|_{\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})},\qquad t\geq0
\label{ExponentialDecrease}
\end{equation}
for all $f\in\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$.
\end{trivlist}
\end{defin}
Now suppose we are in the situation of Sections \ref{The system}, \ref{solution} and \ref{Invariant measure} above.
Define $\tilde{H}\subset E_{\alpha}$ by
\[
\tilde{H} := \left\{ x\in \Omega: |x|_{\tilde{H}}^2:=\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}x_{{\bf i}}^2 <\infty\right\}.
\]
\begin{thm}
Assume that there exist $C_1,C_2>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
C_2 V(x)\leq|x|^2_{\tilde{H}}\leq C_1 V(x),\quad x\in \tilde{H}.
\label{ULbound_V}
\end{equation}
Then there exists $\beta>0$ such that semigroup $(\tilde P_t)_{t\geq0}:=\left(e^{-\beta
t}P_t\right)_{t\geq 0}$ is weakly continuous in $\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Assumption \eqref{ULbound_V} is satisfied if $\mathbf{M}$ is strictly positive definite and the coefficients of $\mathbf{M}$ are uniformly bounded, as in our case, though we state the result in a more general form.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
First notice that there exists $q=q(\alpha)>0$, such that
\begin{equation}
P_t|Id|_{E_{\alpha}}^2(x)\leq |x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2e^{qt},\label{ExponentialGrowth}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in E_\alpha$ and $t>0$. Indeed,
$P_t|Id|_{E_{\alpha}}^2(x)=\mathbb{E}|Y_t(x)|_{E_{\alpha}}^2$, where
$Y_t$ is a solution of equation \eqref{Ito op form}. Inequality \eqref{ExponentialGrowth} then follows from It\^o's formula,
the boundedness of linear maps $A\in L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})$ and $B\in
L(E_{\alpha},L_{HS}(H,E_{\alpha}))$ and Gronwall's lemma.
Put $\beta=q$. We check the requirements of Definition \ref{weak cont}.
\begin{trivlist}
\item[(i)] Let $\phi\in\mathcal{U}C_b(E)$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$
there exists $\delta(\varepsilon)>0$ such that
$|x-y|_{E_\alpha}<\delta(\varepsilon)\Rightarrow |\phi(x)-\phi(y)|<\varepsilon$.
Thus, for any $x,y\in E_{\alpha}$,
\begin{align}
\label{EquiUniContinuity}
|\tilde P_t\phi(x)-\tilde P_t\phi(y)| & \leq
e^{-qt}\mathbb{E}\left(\textbf{1}_{\{|Y_t(x)-Y_t(y)|<\delta(\varepsilon/2)\}}|\phi(Y_t(x))-\phi(Y_t(y))|\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad + e^{-qt}\mathbb{E}\left(\textbf{1}_{\{|Y_t(x)-Y_t(y)|\geq\delta(\varepsilon/2)\}}|\phi(Y_t(x))-\phi(Y_t(y))|\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}+2e^{-qt}|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}\mathbb{P}\left\{|Y_t(x)-Y_t(y)|_{E_\alpha}\geq\delta(\varepsilon/2)\right\}\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}+\frac{2|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}}{\delta^2(\varepsilon/2)}|x-y|_{E_{\alpha}}^2,
\end{align}
where we have used Chebyshev's inequality.
Choose $\delta_1(\varepsilon)$ such that
$\frac{2|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}}{\delta^2(\varepsilon/2)}\delta_1(\varepsilon)^2=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$.
Then $|x-y|_{E_{\alpha}}<\delta_1(\varepsilon) \Rightarrow |\tilde P_t\phi(x)-\tilde P_t\phi(y)|\leq \varepsilon$, and so the first requirement holds.
\item[(ii)] Fix compact $K\subset E_{\alpha}$ and $\phi\in
\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})$. For $\varepsilon>0$ again let $\delta(\varepsilon)>0$ be
such that $|x-y|_{E_\alpha}\leq \delta(\varepsilon)\Rightarrow
|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|\leq\varepsilon$ for any $x,y\in E_{\alpha}$.
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\tilde P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)| &\leq& |P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|+ (1-e^{-qt})|P_t\phi|_{L^\infty} \\
&\leq& |P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|+ (1-e^{-qt})|\phi|_{L^\infty},
\end{eqnarray*}
it is enough to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{WeakCont_1a} \lim\limits_{t\to 0}\sup\limits_{x\in
K}|P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|=0.
\end{equation}
A similar calculation to the above yields
\begin{align}
|P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|&\leq \mathbb{E}|\phi(Y_t(x))-\phi(x)|\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathbb{E}\textbf{1}_{\{|Y_t(x)-x|_{E_\alpha}\leq \delta(\varepsilon/2)\}}|\phi(Y_t(x))-\phi(x)| \nonumber\\
&\quad +\mathbb{E}\textbf{1}_{\{|Y_t(x)-x|_{E_\alpha}>
\delta(\varepsilon/2)\}}|\phi(Y_t(x))-\phi(x)|\nonumber\\
&\leq \varepsilon/2+2|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}\mathbb{P}\left\{|Y_t(x)-x|_{E_\alpha}>
\delta(\varepsilon/2)\right\}\nonumber\\
&\leq\varepsilon/2+\frac{2|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}}{\delta^2(\varepsilon/2)}\mathbb{E}|Y_t(x)-x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2.
\label{WC_aux_0}
\end{align}
Since $Y_t$ is a mild solution of equation
\eqref{system}, we have
$$
Y_t(x)-x=e^{At}x-x+\int_0^te^{A(t-s)}B(Y_s)dW_s.
$$
Therefore, using the It\^o isometry, for $x\in E_{\alpha}$ and $t\geq 0$, we see that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}|Y_t(x)-x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2&\leq
2|e^{At}x-x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2+2\mathbb{E}\int_0^t|e^{A(t-s)}B(Y_s)|_{L_{HS}(H,E_{\alpha})}^2ds\nonumber\\
&\leq
2|e^{At}-Id|_{L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})}^2|x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2\nonumber\\
& \quad +2\sup\limits_{\tau\in [0,t]}|e^{A\tau}|_{L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})}^2|B|_{L(E_{\alpha},L_{HS}(H,E_{\alpha}))}^2\int\limits_0^t\mathbb{E}|Y_s|_{E_{\alpha}}^2ds\nonumber\\
&\leq 2|e^{At}-Id|_{L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})}^2|x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2\nonumber\\
&\quad + 2e^{2|A|_{L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})}t}|B|_{L(E_{\alpha},L_{HS}(H,E_{\alpha}))}^2|x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2\frac{e^{qt}-1}{q},\label{WC_aux_01}
\end{align}
where the last inequality follows from \eqref{ExponentialGrowth}. Combining \eqref{WC_aux_0}
and \eqref{WC_aux_01}, we get for $t\in[0,1]$,
\[
|P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|\leq
\varepsilon/2+\frac{4|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}}{\delta^2(\varepsilon/2)}|x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2\Big(C(A,B,q)(e^{qt}-1)+2|e^{At}-Id|_{L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})}^2\Big).
\]
Choose $\tau\in (0,1]$ such that
$$
\frac{2|\phi|_{L^{\infty}}}{\delta^2(\varepsilon/2)}\sup\limits_{x\in
K}|x|_{E_{\alpha}}^2\left[C(A,B,q)(e^{q\tau}-1)+2\sup\limits_{t\in[0,\tau]}|e^{At}-Id|_{L(E_{\alpha},E_{\alpha})}^2\right]\leq\varepsilon/2.
$$
Then for any $0\leq
t\leq\tau$,
\[
\sup\limits_{x\in K}|P_t\phi(x)-\phi(x)|\leq\varepsilon,
\]
and \eqref{WeakCont_1a} follows.
\item[(iii)]
Fix compact $K\subset E_{\alpha}$. Define
$$
\tilde{K}=\tilde{K}(\omega)=\overline{\mathop{\cup}\limits_{t\geq 0}Y_t(K)},\quad\omega\in\Omega.
$$
We first show that $\tilde{K}$ is compact with probability $1$. For any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $x(1),\ldots, x(n)\in
E_{\alpha}$ such that
\begin{equation}
K\subset\mathop{\cup}\limits_{i=1}^nB_{\varepsilon/2}(x(i)).\label{WC_aux_1}
\end{equation}
Since $\tilde{H}$ is dense in $E_{\alpha}$ we can always assume that $x(i)\in
\tilde{H}$. It follows from assumption \eqref{ULbound_V} that
$V(x(i))<\infty$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. Therefore, by It\^o's lemma and the
identity $\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}V=0$, we conclude\footnote{We can assume that
exceptional set of measure $0$ in equality
\eqref{Conservation_Law} is the same for all $t\geq 0$ because we
can choose a continuous modification of the process $Y$.} that
$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\begin{equation}
V(Y_t(x(i)))=V(x(i)),\quad t\geq 0,\quad i=1,\ldots,n.\label{Conservation_Law}
\end{equation}
Hence, using assumption \eqref{ULbound_V} once more, we see that there
exists $C>0$ such that $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\begin{equation}\label{WC_aux_2}
|Y_t(x(i))|_{\tilde{H}}\leq C\sup\limits_l |x(l)|_{\tilde{H}},\quad t\geq 0,\quad i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
Since the embedding $\tilde{H}\subset E_{\alpha}$ is compact, there exist
$y(1),\ldots, y(m)\in E_{\alpha}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\cup}\limits_{t,i}Y_t(x(i))\subset\mathop{\cup}\limits_{l=1}^mB_{\varepsilon/2}(y(l))\label{WC_aux_3}
\end{equation}
$\mathbb{P}$-a.s. Combining identities \eqref{WC_aux_1} and \eqref{WC_aux_3} we
deduce that
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\cup}\limits_{t\geq 0}Y_t(K)\subset
\mathop{\cup}\limits_{l=1}^mB_{\varepsilon}(y(l))\quad \label{WC_aux_4}
\end{equation}
and so $\tilde{K}$ is compact $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. as claimed.
Now let $\phi\in\mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$ and $\{\phi_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}} \subset \mathcal{U}C_b(\mathcal{E})$ be such that
$\sup_j|\phi_j|_{L^\infty} <\infty$ and
\[
\lim_{j\to\infty}\sup_{x\in K} |\phi_j(x) - \phi(x)| = 0
\]
for all compact $K\subset E_\alpha$. Note that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup\limits_{x\in K}|\tilde P_t\phi_j(x)-\tilde P_t\phi(x)|\leq e^{-qt}\sup\limits_{x\in
K}\mathbb{E}|\phi_j(Y_t(x))-\phi(Y_t(x))|\nonumber\\
\leq \mathbb{E}\sup\limits_{y\in \tilde{K}}|\phi_j(y)-\phi(y)|,\label{WC_aux_5}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $t\geq0,j\in \mathbb{N}$.
Since $\tilde{K}$ is compact with probability $1$, we have that
$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\[
\sup\limits_{y\in \tilde{K}}|\phi_j(y)-\phi(y)|\to 0\mbox{ as
}j\to\infty.\label{WC_aux_6}
\]
Thus, by the dominated convergence theorem, we conclude that
\[
\lim_{j\to\infty}\sup_{x\in K}|\tilde P_t\phi_j(x) - \tilde P_t\phi(x)| = 0
\]
for all compact $K\subset E_\alpha$.
\item[(iv)] Since $\tilde{P}_tf=e^{-qt}\mathbb{E}f(Y_t)$, we have that
$$
|\tilde P_tf|_{\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})} \leq e^{-qt}|f|_{\mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})},
$$
for all $f\in \mathcal{U}C_b(E_{\alpha})$ and $t\geq0$.
\end{trivlist}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
The operator $\mathcal{L}$ is closed and the semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is strongly continuous in $L^2(d\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$, for all $r>0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
$\mathcal{L}$ is closed by Theorem 5.1 of \cite{[Cerrai-1994]}. Strong continuity follows from property (ii) of the definition of weak
continuity
above and a standard approximation procedure.
\end{proof}
\section{Symmetry in Sobolev spaces}
\label{symmetry}\label{Section.6}
In this section we show that the generator $\mathcal{L}$ as given in Lemma \ref{generator} is symmetric and dissipative in some family of infinite dimensional Sobolev spaces. In the next section this result will be useful in the proof of ergodicity of the semigroup generated by $\mathcal{L}$.
For $r>0$, we start by introducing the following Dirichlet operator:
\[
(f,L_r g)_{L^2(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})}= -\sum_{{\bf k,l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mathbf{G}_{\bf k, l}(\partial_{\bf k}f, \partial_{\bf l}g)_{L^2(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})}
\]
where $\mathbf{G} = \mathbf{M}^{-1}$ is the covariance matrix associated to the measure $\mu_\mathbf{G}$, as above.
That is, on a dense domain including \(\mathcal{U}C_b^2\), we have
\begin{equation}
L_rg = \sum_{{\bf k,l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mathbf{G}_{\bf k, l}\partial_{\bf k} \partial_{\bf l}g
- r^{-1}D g
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Dg \equiv \sum_{{\bf k }\in\mathbb{Z}^N}x_{\bf k}\partial_{\bf k} g.
\end{equation}
$D$ will play the role of the dilation generator in our set-up. We remark that
\[[D, \mathbf{X}_{\bf i,j}] = 0\]
i.e. our fields are of order zero.
Thus
\[[D, \mathcal{L}]=0.\]
Note also that by a simple computation, we get
\[
\left[\sum_{{\bf k, l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mathbf{G}_{\bf k, l}\partial_{\bf k} \partial_{\bf l}, \mathcal{L}\right]=0.\]
This is because
\[ [\partial_{\bf k}, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} ]
= [\partial_{\bf k}, \sum_{{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}{\bf M}_{\bf i,l}x_{\bf l}\partial_{\bf j} - \sum_{{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}{\bf M}_{\bf j,l}x_{\bf l}\partial_{\bf i}]
= {\bf M}_{\bf i,k} \partial_{\bf j} - {\bf M}_{\bf j,k} \partial_{\bf i},
\]
so that
\[ \left[\sum_{{\bf k, l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mathbf{G}_{\bf k, l}\partial_{\bf k} \partial_{\bf l}, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}\right]=0. \]
We thus obtain the following result.
\begin{prop}\label{commutativity1}
On \(\mathcal{U}C_b^4\), we have
\begin{equation}
[L_r, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}] = 0
\end{equation}
for all ${\bf i,j} \in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and all $r>0$, from which it follows that
\begin{equation}
[L_r,\mathcal{L}] = 0
\end{equation}
for all $r>0$.
\end{prop}
Keeping this in mind, we introduce the following family of Hilbert spaces
$$
\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n=\left\{f\in L^2(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})\cap \mathcal{D}(L_r^n): |f|_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n}^2 := |f|_{L^2(d\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})}^2+(f,(-L_r)^nf)_{L^2(d\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})}
<\infty\right\
$$
equipped with the corresponding inner product
\[
(f, g)_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_n} = \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(fg) + (f,(-L_r)^nf)_{L^2(d\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})},
\]
for $f, g\in\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n$, where $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$ and $r>0$. Hence we obtain the following fact, (where besides Proposition \ref{commutativity1} we also use Lemma \ref{antisym}).
\begin{prop}\label{symmetry1}
For all $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ and $r>0$, on a dense set \(\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_r^n\subset\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n\), we have
\begin{equation}
(f, \mathcal{L}g)_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n} = (\mathcal{L}f, g)_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n} = -\frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\sum_{{\bf j}:{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}(\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}f, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}g)_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n} .
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
In the case when $n=1$, we have
\[(f, g)_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_r }= \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(fg) + \sum\limits_{{\bf i}, {\bf j}\in \mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\mathbf{G}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}\partial_{\bf i} f \partial_{\bf j} g)
=\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(fg) + \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla f\cdot \mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla g)
\]
where for simplicity here and later we set $\tilde\mathbb{X}_r \equiv\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^1(=\mathbb{X}_r)$.
By induction, and using the fact that \([\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla, L_r]=\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla\), one can show that there exist non-negative constants \(a_{m,n},\ m=1,..,n\) with \(a_{n,n}>0\), such that
\[
(f, g)_{\tilde\mathbb{X}_r^n}= \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(fg) + \sum_{m=1,..,n}a_{m,n}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}((\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla)^{\otimes m} f\cdot (\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla)^{\otimes m} g).
\]
This motivates the introduction of the associated family $\mathbb{X}_r^n$ of Hilbert spaces with corresponding scalar products
\[(f, g)_{\mathbb{X}_r^n} \equiv \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(fg) + \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}((\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla)^{\otimes m} f\cdot (\mathbf{G}^\frac12\nabla)^{\otimes m} g).
\]
Again by induction, we conclude with the following property.
\begin{prop}\label{symmetry2}
For all $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ and $r>0$, on a dense set \(\mathcal{D}_r^n\subset \mathbb{X}_r^n\), we have
\begin{equation}
(f, \mathcal{L}g)_{\mathbb{X}_r^n} = (\mathcal{L}f, g)_{\mathbb{X}_r^n} .
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
We remark that neither of the families of spaces are orthogonal, but that the tilded one further allows a Fock-type stratification, which provides invariant subspaces other than the eigenspaces of the dilation generator \(D\).
\begin{rem}
The operator $\mathcal{L}$ is closable in $\mathbb{X}_r$ for all $r>0$, and its closure has a self-adjoint extension which is bounded from above. We continue to denote this extension by the same symbol
$\mathcal{L}$. Moreover, the
self-adjoint extension $\mathcal{L}$ generates a strongly continuous semigroup $T_t=e^{t\mathcal{L}}:\mathbb{X}_r\to \mathbb{X}_r$ such that $T_t=P_t|_{\mathbb{X}_r}$.
\end{rem}
\section{Ergodicity}\label{Section.7}
\label{ergodicity}
Before we get into general estimates, it is interesting to consider a few cases where some explicit bounds can be obtained.
First of all consider the linear functions
\[
F(x) \equiv \sum_{{\bf k}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} \alpha_{\bf k} x_{\bf k}.
\]
We note that
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}F(x)
=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{{\bf k}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} \left(\sum_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}'\left(\left({\bf M}_{\bf j,k}{\bf M}_{\bf j,i} - {\bf M}_{\bf i,k}{\bf M}_{\bf j,j} \right) \alpha_{\bf i}
+\left( {\bf M}_{\bf j,k}{\bf M}_{\bf i,j} - {\bf M}_{\bf j,k}{\bf M}_{\bf i,i} \right) \alpha_{\bf j} \right) \right)
x_{\bf k}\nonumber,
\end{align}
where the sum $\sum_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}'$ indicates that we sum over the pairs of indices as in the definition of $\mathcal{L}$.
In particular, in the case when $\mathbf{M}=b\mathbf{Id}, b\in(0,\infty)$, we have
\[\mathcal{L}F = -Nb^2\sum_{{\bf k}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}
\alpha_{\bf k}x_{\bf k}\nonumber .
\]
Since the semigroup maps the space of linear functions into itself, we conclude that
\[ \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|P_tF-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}} F|^2\leq e^{-mt} \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|F-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}} F|^2
\]
for $r>0$, with some $m\in(0,\infty)$ i.e. on linear functions we get exponential decay to equilibrium.
An inequality of this form on a dense set would imply a Poincar\'e inequality. One can, however, show that such an inequality cannot hold. To this end consider a sequence of functions of the following form:
\[
f_\Lambda(x) \equiv \sum_{{\bf i}\in\Lambda } x_{\bf i}^2
\]
for a finite set $\Lambda$. Then, for the measure with diagonal covariance matrix, we have
\[\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|f_\Lambda-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}} f_\Lambda|^2 \geq |\Lambda| \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|x_{\bf i}^2-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}} x_{\bf i}^2|^2 \equiv const\cdot |\Lambda|
\]
with $|\Lambda|$ denoting cardinality of $\Lambda$. Moreover,
\[
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}\left(f_\Lambda ( -\mathcal{L} f_\Lambda)\right) =
\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\substack{{\bf i}\in \Lambda,{\bf j}\in \Lambda^c\\ {\bf i}\sim{\bf j} }} \mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}f_\Lambda)^2 = const\cdot|\partial \Lambda|.
\]
From this we see that for a suitable sequence of subsets $\Lambda$ invading the lattice,
the ratio of $\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}\left(f_\Lambda ( -\mathcal{L} f_\Lambda)\right)$ to $\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|f_\Lambda-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}} f_\Lambda|^2$ converges to $0$.
In the remainder of this section we develop a strategy to obtain optimal estimates on the decay to equilibrium for more general spaces of functions, for simplicity working in the set-up when the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is given by $\mathbf{M}=b\mathbf{Id}, \, b\in(0,\infty)$.
We show that the corresponding semigroup is ergodic with polynomial decay.
For $r>0$, first define
$$
\mathcal{A}_r(f)\equiv\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf
i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\right)^{1/2}.
$$
\begin{lem}\label{lem:PolynomConv}
For any $r>0$, $f\in \mathbb{X}_r$, ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ and $t>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{PolynomialConv_1}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}(P_tf)|^2\leq \frac{A^N}{t^{\frac{N}{2}}} \mathcal{A}^2_r(f),
\end{equation}
where $A=\frac{1}{b}\sup\limits_{t>0}\sqrt{t}\int\limits_0^1e^{-2t(1-\cos(2\pi\beta))}d\beta$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $r>0$. It is enough to show \eqref{PolynomialConv_1} for $f\in \mathcal{U}C_b^4(E_{\alpha})$. Indeed, $\mathcal{U}C_b^4(E_{\alpha})$ is dense in $\mathbb{X}_r$ and
$(P_t)_{t\geq
0}$ is a contraction on $\mathbb{X}_r$.
Denote $f_t=P_tf$ for $t\geq 0$.
For ${\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, we can calculate that
\begin{align}
|\partial_{\bf i} f_t|^2-P_t|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2&=\int_0^t\frac{d}{ds}P_{t-s}|\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2ds\label{eqn:AuxEquation-1}\nonumber\\
&=\int_0^tP_{t-s}(-\mathcal{L}(|\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2)+2\partial_{\bf i} f_s\mathcal{L}\partial_{\bf i} f_s+2\partial_{\bf i}
f_s[\partial_{\bf i},\mathcal{L}]f_s)ds\nonumber\\
&=\int_0^tP_{t-s}\Big(-\sum\limits_{\substack{{\bf m,l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N\\{\bf m}\sim{\bf l}}}|\mathbf{X}_{\bf m,l}(\partial_{\bf i} f_s)|^2\nonumber\\
& \quad +2b\partial_{\bf i} f_s\sum\limits_{k=1}^N(-b\partial_{\bf i} f_s+\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^-(k)}\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}f_s+\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}f_s)\Big)ds .
\end{align}
Integrating \eqref{eqn:AuxEquation-1} with respect to the invariant measure
$\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}$ yields
\begin{align}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_t|^2&-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2 = \int_0^t\Big(-\sum\limits_{\substack{{\bf m,l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N\\{\bf m}\sim{\bf l}}}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\mathbf{X}_{\bf m,l}(\partial_{\bf i} f_s)|^2\nonumber\\
&- 2Nb^2\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2+2b\sum\limits_{k=1}^N\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f_s\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^-(k)}\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}f_s)\nonumber\\
&+ 2b\sum\limits_{k=1}^N\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f_s\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}f_s)\Big)ds.
\end{align}
By Lemma \ref{antisym}, the operators $\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}},{\bf i},{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$, are anti-symmetric in
$L^2(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_t|^2&-&\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2=\int_0^t\Big(-\sum\limits_{\substack{{\bf m,l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N\\{\bf m}\sim{\bf l}}}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\mathbf{X}_{\bf m,l}(\partial_{\bf i} f_s)|^2\nonumber\\
&-&2Nb^2\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2-2b\sum\limits_{k=1}^N\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}f_s\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^-(k)}\partial_{\bf i} f_s)\nonumber\\
&-&2b\sum\limits_{k=1}^N\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}f_s\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{\bf i} f_s)\Big)ds.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, by Young's inequality we deduce that
\begin{align}
&\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_t|^2-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq\int_0^t\Big(-\sum_{\substack{{\bf m,l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N\\{\bf m}\sim{\bf l}}}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\mathbf{X}_{\bf m,l}(\partial_{\bf i} f_s)|^2 - 2Nb^2\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2 + \sum\limits_{k=1}^Nb^2\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}f_s|^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad + \sum\limits_{k=1}^N\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf i}^-(k)}\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2 + b^2\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{{\bf i} ^+(k)}f_s|^2+\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i}, {\bf i}^+(k)}\partial_{\bf i} f_s|^2\Big)ds\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq\int_0^tb^2\sum\limits_{k=1}^N\Big(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{{\bf i}^-(k)}f_s|^2+\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{{\bf i}^+(k)}f_s|^2-2\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}
f_s|^2\Big)ds.\label{ComparBound_1}
\end{align}
Let $\triangle$ denote the Laplacian on the lattice $\mathbb{Z}^N$ and set $F({\bf i},t)=\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}(P_tf)|^2$ for $t\geq 0,{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$.
Then we can rewrite \eqref{ComparBound_1} as
\begin{equation}
F(t)\leq
F(0)+\int\limits_0^tb^2\triangle F(s)\,ds,\qquad t\in[0,\infty).\label{ComparBound_2}
\end{equation}
Hence, by the positivity of the semigroup $(e^{tb^2\triangle})_{t\geq 0}$, and Duhamel's principle, we can conclude that
\begin{equation}
F(t)\leq e^{tb^2\triangle} F(0)
\end{equation}
for $t\in[0, \infty)$. By taking the Fourier transform, we can see that this is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}(P_tf)|^2\leq\sum\limits_{{\bf l}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(|\partial_{\bf l}f|^2)c_{{\bf i}+{\bf l}}(\phi^{b^2t}),\label{ComparBound_3}
\end{equation}
where
$$
c_{\bf k}(\phi^{t})=\int\limits_{[0,1]^N}\varphi^{t}({\bf\alpha})\cos\left(2\pi \sum\limits_{l=1}^Nk_l\alpha_l\right)d\alpha_1\ldots d\alpha_N,
$$
is the Fourier coefficient of the function $\varphi^{t}({\bf\alpha})=\exp(-2t\sum\limits_{n=1}^N(1-\cos(2\pi\alpha_n)))$, ${\bf\alpha}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_N)\in\mathbb{R}^N$. The coefficient $c_{\bf k}(\varphi^t), {\bf k}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$ can then be bounded above by
\begin{equation}
|c_{\bf k}(\phi^t)|\leq \int\limits_{[0,1]^N}\varphi^t({\bf\alpha})d{\bf\alpha}=\left(\int_0^1e^{-2t(1-\cos(2\pi\beta))}d\beta\right)^N\label{ComparBound_4},
\end{equation}
and the result follows.
\end{proof}
Now define
$$
\mathcal{B}_r(f)\equiv\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\big(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}
f|^2\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)
$$
for $r>0$. The we have the following convergence result.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:ConvergenceRate}
For $r>0$ and $f\in \mathbb{X}_r$ with $\mathcal{B}_r(f)<\infty$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ConvergenceRate_1}
\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}(P_tf)|^2\leq \frac{A^\frac{N}{2} }{t^{\frac{N}{4}}} \, \mathcal{A}_r(f) \mathcal{B}_r(f).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, there exists a constant $C\in(0, \infty)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ConvergenceRate_2ls}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}\left((P_tf)^2\log\frac{(P_tf)^2}{\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(P_tf)^2 }\right)\leq C \frac{A^\frac{N}{2} }{t^{\frac{N}{4}}}\,\mathcal{A}_r(f) \mathcal{B}_r(f),
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{ConvergenceRate_2}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(P_tf-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(f))^2\leq C \frac{A^\frac{N}{2} }{t^{\frac{N}{4}}}\mathcal{A}_r(f) \mathcal{B}_r(f),
\end{equation}
i.e. our system is ergodic with polynomial rate of convergence.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{symmetry1}, we have that the semigroup $P_t$ on $\mathbb{X}_r$ is symmetric. Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} (P_tf)|^2 &=& \sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i} P_{2t}f) \nonumber\\
&\leq& \sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\left(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} P_{2t}f|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\nonumber\\
&\leq& \left(\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\big(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\sup\limits_{{\bf j}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\left(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf j}
P_{2t}f|^2\right)^{1/2}. \label{AuxConvergenceRate_1}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{AuxConvergenceRate_1} with \eqref{PolynomialConv_1} we immediately arrive at the estimate \eqref{ConvergenceRate_1}.
Now inequalities \eqref{ConvergenceRate_2ls} and \eqref{ConvergenceRate_2} follow from the logarithmic Sobolev and Poincar\'{e} inequalities for the Gaussian measure $\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The convergence in Lemma \ref{lem:PolynomConv} cannot be improved, while the rate of convergence in Corollary \ref{cor:ConvergenceRate} is
not far from optimal. Indeed, let $W({\bf k},t)=P_t(x_{\bf k}^2)$ for $t\geq 0$ and ${\bf k}\in\mathbb{Z}^N$.
Then $\mathcal{L}x_{\bf k}^2=b^2\sum\limits_{m=1}^N(x_{{\bf k}^+(m)}^2+x_{{\bf k}^-(m)}^2-2x_{\bf k}^2)$, so that,
$$
\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}=b^2\triangle W,
$$
where as above $\triangle$ denotes the discrete Laplacian on $\mathbb{Z}^N$.
Thus
\begin{equation}
W(t)=e^{tb^2\triangle}W(0),\qquad t\geq 0,\label{eqn:PolynomialGrowth}
\end{equation}
so that convergence in the
Lemma \ref{lem:PolynomConv} is precise (see the end of the proof of the Lemma \ref{lem:PolynomConv}).
Furthermore, using \eqref{eqn:PolynomialGrowth} it is possible to explicitly calculate $\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(P_tx_{\bf k}^2-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(x_{\bf k}^2))^2,t\geq 0$ and show that this expression converges to $0$ polynomially. Hence the operator $\mathcal{L}$ acting on $\mathbb{X}_r$ does not have a spectral gap.
\end{rem}
The following result shows that the class of functions for which the system is ergodic is larger than the
one considered in Corollary \ref{cor:ConvergenceRate}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Ergodicity}
The semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$
is ergodic in the Orlicz space $L_\Psi(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$ for all $r>0$, with $\Psi(s)\equiv s^2\log(1+s^2)$, in the sense that
\[
\|P_tf-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}} f\|_{L_\Psi(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})}\to 0
\]
as $t\to \infty$, for any $f\in L_\Psi(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$ and $r>0$. Furthermore, for all $f\in \mathbb{X}_r$, $|P_tf-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}f|_{\mathbb{X}_r}\to 0$ as $t\to \infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For $f\in \mathbb{X}_r\cap\left\{f\in L_\Psi(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}): \sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\Big(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\infty\right\}$ the
result follows from Corollary
\ref{cor:ConvergenceRate}. Now, it is enough to notice that such a set of functions is dense in $L_\Psi(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$ (resp. in $\mathbb{X}_r$) for the natural topology and
$P_t$ is a
contraction on $L_\Psi(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})$ (resp. in $\mathbb{X}_r$).
\end{proof}
\section{Liggett-Nash-type inequalities} \label{Section.8}
In this section we will show how to deduce Liggett-Nash-type inequalities from the results of the previous section.
\begin{thm}
There exist constants $C_1, C_2\in(0,\infty)$ such that for all $r>0$ and $f\in \mathbb{X}_r\cap \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{L})$ with $\mathcal{B}_r(f)<\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{LiggettInequality_I}
\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(f-\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(f))^2\leq C_1\left(-\mathcal{L}f,f\right)_{L^2(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}})}^{\frac{N}{N+4}}
\left(\mathcal{A}_r(f) \mathcal{B}_r(f)
\right)^{\frac{4}{N+4}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{NashInequality}
\left[\mathcal{A}_r(f)
\right]^{2+\frac{4}{N}}
\leq C_2\mathcal{B}_r(f)^{\frac{4}{N}}\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i} (-\mathcal{L}f)).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Note that inequality \eqref{NashInequality} can be considered as an analogue of the Nash inequality in $\mathbb{R}^N$ (see \cite{[Nash-58]}, p.936). Indeed, such an
inequality takes the form
$$
|u|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{2+\frac{4}{N}}\leq C(-\Delta u,u)_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}|u|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{4}{N}}, \quad u\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap
W^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^n),
$$
for some constant $C>0$, and where $\Delta$ is the standard Laplacian on $\mathbb{R}^N$.
The main difference is that the natural space for our operator $\mathcal{L}$ is $\mathbb{X}_r$ instead of $L^2$.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Inequality \eqref{LiggettInequality_I} immediately follows from \eqref{ConvergenceRate_2}, Corollary \ref{cor:SemigroupReversibility} and part (b) of
Theorem 2.2 of \cite{[Liggett-1991]}.
To see \eqref{NashInequality} let $f_t=P_tf$ as usual.
We then have, by H\"{o}lder's inequality and Lemma \ref{lem:PolynomConv}, that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i} f_t) &\leq& \left(\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}
f|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f_t|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\leq&\frac{A^{\frac{N}{4}}\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf
i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\Big(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}
f|^2\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}}{t^{\frac{N}{8}}}.
\label{LigAux_1}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, note that
\begin{equation}\label{LigAux_2}
\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i} f_t)=\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2+
\int_0^t\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f_s)) ds.
\end{equation}
Define $\phi(s)=\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i} (\mathcal{L}f_s))$ for $s\geq 0$. $\mathcal{L}$ is symmetric in $\mathbb{X}_r$, so
\[\phi(s)=\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i} f_s), \qquad s\geq0.
\]
We can then calculate that
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi'(s) &=&
\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f_s))=
\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i}(P_s\mathcal{L}f))
\nonumber\\
&=& \sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}P_{\frac{s}{2}}f)\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}P_{\frac{s}{2}}f))\geq 0\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for all $s\geq0$. Consequently,
\begin{equation}\label{LigAux_3}
\phi(t)=\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i} f_t)\geq
\phi(0)=\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i} f)
\end{equation}
for all $t\geq0$. Using \eqref{LigAux_3} in \eqref{LigAux_2} yields
\[\label{LigAux_4}
\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i} f\partial_{\bf i} f_t)
\geq\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2-t\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(-\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i} f)
\]
for $t\geq0$. Therefore, using this in \eqref{LigAux_1}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LigAux_5}
\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2&\leq& t\sum\limits_{{\bf i} \in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(\partial_{\bf i}(-\mathcal{L}f)\partial_{\bf i}
f)\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{A^{\frac{N}{4}}\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf
i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\Big(\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i} f|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\sum\limits_{{\bf i}\in\mathbb{Z}^N}\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}|\partial_{\bf i}
f|^2\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}}{t^{\frac{N}{8}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Optimization of the right-hand side of \eqref{LigAux_5} with respect to $t$ leads to \eqref{NashInequality}.
\end{proof}
\section{Phase transition in stochastic dynamics} \label{Section.9}
In this section we consider a family of stochastic dynamics defined by the following generators
\[
\mathcal{L}\equiv \sum_{{\bf k}\in\mathbb{Z}^N} \mathbf{X}_{\Xi+{\bf k}}^2 - \beta D,
\]
where $\beta\in[0,\infty)$, and for a finite subset $\Xi\subset\mathbb{Z}^N$ we set
\[ \mathbf{X}_{\Xi+\bf{k}} \equiv \sum_{\substack{{\bf i},{\bf j} \in \Xi+\bf{k} \\ {\bf j}\sim{\bf i}}} a_{{\bf i}{\bf j}}\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i}, {\bf j}}
\]
with some constants $a_{{\bf i}{\bf j}}=a_{{\bf i}+\bf{k},{\bf j}+\bf{k}}\in\mathbb{R}$.
As a special case, we can take $\Xi$ to be a set of neighbouring points in the lattice and $\beta=0$, which includes the model studied earlier.
Define as usual $P_t\equiv e^{t\mathcal{L}}$. Then, with $f_s\equiv P_sf$, we have the following simple computation:
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{ds}P_{t-s}|\nabla f_s|^2 &= P_{t-s}\left( -\mathcal{L}|\nabla f_s|^2 + 2\nabla f_s \nabla \mathcal{L}f_s \right)\\
&= P_{t-s}\left( -2\sum_{\bf{l},\bf{k}}|\mathbf{X}_{\Xi+\bf{k}}\nabla_{\bf{l}} f_s|^2 + 2\sum_{\bf{l},\bf{k}} \nabla_{\bf{l}} f_s [\nabla_{\bf{l}}, \mathbf{X}_{\Xi+{\bf k}}^2] f_s - 2\beta |\nabla f_s|^2\right) \nonumber \\
&= P_{t-s}\left( -2\sum_{\bf{l},\bf{k}}|\mathbf{X}_{\Xi+\bf{k}}\nabla_{\bf{l}} f_s|^2 \right. \nonumber \\
&\phantom{AAAAA}\left. + 2\sum_{\bf{l}}\sum_{\bf{k}}\sum_{\substack{{\bf i},{\bf j} \in \Xi+\bf{k}\\ {\bf j}\sim{\bf i}}} a_{{\bf i}{\bf j}}
\nabla_{\bf{l}}f_s \left\{\mathbf{X}_{\Xi+{\bf k}}, [\nabla_{\bf{l}}, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} ]\right\} f_s - 2\beta |\nabla f_s|^2\right),
\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\{\cdot, \cdot\}$ denotes the anti-commutator. Now, since
\begin{align}
\{\mathbf{X}_{\Xi+{\bf k}}, [\nabla_{\bf{l}}, \mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}} ]\} f_s = 2 \mathbf{X}_{\Xi+{\bf k}} (\delta_{\bf{l}{\bf j}}\nabla_{{\bf i}}- \delta_{\bf{l}{\bf i}}\nabla_{{\bf j}} )
+ \sum_{\substack{{\bf i}',{\bf j}' \in \Xi+\bf{k}\\ {\bf j}'\sim{\bf i}'}} a_{{\bf i}'{\bf j}'}(\delta_{\bf{l}{\bf j}}\delta_{{\bf i}{\bf j}'}\nabla_{{\bf i}'}- \delta_{\bf{l}{\bf i}}\delta_{{\bf i}\bi'}\nabla_{{\bf j}'})\nonumber
\end{align}
there are constants $\varepsilon\in(0,2)$ and $\eta\in\mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{ds}P_{t-s}|\nabla f_s|^2 &\leq
P_{t-s}\left( -(2-\varepsilon)\sum_{\bf{l},\bf{k}}|\mathbf{X}_{\Xi+\bf{k}}\nabla_{\bf{l}} f_s|^2 - 2(\beta-\eta) |\nabla f_s|^2\right)\nonumber \\
&\leq - 2(\beta-\eta) P_{t-s}|\nabla f_s|^2.
\end{align}
Integrating this differential inequality, we obtain
\[
|\nabla f_t|^2 \leq e^{- 2(\beta-\eta) t} P_t|\nabla f|^2 .
\]
In the case when $\Xi$ is a two point set, combining this with our analysis in previous section we conclude with the following result.
\begin{thm}
A stochastic system described by the family of generators
$$\mathcal{L}_\beta \equiv \sum_{{\bf i}\sim{\bf j}}\mathbf{X}_{{\bf i},{\bf j}}^2 -\beta D,$$
with $\beta\in[0,\infty)$, undergoes a phase transition at some $\beta_c\in[0,\infty)$. That is, for
$\beta>\beta_c$ it decays to equilibrium exponentially fast, while for $\beta\in[0, \beta_c)$
the decay to equilibrium (for certain cylinder functions) can only be algebraic.
\end{thm}
\section{Homogenisation} \label{Section.10}
In Section \ref{ergodicity} it was shown that the semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ with generator $\mathcal{L}$ given by \eqref{eqn:GeneratorMainExample} is ergodic. We can therefore apply Theorem 1.8 of \cite{[KV-1986]} (see also \cite{K-O}) to conclude that the following functional CLT holds.
\begin{prop}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be given by \eqref{eqn:GeneratorMainExample}, and $(Y_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be the corresponding Markov process. Suppose $F\in \mathcal{D}((-\mathcal{L})^{-\frac{1}{2}})$ is such that $\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}(F)=0$, where $\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}$ is as above, with $r>0$. Let $\mathbf{P}^{\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}}$ be the probability measure corresponding to the stationary Markov process with the same transition functions as $Y_t$, and $(\mathcal{G}_t)_{t\geq0} = (\sigma\{Y_s,s\leq t\})_{t\geq 0}$ be the filtration generated by $Y_t$. Then there exists a square integrable martingale
$(M_t)_{t\geq 0}$ on the probability space $(\Omega,(\mathcal{G}_t)_{t\geq 0},\mathbf{P}^{\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}})$ with stationary increments such that $M_0=0$ and
\[
\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\sup\limits_{0\leq s\leq t}\left|\int_0^t F(Y_s)\,ds-M_s\right|=0,
\]
in probability with respect to $\mathbf{P}^{\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}}$. Moreover,
\[
\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\mathbb{E}^{\mathbf{P}^{\mu_{r\mathbf{G}}}}|Y_t-M_t|^2=0.
\]
\end{prop}
\paragraph{Acknowledgements:}
We would like to thank Z. Brze\'{z}niak and B. Go{\l}dys for useful remarks and attention to the work.
|
\section{Introduction}
The future astrophysical and cosmological data will, among other things, allow one to
perform deeper tests of our theory of gravity, general relativity (GR)\@. Although there
are no compelling reasons to question seriously the validity of GR, several puzzles
associated with its long-distance behavior, primarily those connected with the phenomena
of dark energy and dark matter, make it an important task to see whether GR continues to
be as good a description of gravity on astrophysical and cosmological scales as it is on
the scales of Solar System. Modern literature is abundant with various proposals of
modified gravity addressing this issue. A common feature of almost all such modifications
is that new propagating degrees of freedom are introduced in the gravitational sector, in
the form of additional fields or higher derivatives of the metric field. A typical
example is $f(R)$ gravity, which in its original variables is a purely metric theory with
higher derivatives but also can be transformed into a scalar-tensor theory. Extensions
of this kind typically change both the Friedmann equations describing the evolution of a
homogeneous and isotropic universe and the equations describing cosmological
perturbations, by which modifications they can be tested.
It is, perhaps, less known that one can modify GR without introducing any new propagating
degrees of freedom. Modification of this kind, in particular, should be expected not to
change the homogeneous background evolution in cosmology, affecting only the way the
perturbations evolve. Some of the generic features of this scheme were explored in
\cite{Skordis:2008vt} without specifying a concrete theory.
A specific class of modifications of GR without new propagating degrees of freedom was
proposed by one of us in \cite{Krasnov:2006du}, with the same class of theories envisaged
earlier in a different formulation in \cite{Bengtsson:1990qg}. These theories
legitimately can be called deformations of GR in the sense that there exist continuous
paths in the parameter space smoothly connecting any of them with GR. The theories in
this class provide a new framework for testing general relativity, since, using the
observational data, one can determine how close is the real-world gravity to GR within a
class of its deformations. In one of our
previous papers \cite{Krasnov:2007ky}, we were concerned with the spherically symmetric
solution in this class of theories, its features and possible implications. In the
present paper, we turn to the description of cosmology. Our aim is to set a stage for
possible tests of the theories of \cite{Krasnov:2006du} by working out the modified
equations describing the evolution of cosmological perturbations.
Before describing the class of theories under investigation in detail, it is worth discussing their
basic properties in elementary terms. If viewed as purely metric theories, they can be regarded as
the usual effective theories with a nonlocal Lagrangian that can be expanded into an infinite
series of local terms built from the curvature invariants: ${\mathcal L} =
\alpha_1 R + \alpha_2 R^2 + \alpha_3 R_{\mu\nu} R^{\mu\nu} + \alpha_4
R_{\mu\nu\sigma\tau} R^{\mu\nu\sigma\tau} + \ldots\,$ The coefficients in front of these
invariants, however, are not arbitrary in the present case, but are such that the whole infinite series
can be resummed with the help of auxiliary non-propagating fields. In the end, one obtains a local
second-derivative theory with only two propagating degrees of freedom (two polarizations
of the gravitational wave), and a certain limit can be taken to recover GR if one so wishes, see
\cite{Krasnov:2009ik}.
To elucidate this idea, we illustrate it on a simple example of a single field with a
higher-derivative action. Let us start from the linearized Lagrangian
\begin{equation}\label{action-lin}
{\mathcal L}^{(2)}[h] = \frac{1}{2} h \Box h \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Box= \nabla_\mu \nabla^\mu$ and our signature convention is $(-,+,+,+)$. One can
think of the field $h$ as that of the graviton with the factor of the inverse Newton's
constant $G^{-1}$ absorbed into the definition of $h$ to endow it with the canonical mass
dimension $[h]=1$. All tensor indices of $h$ have been discarded in order to make the
discussion as simple as possible.
Lagrangian (\ref{action-lin}) can be modified by introducing higher-derivative
non-renormalizable terms. For any finite number of such terms, the resulting theory has
additional propagating modes corresponding to the poles of the arising propagator.
However, when an infinite number of such higher-derivative terms is present, they
sometimes can be resummed into a denominator so that the only pole of the arising
propagator is still that of the massless graviton. One of the simplest examples realizing
this idea is
\begin{equation}\label{action-nl}
{\mathcal L} [h] = \frac{1}{2} h \left( \Box + \ell^2 \Box^2 + \ell^4 \Box^3 + \ell^6
\Box^4 + \ldots \right) h = \frac{1}{2} h \frac{\Box}{1 - \ell^2 \Box} h \, .
\end{equation}
Here, $\ell$ is the length scale of the modification. It is clear that the usual
``graviton'' is the only propagating mode in (\ref{action-nl}). To see this explicitly,
note that the non-local theory (\ref{action-nl}) can be obtained from the local one
\begin{equation}\label{action-h-chi}
{\mathcal L} [h,\chi] = \frac{1}{2}\chi \left(\Box - m^2 \right) \chi +\chi \Box h
+\frac{1}{2} h\Box h \, ,
\end{equation}
where $m = \ell^{-1}$, by integrating out the auxiliary field $\chi$. Indeed, the
equation for $\chi$ that stems from (\ref{action-h-chi}) is formally solved by
\begin{equation}\label{chi-h}
\chi = \frac{\Box h}{m^2-\Box} \, .
\end{equation}
Substituting this into (\ref{action-h-chi}), one obtains (\ref{action-nl}). At the level
of action (\ref{action-h-chi}), the limit $m\to \infty$ that gives back
(\ref{action-lin}) works by making the field $\chi$ infinitely massive, and thus
effectively decoupling it from the theory. At the same time, writing action
(\ref{action-h-chi}) in terms of the new field variable $\tilde h = h + \chi$,
\begin{equation} \label{action-tilde}
{\mathcal L} [\tilde h,\chi] = \frac{1}{2} \tilde h \Box \tilde h - \frac{1}{2} m^2
\chi^2 \, ,
\end{equation}
one can see that the field $\chi$ is an auxiliary non-propagating field, and the theory
(\ref{action-h-chi}) has the same number of degrees of freedom and structure as the one
we started from, Eq.~(\ref{action-lin}). Thus, the described
modification (\ref{action-nl}) is just a field redefinition, which gives another way to
understand why no new propagating degrees of freedom is introduced in this
case.\footnote{One cannot discard the field $\chi$ in (\ref{action-tilde}) if the
``matter'' part of the action interacts with the original field $h \equiv \tilde h -
\chi$. In this case, there arises a theory with non-propagating auxiliary scalar $\chi$
that couples to matter, resembling the modified source gravity \cite{Carroll:2006jn}.
This will also be the case in the modified-gravity theory under consideration in this
paper.}
The described elementary modification scheme is (almost) identical to the one at play in
the class of theories \cite{Krasnov:2006du} at the linearized level. However, in theories
\cite{Krasnov:2006du}, it is extended to a full non-linear level in a non-trivial
fashion. It then turns out that, by the same trick of introducing auxiliary
non-propagating fields, quite non-trivial terms in the arising effective metric
Lagrangian can be reproduced, for instance, the $Riemann^3$ term of importance in quantum
gravity at two loops; see \cite{Krasnov:2009ik}.
To summarize, the idea of the deformations of GR \cite{Krasnov:2006du} is that
higher-derivative terms in the effective
metric Lagrangian can be added without introducing extra degrees of freedom, and the
theory is then made local at the expense of introducing some non-propagating auxiliary
fields. In the class of theories \cite{Krasnov:2006du}, this idea is realized elegantly
by combining the metric and auxiliary fields into a single field --- an ${\rm SU}(2)$
Lie-algebra-valued two-form.
Another general comment should be made about the class of theories under investigation in
this paper. The above discussion seemingly implies that they can be regarded as
ultraviolet modifications of general relativity. Indeed, usually, modifications generated by the
addition of higher-derivative terms to the Hilbert--Einstein Lagrangian
are of relevance at high energies, e.g., close to the Planck scale,
but are unimportant at low energies of relevance in cosmology. However, our above
example shows that this interpretation may not always be valid.
Indeed, the theory (\ref{action-nl}) has the field and dynamical content equivalent to
that of (\ref{action-lin}). This property will be lost after truncation of the series in
(\ref{action-nl}) or after the violation of the delicate relations between the
coefficients in this infinite series. Through these relations, the high-derivative terms
(potentially important in the ultraviolet) are all connected with the low-derivative
terms (important in the infrared). In the case of the modified gravity theory to be
considered, this UV/IR interplay will be seen in the fact that the theory can be
generated from the self-dual formulation of general relativity simply by making the
cosmological constant a function of the variable which in GR has the meaning of the Weyl
curvature (more on this below). This allows gravity to be modified on cosmological scales
rather naturally, simply by making the usual cosmological constant a slowly varying
function of the curvature. At the same time, it is easy to remain consistent with GR on
Solar-System scales by requiring the ``cosmological function'' to be approximately
constant in the relevant region of curvatures (see the next section for more details). In
this sense, the theory simultaneously looks like an infrared modification of gravity.
This interplay between the ultraviolet and infrared modification is an interesting
feature that characterizes the class of theories under investigation.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:family}, we briefly describe the
family of deformations of GR which is the subject of this study. In Sec.~\ref{sec:hom},
we describe the homogeneous isotropic Universe and the usual Friedmann equations in the
language of two-forms adopted in this paper. Section \ref{sec:lin} describes the
linearized field equations around the evolving cosmological background. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:class}, we classify the types of perturbations and describe the physical
gauge-invariant quantities. Section \ref{sec:scalar} obtains equations describing
perturbations of the scalar type. These are analyzed in details in
Sec.~\ref{sec:evolution}. We study the effect of modification on the CMB and matter power
spectrum in Sec.~\ref{sec:power}. We conclude with a brief discussion of the results
obtained. Preliminary results concerning tensor modes are described in
Appendix~\ref{sec:tens}.
\section{A family of deformations of GR}
\label{sec:family}
In this section, we briefly review the theory under investigation in this work. For more
details, the reader is directed to a recent description in \cite{Krasnov:2009ik}.
\subsection{Preliminaries: two-form field and the metric}\label{prelimin}
As we mentioned in the introduction, in our theory the metric and the auxiliary
non-propagating fields are ``unified'' into a single two-form field $B^i_{\mu\nu}$,
$i=1,2,3$, where $\mu,\nu$ are spacetime indices. The (complexified) rotation group ${\rm
SO}(3,{\mathbb C})$ acts on the two-form $B^i_{\mu\nu}$ via $B^i_{\mu\nu}\to O^i_j B^j_{\mu\nu}$,
$O^i_j\in {\rm SO}(3,{\mathbb C})$, and the theory is invariant under the corresponding gauge
transformations as well as under the action of spacetime diffeomorphisms.
The physical metric of the spacetime, to which all fields are supposed to couple
universally, is determined uniquely by the two-form field. To begin with, we require that
the triple of two-forms $B^i_{\mu\nu}$ be self-dual with respect to this metric, which
determines its conformal class. In other words, introducing the associated volume form
$\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ for a metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and imposing the self-duality
conditions\footnote{The spacetime indices in (\ref{sdual}) are raised with the use of the
inverse metric $g^{\mu\nu}$.}
\begin{equation} \label{sdual}
\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu}^{\quad \rho\sigma} B^i_{\rho\sigma} = {\rm i} B^i_{\mu\nu}
\end{equation}
fixes the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ modulo a conformal rescaling.
An equivalent explicit description of the conformal class of metrics determined by
$B^i_{\mu\nu}$ is given by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{Urb}
\sqrt{-{\rm det}\left( g_{\mu\nu} \right)} \, g_{\mu\nu} \propto
\tilde{\epsilon}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} B^i_{\mu\alpha} B^j_{\nu\beta}
B^k_{\gamma\delta} \epsilon^{ijk} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$
is a densitized completely anti-symmetric tensor having components $\pm 1$ in any
coordinate system, and the proportionality symbol is used here to denote that the metric
is defined up to conformal rescalings. The reality conditions imposed on the theory are
that the conformal metric (\ref{Urb}) is real Lorentzian. To fix a unique metric from its
conformal class, it suffices to specify its volume form. Below, we shall explain how the
triple $B^i_{\mu\nu}$ defines not only a conformal class of metrics, but a volume form as
well.
Vice versa, given a real metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ with Lorentzian signature, one can introduce
the corresponding tetrad one-forms $ \theta^I_\mu$, $I=0,1,2,3$, so that the line element
reads
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = \theta^I \otimes \theta^J \eta_{IJ}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{IJ}$ is the Minkowski metric. Then, introducing an arbitrary time plus space split
$I=(0,a)$ of the "internal" index $I$, we can define a set of self-dual metric two-forms
$\Sigma^{a}\,$:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma^{a} = {\rm i} \theta^0 \wedge \theta^{a} - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{abc} \theta^{b}\wedge
\theta^{c}\, .
\end{equation}
Here, the letters $a,b,c$ are new ${\rm SO}(3)$ indices. It is convenient to distinguish
between the original ${\rm SO}(3)$ indices in $B^i$ and the new index that appears in the
metric two-forms $\Sigma^{a}$, which justifies the notation. Let us also give an
expression for a convenient basis in the space of anti-self-dual two-forms:
\begin{equation}\label{Sigma-bar}
\bar{\Sigma}^{a} = {\rm i} \theta^0 \wedge \theta^{a} + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{abc}
\theta^{b}\wedge \theta^{c} \, .
\end{equation}
Any other set of self-dual two-forms can be decomposed in the basis provided by
$\Sigma^{a}$. Thus, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{B-Sigm}
B^i = b^{i}_a \Sigma^{a}\, .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the main dynamical field of the theory can always be chosen as a collection of
a metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ that, in turn, defines the metric forms $\Sigma^{a}$, together with
the nine scalars forming the matrix $b^{i}_a$. These scalars will later be seen to
be non-dynamical and determined by other fields present in the system. We
do not impose any independent reality conditions on $b^i_a$ as such reality conditions are
induced once $b^i_a$ are determined in terms of other fields. Thus, $b^i_a$
are in general complex fields. Note that, as the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$
undergoes a conformal transformation $g_{\mu\nu}\to \Omega^2 g_{\mu\nu}$, the metric
self-dual two-forms transform as $\Sigma^{a}\to \Omega^2 \Sigma^{a}$. Thus, if the
scalars $b^{i}_a$ transform as $b^{i}_a\to \Omega^{-2} b^{i}_a$, then the original
two-forms $B^i$ are unchanged. A certain normalization condition on the scalars $b^{i}_a$
will be introduced below to fix this conformal freedom, thus fixing a particular metric
from the conformal class of (\ref{Urb}).
\subsection{The gravitational action}
The vacuum theory of gravity under consideration is described by the following action:
\begin{equation}\label{action}
S[B,A]=\frac{{\rm i}}{8\pi G} \int \left[ B^i\wedge F^i(A) - \frac{1}{2} V \left( B^i\wedge
B^j \right) \right] \, .
\end{equation}
Here, $A^i$ is an ${\rm SO}(3,{\mathbb C})$ connection field,
$F^i(A)=dA^i+(1/2)\epsilon^{ijk}A^j\wedge A^k$ is its curvature, and $V(M^{ij})$ is a
(holomorphic) function of a complex symmetric $3 \times 3$ matrix variable $M^{ij}$. It
is required to be a homogeneous function of degree one: $V\left(\alpha
M^{ij}\right)=\alpha V\left( M^{ij} \right)$ for any number $\alpha$, so that it can be
applied to a matrix-valued $B^i\wedge B^j$ four-form, with the result being again a
four-form; see \cite{Krasnov:2009ik} for more details. The function $V(M^{ij})$ is also
required to be a scalar with respect to the ${\rm SO}(3,{\mathbb C})$ gauge transformations. In
action (\ref{action}), this function plays the role of potential for the $B^i$ field.
Using representation (\ref{B-Sigm}), let us introduce the ``internal metric''
\begin{equation} \label{int-met}
h^{ij}:= b^{i}_a b^{j}_b \delta^{ab}\, ,
\end{equation}
which is a symmetric $3\times 3$ matrix, in general complex. It turns out to be useful to
parameterize it by its trace $h = h^{ij} \delta_{ij}$ and trace-free part $H^{ij}\,$:
\begin{equation}
h^{ij} = \frac13 h \left( \delta^{ij} + H^{ij} \right)\, .
\end{equation}
Then the potential $V \left( B^i\wedge B^j \right)$ gives rise to the ${\rm
SO}(3,{\mathbb C})$-invariant function $V \left( h^{ij} \right)$, which can be presented as
follows:
\begin{equation}\label{V}
V \left( h^{ij} \right) = \frac13 h\, U(H), \qquad U(H)=\Lambda_0 - \frac{1}{8 \ell^2}
{\rm Tr} H^2 + {\cal O} \left( H^3 \right) \, .
\end{equation}
Here, $U(H)$ is a function of the traceless matrix $H^{ij}$ with dimensions of curvature,
and we have expanded it in powers of $H^{ij}$ assuming that this potential function is
analytic in the neighborhood of $H^{ij}=0$. Below we will see that the case of $h^{ij} =
\delta^{ij}$ corresponds to general relativity, so that the traceless matrix $H^{ij}$
parameterizes the deformation away from GR. The constant term $\Lambda_0$ in
decomposition (\ref{V}) will play the role of the cosmological constant. The quantity
$\ell$ is a new parameter of the theory with dimensions of length. In principle, in the
theory under consideration, there is scope for making this parameter complex, but, in
this paper, we shall only consider the simplest case of real $\ell$. The numerical
constant in the expansion in (\ref{V}) is introduced for future convenience. We will see
that only negative sign of the second term in (\ref{V}) describes a theory without
instabilities, which explains our choice of this sign.
\subsection{Coupling to matter}
As we have stated in Sec.~\ref{prelimin}, the physical metric which universally couples
to matter belongs to the conformal class determined by the two-form field $B^i$. It is
necessary to fix the remaining conformal freedom and to specify this metric uniquely.
Under conformal transformations, described in the end of Sec.~\ref{prelimin}, the
``internal metric'' introduced in (\ref{int-met}) transforms as $h^{ij}\to \Omega^{-4}
h^{ij}$. One can specify the physical metric by fixing the conformal ambiguity for
$h^{ij}$. To do this, we introduce another scalar (holomorphic) function $R\left( h^{ij}
\right)$ of the matrix $h^{ij}$ that is required to be homogeneous of degree one in the
components of $h^{ij}$: $R \left(\alpha h^{ij} \right) = \alpha R \left( h^{ij} \right)$.
The conformal freedom of $h^{ij}$ is then fixed by the condition
\begin{equation}\label{conf-fix}
R \left( h^{ij} \right) = 1\, .
\end{equation}
While this prescription for fixing the physical metric may seem arbitrary at first, it
can be shown to arise quite naturally by considering the motion of a ``small body'' in
the theory described by (\ref{action}); see \cite{Krasnov:2008ui}.
We normalize the function $R \left( h^{ij} \right)$ so that $R \left( \delta^{ij} \right)
= 1$. The potential $R \left( h^{ij} \right)$ can then be decomposed similarly to
(\ref{V}):
\begin{equation}\label{R}
R(h) = \frac13 h\, U_m (H)\, , \qquad U_m(H) = 1 - \frac{g}{2} {\rm Tr} H^2 + {\cal O}
\left( H^3 \right) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $U_m(H)$ is a new function of the traceless matrix $H \equiv H^{ij}$, again assumed
to be analytic in the neighborhood of $H^{ij}=0$. The quantity $g$ is a dimensionless
parameter. Just as with the case of $\ell$, in the theory under consideration, there is
scope for making the parameter $g$ complex. However, in this paper, we shall only
consider the simplest case of real $\ell$ and $g$. Note that, once the condition
(\ref{conf-fix}) is imposed, one can use it to express the trace part of the matrix
$h^{ij}$ in terms of its traceless part.
We shall see that only the terms written in (\ref{V}) and (\ref{R}) are going to matter
for the linearized theory we are going to consider. Thus, the only new parameters that we
will have to consider on top of those available in GR are the length parameter $\ell$ in
(\ref{V}) and the dimensionless constant $g$ in (\ref{R}) that can be of any sign.
In the class of theories under consideration, matter fields will in general couple to the
two-form $B^i$ that plays the role of the fundamental geometrical field of the theory.
However, for the purposes of this paper, we assume that our matter content is
``standard'' in the sense that our material components couple to the spacetime metric in
the conformal class defined by $B^i$ and further selected by the condition
(\ref{conf-fix}). Thus, we assume that the dependence of the matter action $S_m$ on $B^i$
is such that $S_m[B]$ is a functional of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and depends on the scalars $b^i_a$
solely via the function $R(h)$. This allows us to write:
\begin{equation}
\delta S_m = \int \sqrt{-{\rm det} \left( g_{\mu\nu} \right)} \left( T_{\mu\nu} \delta
g^{\mu\nu} + \frac{\partial S_m}{\partial R} \frac{\partial R}{\partial b^i_a} \delta
b^i_a \right).
\end{equation}
However, since the two-form field $B^i$ does not transform under the conformal
transformations $\delta g_{\mu\nu} = \varepsilon g_{\mu\nu}$, $\delta b^i_a = -
\varepsilon b^i_a$, any material action that arises from $S_m[B]$ is also
conformally-invariant. This immediately gives:
\begin{equation}
T = \frac{\partial S_m}{\partial R} \frac{\partial R}{\partial b^i_a} b^i_a,
\end{equation}
where $T:=T_{\mu\nu} g^{\mu\nu}$, or, using the homogeneity of $R(h)$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial S_m}{\partial R}=\frac{T}{2R}.
\end{equation}
In other words, the variation of the material action contains the following two terms:
\begin{equation}
\delta S_m = \int \sqrt{-{\rm det}\left( g_{\mu\nu} \right)} \left( T_{\mu\nu} \delta
g^{\mu\nu} + \frac{T}{2R} \frac{\partial R}{\partial b^i_a} \delta b^i_a \right).
\end{equation}
After the condition (\ref{conf-fix}) is imposed, the quantity $T_{\mu\nu}$ becomes the
usual stress-energy tensor of matter. We can anticipate already at this stage that the
field equations will contain terms involving the first derivative $\partial R/\partial
b^i_a$ of the potential $R(h)$.
\subsection{Field equations}
The set of equations obtained by varying the full action of the theory (given by
(\ref{action}) plus the material action) with respect to $A^i$ (assuming that the
material action does not depend on $A^i$) is
\begin{equation}\label{compat}
dB^i + \epsilon^{ijk} A^j(B)\wedge B^k=0 \, .
\end{equation}
These equations are solved by
\begin{equation}\label{A-forms}
A^i_{\mu}(B) := \frac{1}{2\, {\rm det\,} B} B^{i\rho\sigma} B^j_{\rho\mu} \nabla^\nu
B^j_{\nu\sigma}\, , \qquad {\rm det\,} B :=-\frac{1}{24} \epsilon^{ijk} B^i_\mu{}^\nu
B^j_\nu{}^\rho B^k_\rho{}^\mu\, .
\end{equation}
We note that this connection is conformally-invariant and has the correct transformation
properties of an ${\rm SO}(3)$ connection. That is, when the two-form field
$B^i_{\mu\nu}$ transforms as $\delta B^i_{\mu\nu}=\epsilon^{ijk} \omega^j B^k_{\mu\nu}$,
the connection transforms as $\delta_\omega A^i_\mu = \epsilon^{ijk}\omega^j A^k_\mu -
\partial_\mu \omega^i$. A demonstration of this involves a
simple identity satisfied by the two-forms $B^i_{\mu\nu}$; see \cite{Krasnov:2009ik}. We
also note that, in most cases, instead of using (\ref{A-forms}) for finding $A^i(B)$, it
is easier to solve (\ref{compat}) directly.
Once the connection $A^i(B)$ is found, one computes its curvature:
\begin{equation}
F^i:= dA^i + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ijk} A^j\wedge A^k\, .
\end{equation}
The field equations then read, in the parametrization (\ref{B-Sigm}):
\begin{equation}\label{feqs}
b^{i}_a F^i\left[A (b\Sigma) \right] = \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial H^{ij}} b^{i}_a
b^{j}_b + \frac{1}{3} \Lambda b^i_a b^i_b \right) \Sigma^{b} + 2\pi G T \left(
\frac{\partial U_m}{\partial H^{ij}} b^{i}_a b^{j}_b + \frac{1}{3} \Lambda_m b^i_a b^i_b
\right) \Sigma^{b} - 2\pi G T_{ab} \bar \Sigma^{b} \, .
\end{equation}
Here, $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda_m$ are the Legendre transforms
\begin{equation}\label{Legendre}
\Lambda = U(H)- \frac{\partial U}{\partial H^{ij}} H^{ij}\, , \qquad \Lambda_m = U_m(H)-
\frac{\partial U_m}{\partial H^{ij}} H^{ij}
\end{equation}
of the potentials $U(H)$ and $U_m(H)$, respectively, $T$ is the trace of the
stress-energy tensor of matter, $T_{ab}$ are the components of the traceless part of the
stress-energy tensor, and $\bar{\Sigma}^{a}$ are the anti-self-dual metric two-forms
(\ref{Sigma-bar}). For the matter in the form of ideal fluid, we have
\begin{equation}
T = (\rho - 3 p)\, , \qquad T_{ab} = (\rho + p) \left( \frac{\delta_{ab}}{1-|u|^2} + 2
{\rm i} \epsilon_{abc} \frac{u^c}{\sqrt{1-|u|^2}}\right) - 3 {\mathcal S}_{ab}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ and $p$ are the energy density and pressure, respectively, $u^a$ is
(proportional to) the momentum vector, and ${\mathcal S}_{ab}$ is the traceless matrix describing
shear.
As anticipated in the previous subsection, the right-hand side of our field equations
includes a term proportional to the trace $T$ of the stress-energy tensor and containing
the first derivative of the potential function $R(h)$ (or $U_m(H)$) of the material
sector. The remainder of the dependence of the right-hand side of (\ref{feqs}) on the
stress-energy tensor components can be easily understood by working out how matter
couples to gravity in the so-called Pleba\'nski formulation of GR; see, e.g.,
\cite{Krasnov:2009pu}. The only change in the present case as compared to GR in the
Pleba\'nski formulation is in the appearance of the derivative terms $\partial
U_m(H)/\partial H$. A detailed derivation of the field equations (\ref{feqs}) can be
found in \cite{Krasnov:2008ui}.
In (\ref{Legendre}), we have introduced the ``cosmological function'' $\Lambda$ as the
Legendre transform of $U(H)$. When $H^{ij}=0$, the above field equations reduce to those
of GR in Pleba\'nski formulation. For
later purposes, we note that the function $\Lambda$ is, in fact, a function $\Lambda
(\Psi)$ of the quantity
\begin{equation}
\Psi \equiv \Psi^{ij}:=\frac{\partial U}{\partial H^{ij}}
\end{equation}
that can be related to the usual Weyl curvature (at least for small deviations from GR).
It is equally possible to parameterize the theory either by the original potential $U(H)$
or by its Legendre transform $\Lambda(\Psi)$. However, as we shall discuss in more detail
a little below, the nature of the modification becomes more clear in the $\Lambda(\Psi)$
parametrization. This is due to the fact that the field $H^{ij}$ that measures the
departure from GR arises in this parametrization as the first derivative
\begin{equation}\label{H-Lambd}
H^{ij} = - \frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial \Psi^{ij}}
\end{equation}
of the cosmological function $\Lambda$. Thus, for a function $\Lambda (\Psi)$ which is
constant in its domain to a high degree, the deviations from GR are small.
\subsection{Large-distance modifications}
As we have already mentioned in the introduction, the class of theories under
investigation can be viewed as ultraviolet modifications of gravity. This is most clearly
seen in the parametrization of the theory by the potential $U(H)$. When it is expanded
around $H^{ij}=0$, the first non-trivial term contains a mass parameter $m^2=1/\ell^2$,
and modifications away from GR only manifest themselves at energies $E$ larger than $m$.
The low-energy limit $E\ll m$ of any of our theories is given by GR\@. However, when the
theory is looked at non-perturbatively, e.g., in the Hamiltonian formulation (see
\cite{Krasnov:2007cq}), one finds that the parametrization by the Legendre transform
$\Lambda(\Psi)$ of $U(H)$ is more natural. More specifically, one finds that the
departure of the theory from GR is connected with the fact that the cosmological constant
becomes a function $\Lambda(\Psi)$ of what in GR used to be the Weyl part of the Riemann
curvature tensor. The parametrization by $\Lambda(\Psi)$ then allows one to arrange for
modification of gravity at any desirable scale of curvatures while keeping it close to GR
at the scales of the Solar System. Indeed, the theory behaves close to GR whenever the
first derivative (\ref{H-Lambd}) of the function $\Lambda(\Psi)$ is small. Thus, to be
consistent with the Solar-System tests of gravity, one should assume the function
$\Lambda(\Psi)$ to be approximately constant in the range of curvatures probed in the
solar neighborhood. One can then allow $\Lambda(\Psi)$ to vary in the range of curvatures
much smaller than those in the Solar System, which will produce deviations from GR at
large distances (see \cite{Krasnov:2007ky} as well as a more accessible exposition \cite{Krasnov:2008sb}).
Thus, according to our modification
scenario, the value of the cosmological constant in the Solar System can be different
from the value $\Lambda_0$ measured in cosmology, with the function $\Lambda(\Psi)$
interpolating between these two values. The parameter $\ell^2$ arising in (\ref{V}) is
then given by the second derivative of the function $\Lambda(\Psi)$ at $\Psi^{ij}=0$.
Since gravity is not tested directly at very large distances, there are only very weak
direct constraints on this parameter. As we shall see, a study of the physics of the
cosmic microwave background (CMB) and formation of the large-scale structure as predicted
by this theory will place much stronger constraints on the value of $\ell$.
Another important point that we would like to make is in the following. A detailed
analysis shows that, as the first derivative (\ref{H-Lambd}) of $\Lambda(\Psi)$ becomes
of order unity (in the sense that any of the eigenvalues of the symmetric traceless
matrix $H^{ij}$ become of order one), the theory under consideration develops a specific
degeneracy, which results in a singularity of metric (\ref{Urb}) \cite{Krasnov:2007ky}.
It can also be argued that it is no longer consistent to use the classical theory in this
regime because quantum effects become important. Thus, it is necessary to avoid this
regime if one wants to remain in the domain of applicability of the classical physics,
which is usually the case for large distances of relevance for cosmology. Therefore, the
classical theory will remain applicable only when the condition
\begin{equation}\label{strong-coupl}
\left| \frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial \Psi^{ij}} \right| \ll 1
\end{equation}
is satisfied. This condition can be rephrased by saying that the departure from GR as
measured by the quantity (\ref{H-Lambd}) must be small. We assume this condition in what
follows.
\subsection{The cosmological constant and vacuum energy}\label{sec:lambda}
In general relativity, the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ can be regarded as
corresponding to the energy density of the vacuum, and one is free to absorb it in the
energy density and pressure or into the scalar-field potential $V (\varphi)$ in all
equations without exception. That is, the transformation
\begin{equation} \label{shift}
\Lambda \to \Lambda - \lambda \, , \qquad \rho \to \rho + \frac{\lambda}{8 \pi G} \, ,
\qquad p \to p - \frac{\lambda}{8 \pi G}
\end{equation}
in the case of ideal fluid or
\begin{equation} \label{shiftin}
\Lambda \to \Lambda - \lambda \, , \qquad V (\varphi) + \frac{\lambda}{8 \pi G}
\end{equation}
in the case of scalar field leaves invariant all equations of the theory.
In the theory under consideration, this property is true only for the equations
describing the homogeneous and isotropic universe, which are the same as in general
relativity. It is not true in the general case, which can be seen in (\ref{feqs}), in
which the trace of the stress-energy tensor of matter $T$ enters differently from the
genuine cosmological constant $\Lambda_0$ [present in the ``cosmological function''
$\Lambda(\Psi)$]. This feature of the theory of modified gravity persists in the
equations for cosmological perturbations, as we shall see below. An exception is the
special case when the parameter $\ell^2$ is fixed to be $\ell^2 = 1/4 g \Lambda_0$.
In this case, the invariance with respect to (\ref{shift}) is restored at the level of linear
perturbations.
\section{Homogeneous and isotropic universe}
\label{sec:hom}
Consider a homogeneous and isotropic background described by the two-forms $B_0^i$. On
such a background, the traceless matrix $H^{ij}$ describing the departure from GR is
equal to zero due to the spacetime symmetries. Thus, we have $H^{ij}_0 = 0$, and we can
choose the scalars $b^{i}_{0a}=\delta^{i}_a$, so that $B^i_0=\Sigma_0^i$. The background
equations are then the Friedmann equations in the Pleba\'nski formalism:
\begin{equation}\label{backgr-feqs}
F^i \left[ A(\Sigma_0) \right] = \frac{2\pi G T_0 + \Lambda_0}{3} \Sigma^i_0 - 2\pi G
\bar{T}_0 \bar{\Sigma}^j_0 \, .
\end{equation}
Here,
\begin{equation}
T_0 := (\rho - 3p), \qquad \bar{T}_0 := (\rho + p)
\end{equation}
are the components of the background stress-energy tensor. We emphasize that the
background evolves in our theory in exactly the same way as in GR\@. Modifications only
arise in the dynamics of perturbations. This is, however, the story for an ideally
homogeneous backgrounds. In reality, there are inhomogeneities on various scales that
need to be averaged over. It is natural to expect that this will introduce modifications
of the background equations as well, to be taken into account. However, since the
averaging issue is not fully understood even in the simpler case of GR, we postpone such
an analysis to our future publications, and, in this paper, study the cosmological
perturbations around an ideally homogeneous and isotropic background.
In the conformal time $\eta$, the metric of a spatially flat homogenous and isotropic
universe is:
\begin{equation}\label{metric}
ds_0^2 = a^2(\eta)\left[ d\eta^2 - \sum_i \left(dx^i\right)^2 \right] \, .
\end{equation}
In what follows, we often omit the argument of the scale factor $a(\eta)$.
A set of self-dual and anti-self-dual two-forms describing this metric can be chosen as
\begin{equation}\label{B-background}
\Sigma^i_0 = a^2 \left( {\rm i} d\eta\wedge dx^i - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ijk} dx^j \wedge
dx^k \right)\, , \quad \bar{\Sigma}^i_0 = a^2 \left( {\rm i} d\eta\wedge dx^i + \frac{1}{2}
\epsilon^{ijk} dx^j \wedge dx^k \right)\, .
\end{equation}
The connection $A^i_0$ compatible with the set of self-dual two-forms $\Sigma^i_0$, i.e.,
satisfying $d\Sigma^i_0 + \epsilon^{ijk}A^j_0 \wedge \Sigma^k_0=0$, is given by
\begin{equation}\label{A-background}
A^i_0 = {\rm i} {\mathcal H} dx^i \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal H} := \frac{a'}{a} \, ,
\end{equation}
and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the conformal time $\eta$. The
curvature $F^i = dA^i + \frac12 \epsilon^{ijk} A^j \wedge A^k$ of connection
(\ref{A-background}) is given by
\begin{equation}\label{F-background}
F_0^i = \frac{1}{2a^2} \left( {\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2 \right) \Sigma^i + \frac{1}{2a^2} \left( {\mathcal H}'
- {\mathcal H}^2 \right) \bar{\Sigma}^i \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have used the relations
\begin{equation}\label{two-form-B}
d\eta\wedge dx^i = \frac{1}{2 {\rm i} a^2} \left( \Sigma^i_0 + \bar{\Sigma}^i_0 \right)\, ,
\qquad dx^i\wedge dx^j = \frac{1}{2a^2} \epsilon^{ijk} \left( \bar{\Sigma}^k_0 -
\Sigma^k_0 \right)
\end{equation}
to decompose $F^i_0$ into its self-dual and anti-self-dual parts.
Substituting (\ref{F-background}) into (\ref{backgr-feqs}), we obtain the dynamical
equations for the background. The condition that the self-dual and anti-self-dual parts
of the field equations are separately satisfied gives two equations whose symbolic linear
combinations $\Sigma-\bar{\Sigma}$ and $3\Sigma + \bar{\Sigma}$ are just the Friedmann
equations
\begin{equation}\label{Friedmann}
\frac{{\mathcal H}^2}{a^2} = \frac{8\pi G \rho}{3} + \frac{\Lambda_0}{3} \, , \qquad \frac{2{\mathcal H}' +
{\mathcal H}^2}{a^2} = -8\pi G p + \Lambda_0 \, .
\end{equation}
\section{Linearized field equations}
\label{sec:lin}
Linearizing the field equations (\ref{feqs}) around the homogeneous and isotropic
background, we denote the perturbation of a quantity by a symbol $\delta$ next to the
symbol representing it. There arises a perturbation of the metric two-forms $\delta
\Sigma^{i}$ as well as a perturbation of the scalars $\delta b^{i}_a$. Using the fact
that $B^{i}_{0a}=\delta^{i}_a$, now we can identify the two types of SO(3) indices. Thus,
from now on we drop the distinction between the two types, and use only the $i,j,k$
indices. The condition $R\left( h^{ij} \right) = 1$ implies, at the first order in
perturbation, that the matrix $\delta b^{ij}$ is traceless. The perturbations of the
metric $h^{ij}$ and of its trace-free part are then $\delta h^{ij} = \delta H^{ij} = 2
\delta b^{(ij)}$. Since $H^{ij}_0 = 0$, the first-order perturbation of the quantity
${\rm Tr} H^2$ that appears in the potential functions is zero. Thus, $\delta \Lambda =
0$ and $\delta \Lambda_m = 0$.
After some algebra, the linearized field equations are found to be
\begin{equation}\label{lin-feqs}
\delta F^i + \delta b^{ij} F^j_0 = \frac{2\pi G}{3} \delta T \Sigma^i_0 - 2\pi G \delta
T^{ij} \bar \Sigma^j_0 + \frac{2\pi G T_0 + \Lambda_0}{3} \delta \Sigma^i - 2\pi G
\bar{T}_0 \delta \bar{\Sigma}^i - 4\pi G \kappa \, \delta b^{ij} \Sigma^j_0\, .
\end{equation}
Only the last terms on the left-hand side and on the right-hand side of this equation are
not present in GR, with all other terms being exactly like in the Pleba\'nski formulation
of GR\@. The perturbation of the components of the stress-energy tensor of fluid is given
by
\begin{equation}\label{delta-T}
\delta T = \delta \rho - 3 \delta p\, , \qquad \delta T^{ij} = (\delta\rho + \delta p)
\delta^{ij} + 2 {\rm i} \epsilon^{ijk} \delta u^k - 3 \delta {\mathcal S}^{ij}\, ,
\end{equation}
where, for convenience, we have absorbed the factor $\rho + p$ into the momentum vector
$u^i$. The quantity $\delta F^i$ is the linearized curvature corresponding to the
perturbation of the $B^i$ field given by
\begin{equation}
\delta B^i = \delta b^{ij} \Sigma^j_0 + \delta \Sigma^i\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\delta \Sigma^i$ is the perturbation of the metric self-dual two-forms (see below
for explicit expressions). In (\ref{lin-feqs}), we have introduced a new parameter
$\kappa$ with dimensions of the energy density:
\begin{equation} \label{kappa}
\kappa := \left( g - \frac13 \right) T_0 + \frac{1}{8 \pi G } \left( \frac{1}{\ell^2} -
\frac43 \Lambda_0 \right) = \beta ( \rho - 3 p) + \gamma \rho_\Lambda \, ,
\end{equation}
where $T_0=\rho - 3 p$ is the trace of the material stress-energy tensor, $\rho_\Lambda =
\Lambda_0/ 8\pi G$ is the energy density of the cosmological constant, and $\ell$ and $g$
are defined in (\ref{V}) and (\ref{R}), respectively. The quantities $\beta$ and $\gamma$
are two new convenient dimensionless parameters:
\begin{equation} \label{bg}
\beta = g- \frac{1}{3}, \qquad \gamma = \frac{1}{\ell^2 \Lambda_0} - \frac43 \, .
\end{equation}
These parameters have the following meaning. The parameter $\gamma$ determines the
deviation of the gravitational potential $V \left( h^{ij} \right)$ from one
given by $V \left( h^{ij} \right) =\Lambda_0 R \left( h^{ij}\right)$. This case corresponds to
$4\beta=\gamma$ and describes the theory that couples in the same way to the
cosmological constant and to the trace of the stress-energy tensor. The parameter $\beta$
controls the deviation of the physical metric from the so-called Urbantke metric which
coincides with (\ref{Urb}) precisely. The value $\beta = 0$ corresponds to coupling of
matter to the Urbantke metric. Finally, the limit to GR is obtained by keeping $\beta$
fixed (and arbitrary), and sending $\ell \to 0$ (thus $\gamma \to \infty$) keeping the
product $\gamma \,\delta B^{ij}$ fixed. To summarize, schematically we have:
\begin{equation}
\beta= 0 \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \mbox{coupling to the Urbantke metric}\, , \qquad
\gamma\to\infty \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \mbox{limit to GR} \, .
\end{equation}
Now, using the expression (\ref{F-background}) for the background curvature and equations
(\ref{backgr-feqs}), we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{2\pi G T_0+\Lambda_0}{3} = \frac{{\mathcal H}^2 + {\mathcal H}'}{2a^2} \, , \qquad 2\pi G\bar{T}_0 =
\frac{{\mathcal H}^2 - {\mathcal H}'}{2a^2} \, .
\end{equation}
The linear equations for perturbations can then be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \delta B^{ij} F^j_0 + \delta F^i - \frac{1}{2a^2}({\mathcal H}^2+{\mathcal H}') \delta \Sigma^i +
\frac{1}{2a^2}({\mathcal H}^2-{\mathcal H}')\delta \bar{\Sigma}^i \nonumber \\ && = \frac{2\pi G}{3} \delta
T \Sigma^i_0 - 2\pi G \delta T^{ij} \bar{\Sigma}^j_0 - 4\pi G\kappa\, \delta B^{ij}
\Sigma^j_0 \, , \label{lin-feqs*}
\end{eqnarray}
where the stress-energy perturbations of the fluid are given, as before, by
\begin{equation}\label{delta-T*}
\delta T = (\delta \rho-3\delta p), \qquad \delta T^{ij} = (\delta\rho + \delta p)
\delta^{ij} + 2 {\rm i} \epsilon^{ijk}\delta u^k - 3 \delta {\mathcal S}^{ij}\, ,
\end{equation}
and $\delta B^{ij}$ is the non-metric part of the perturbation (see the next section for
explicit expressions). This form of the linearized equations is most convenient for
further calculations.
\section{Classification of perturbations}
\label{sec:class}
A general infinitesimal perturbation of the background (\ref{B-background}) can be
decomposed into the background two-forms:
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-general}
\delta B^i = \delta \Phi^{ij} \Sigma^j_0 + \delta \Upsilon^{ij} \bar{\Sigma}^j_0 \, .
\end{equation}
However, it is clear that much of this perturbation is a gauge transformation. Indeed,
the anti-symmetric part $\delta\Phi^{[ij]}$ describes an infinitesimal ${\rm SO}(3)$
rotation of the triple of two-forms $\Sigma^i$ and is thus a pure gauge. Moreover, some
part of the general perturbation (\ref{perturb-general}) is an infinitesimal
diffeomorphism of the background (\ref{B-background}). To separate the physical
quantities from the gauge ones, we thus need to compute the effect of an infinitesimal
diffeomorphism on the background (\ref{B-background}). The Lie derivative of $B^i$,
suitably corrected by a gauge transformation, can be shown to be given by ${\mathcal L}_\xi B^i =
{\mathcal D} B^i (\xi)$, where $B^i (\xi) $ is the interior multiplication of a vector field $\xi$
with two-form $B^i$, and ${\mathcal D}$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the
$B$-compatible connection. For the background (\ref{B-background}), a straightforward but
lengthy calculation gives
\begin{eqnarray} \label{diffeo}
{\mathcal L}_\xi \Sigma^i_0 &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[ 4 {\mathcal H} \xi^0 + \xi^0{}' + \Delta \zeta \right]
\Sigma_0^i + \xi_{[i,j]} \Sigma_0^j + \frac{{\rm i}}{2} \epsilon^{ijk} \left[ 2{\mathcal H} (\xi_j +
\zeta_{,j}) +
(\xi_j+\zeta_{,j})' + \xi^0{}_{,j}\right] \Sigma^k_0 \nonumber \\
&& {} + \frac{1}{2} \left[ \xi^0{}' - \Delta \zeta \right] \bar{\Sigma}_0^i + \left[
\xi_{(i,j)} + \zeta_{,ij} \right] \bar{\Sigma}_0^j + \frac{{\rm i}}{2} \epsilon^{ijk} \left[
(\xi_j+\zeta_{,j})' - \xi^0{}_{,j}\right] \bar{\Sigma}^k_0 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we have decomposed the vector field $\xi$ into its components $\xi= \left(\xi^0,\,
\xi_i+\zeta_{,i}\right)$, where $\xi_i$ is transverse $\xi^i{}_{,i}=0$. We see that the
effect of a diffeomorphism is a change in the metric described by $\Sigma^i_0$ together
with a gauge transformation on $\Sigma^i_0$. The latter can always be corrected by an
${\rm SO}(3)$ rotation, which allows us to drop the anti-symmetric part of the tensor
$\delta\Phi^{ij}$ from now on. Note that diffeomorphisms do not affect the symmetric
traceless part of $\delta\Phi^{ij}$, i.e., they do not act on the non-metric\footnote{We
shall often refer to the non-dynamical scalars present in $B^i$ in addition to the metric
as its ``non-metric'' components.} components of the $B^i$ field. In principle, this
could have been expected, for they act in the spacetime manifold, not in the internal
space, where the non-metric components of $B^i$ reside.
Let us now consider the usual classification of perturbations into scalar, vector and
tensor sectors and deduce the most general form of these perturbations after all gauge
freedom is fixed.
\subsection{Scalar sector}
Scalar perturbations are described by scalar functions, so that we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \Phi^{ij} = \phi \delta^{ij} + \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \chi_{,ij} - \frac{1}{3}
\delta_{ij} \Delta \chi \right) + \frac{{\rm i}}{4}\epsilon^{ijk} \theta_{,k}\, , \\
\delta \Upsilon^{ij} = \psi \delta^{ij} + \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \sigma_{,ij} - \frac{1}{3}
\delta_{ij} \Delta \sigma \right)+ \frac{{\rm i}}{4}\epsilon^{ijk} \omega_{,k}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we have introduced the factors $1/a^2$ for future convenience, $\phi$ and $\psi$
are the trace parts, $\chi$ and $\sigma$ are the scalar parts of the traceless symmetric
parts, and $\theta$ and $\omega$ are the scalar parts of the anti-symmetric parts of the
self-dual and anti-self-dual perturbations, respectively. It is easy to see that
diffeomorphism (\ref{diffeo}) can be used to set the scalars $\sigma$ and $\omega$ to
zero, while an SO(3) gauge transformation can be used to set to zero the scalar $\theta$.
Thus, we are led to consider the following ``physical'' scalar perturbations:
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-scalar}
\delta B^i = \delta B^{ij}\Sigma^j_0 + \phi \Sigma^i_0 + \psi \bar{\Sigma}^i_0\, ,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced a convenient notation for the non-metric part
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-s-B}
\delta B^{ij}= \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \chi_{,ij} - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} \Delta \chi
\right) \, .
\end{equation}
In other words, the scalar perturbation (\ref{perturb-scalar}) is a sum of a non-metric
perturbation $\delta B^{ij} \Sigma^j_0$ and the usual metric perturbation
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-s-m}
\delta \Sigma^i = \phi \Sigma^i_0 + \psi \bar{\Sigma}^i_0 \, .
\end{equation}
The potential $\chi$ can, in general, be complex, while $\phi$ and $\psi$ are real. The
potential $\chi$ does not have a counterpart in GR, while the two potentials $\phi$ and
$\psi$ have a very simple relation to the standard GR potentials appearing in the scalar
perturbation of the metric:
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = a^2 \left[ \left(1 + 2\Phi_{\rm GR} \right) d \eta^2 - \left(1 - 2\Psi_{\rm GR} \right)
\sum_i \left( dx^i \right)^2 \right] \, .
\end{equation}
An elementary calculation shows the relation between $\Phi_{\rm GR}$, $\Psi_{\rm GR}$ and the
potentials $\phi$, $\psi$ in (\ref{perturb-scalar}):
\begin{equation}\label{PP-pp}
\Phi_{\rm GR} = \frac{3\psi + \phi}{2}, \qquad \Psi_{\rm GR} = \frac{\psi - \phi}{2}\, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Vector sector}
The most general perturbation of the vector type can be reduced to
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-vec}
\delta B^i = 2 \left[ \zeta^{(i,j)} \Sigma^j_0 + \xi^{(i,j)} \bar{\Sigma}^j_0 \right] \,
,
\end{equation}
where the vector potentials $\zeta^i$ and $\xi^i$ are transverse, $\zeta^i{}_{,i} =
\xi^i{}_{,i} = 0$, and $\zeta^i$ may be complex. Alternatively, it is a sum of a
non-metric perturbation $\delta B^{ij} \Sigma^j_0$ with
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-v-B}
\delta B^{ij} = 2 \zeta^{(i,j)}
\end{equation}
and a metric one:
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-v-m}
\delta \Sigma^i = 2 \xi^{(i,j)} \bar{\Sigma}^j_0\, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Tensor sector}
Perturbations of the tensor type that correspond to gravitons are given by
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-tens}
\delta B^i = \frac{1}{a^2}\chi^{ij}\Sigma^j + \rho^{ij} \bar{\Sigma}^j \, ,
\end{equation}
where both $\chi^{ij}$ and $\rho^{ij}$ are symmetric, traceless and transverse $\left(
\chi^{ij}{}_{,i} = \rho^{ij}{}_{,i}=0 \right)$ matrices, and $\chi^{ij}$ may be complex
while $\rho^{ij}$ is real (see, however, Appendix). Again, the perturbation is a sum of a non-metric one
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-t-B}
\delta B^{ij} = \frac{1}{a^2}\chi^{ij}
\end{equation}
and a metric one
\begin{equation}\label{perturb-t-m}
\delta \Sigma^i = \rho^{ij}\bar{\Sigma}^j_0 \, .
\end{equation}
\section{Scalar perturbations}
\label{sec:scalar}
\subsection{Curvature}
In this section, we consider the important case of scalar perturbations in detail. First
of all, we compute the connections and then (linearized) curvatures for the perturbations
described by $\phi$, $\psi$, and $\chi$. To compute the perturbation of the
$B$-compatible connection for a perturbation $\delta B^i$, one has to solve the algebraic
equations ${\mathcal D}_0(\delta B^i) + \epsilon^{ijk} \delta A^j\wedge \Sigma^k_0=0$, where
$\Sigma^i_0$ is the background two-form. The curvature of an infinitesimal connection
$\delta A^i$ is then given by $F^i(\delta A)={\mathcal D}_0 \delta A^i$, where ${\mathcal D}_0$ is the
covariant derivative with respect to the background connection. The computations are
straightforward, but rather lengthy. The expressions for the connection components are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta A^i_\phi &=& \frac{{\rm i}}{2} \phi_{,i} d\eta + \frac{1}{2} \left( {\rm i}
\phi' \delta_{ij} - \epsilon_{ijk} \phi_{,k} \right) dx^j\, , \\
\delta A^i_\psi &=& \frac{3 {\rm i}}{2} \psi_{,i} d\eta - \frac{1}{2} \left[{\rm i} \frac{
\left(a^4 \phi \right)'}{a^4} \delta_{ij} - \epsilon_{ijk}\phi_{,k} \right] dx^j\, , \\
\delta A^i_\chi &=& - \frac{2 {\rm i}}{3a^2} \Delta \chi_{,i} d\eta - \frac{1}{3}
\epsilon_{ijk} \Delta \chi_{,k} dx^j - \frac{{\rm i}}{a^3}\left( a\chi_{,ij} - \frac{a}{3}
\Delta\chi \delta_{ij}\right)'dx^j \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The expressions for the curvatures, decomposed into their self-dual and anti-self-dual
parts, are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal D} \delta A^i_\phi &=& \frac{1}{4a^2}\left( \phi''- \Delta \phi + 2{\mathcal H}
\phi'\right)\Sigma^i_0 \nonumber \\ && {} + \frac{1}{4a^2} \left[ - 2\phi_{,ij} +
\delta_{ij}(\phi''+\Delta\phi) + 2i\epsilon_{ijk}\left(\frac{\phi_{,k}}{a}\right)'a-
2{\mathcal H}\phi'\delta_{ij} \right] \bar{\Sigma}^j_0 \, , \\
{\mathcal D} \delta A^i_\psi &=& - \frac{1}{4a^2}\left[ 4\psi_{,ij} +
\delta_{ij}(\psi''-\Delta\psi)+ 4\delta_{ij}\left( {\mathcal H}' \psi + 2 {\mathcal H}^2 \psi + \frac{3}{2}
{\mathcal H} \psi' \right) \right] \Sigma^j_0 \nonumber \\ && - \frac{1}{4a^2} \left[ 2 \psi_{,ij}
+ \delta_{ij} (\psi'' + \Delta \psi) + 4 \delta_{ij} \left( {\mathcal H}' \psi - 2 {\mathcal H}^2 \psi +
\frac{1}{2} {\mathcal H} \psi' \right) \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. {}
+ 2 {\rm i} \epsilon_{ijk}
\frac{(a^3\psi_{,k})'}{a^3} \right]
\bar{\Sigma}^j_0 \, , \\
{\mathcal D} \delta A^i_\chi &=& - \frac{1}{2a^4} \left[ \left(
\partial_\eta^2 - 2{\mathcal H}
\partial_\eta - \Delta- 4{\mathcal H}^2 \right) \left( \chi_{,ij} - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij}
\Delta\chi \right) \right] \Sigma^j_0 \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{1}{2a^4} \left[ \left(\partial_\eta^2 - \frac{1}{3} \Delta \right) \left(
\chi_{,ij}-\frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij}\Delta\chi \right) \right] \bar{\Sigma}^i_0 \nonumber
\\ && {} + \frac{{\rm i}}{3a^4} \epsilon_{ijk} \Delta\chi_{,k}' \bar{\Sigma}^j_0
+\frac{2}{9a^4}\Delta^2\chi \bar{\Sigma}^i_0 - \delta B^{ij}F^j_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta B^{ij}$ in the last formula is given by (\ref{perturb-s-B}), and $F^i_0$ is
the background curvature (\ref{F-background}). The differential operators in brackets act
only on $\chi$ but not on the background forms $\Sigma^i_0$.
\subsection{Field equations}
Now we can substitute the expressions for the curvatures obtained above into the
linearized field equations (\ref{lin-feqs*}). For the scalar sector, the sources are
\begin{equation}
\delta T = \delta \rho - 3\delta p, \qquad \delta T^{ij} = (\delta\rho + \delta p)
\delta^{ij} + \frac{2 {\rm i}}{a}\epsilon^{ijk}\delta u_{,k} - 3 \left( \delta {\mathcal S}_{,ij} -
\frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij} \Delta\delta {\mathcal S}\right) \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have introduced a convenient normalization of the scalar part of the velocity
perturbation $\delta u$. The resulting equations are most usefully separated into the
symmetric traceless, antisymmetric, and trace parts of the matrices arising in front of
the background two-forms $\Sigma^i_0$ and $\bar{\Sigma}^i_0$. Let us first analyze the
symmetric trace-free parts. After removing the directional derivatives and multiplying by
$a^2$ in the self-dual sector, and by $2a^2$ in the anti-self-dual sector, the self-dual
and anti-self-dual parts give, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \psi + \frac{1}{2a^2}
\left( \chi'' - 2{\mathcal H} \chi' - \Delta\chi - 4{\mathcal H}^2 \chi\right) = 4\pi G \kappa \chi \, , \\
\label{eq-1} && \phi + \psi + \frac{1}{a^2} \left(\chi'' - \frac{1}{3} \Delta\chi
\right)=-12\pi G a^2 \delta{\mathcal S} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
It is more convenient, however, to consider these equations as those determining the
usual relativistic potentials $\Psi_{\rm GR}$ and $\Phi_{\rm GR}$; see (\ref{PP-pp}). We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{psigr} \Psi_{\rm GR} &:=& \frac{\psi-\phi}{2} = 4\pi G\kappa \chi +
\frac{1}{a^2}\left( \frac{1}{3}\Delta\chi +{\mathcal H} \chi' + 2{\mathcal H}^2\chi \right)+ 6\pi G a^2
\delta{\mathcal S}\, , \\
\label{phigr} \Phi_{\rm GR} &:=& \frac{\phi+3\psi}{2} = 4\pi G\kappa \chi + \frac{1}{a^2}
\left( -\chi'' + \frac{2}{3}\Delta\chi + {\mathcal H}\chi' + 2{\mathcal H}^2\chi\right)- 6\pi G a^2
\delta{\mathcal S} \, . \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
The difference between the relativistic potentials is given by
\begin{equation} \label{difference}
\Psi_{\rm GR} - \Phi_{\rm GR} = \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \chi'' - \frac13 \Delta \chi \right)
+ 12 \pi G a^2 \delta{\mathcal S} \, .
\end{equation}
Thus, even in the absence of shear, the relativistic potentials $\Psi_{\rm GR}$ and $\Phi_{\rm GR}$
are not equal to each other in our theory, which is typical of modified gravity.
The antisymmetric part is only present in the anti-self-dual sector. After removing the
directional derivative and multiplying by ${\rm i} a^2$, one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{eq-3}
\Psi_{\rm GR}' + {\mathcal H}\Phi_{\rm GR} - \frac{1}{3a^2}\Delta\chi' = 4\pi G a \delta u \, ,
\end{equation}
which, after solving for the perturbations $\Psi_{\rm GR}$, $\Phi_{\rm GR}$, and $\chi$, will
determine the scalar part of the 4-velocity perturbation. Finally, the trace parts of the
arising equations are most convenient in their schematic linear combinations
$\Sigma-\bar{\Sigma}$ and $3\Sigma+\bar{\Sigma}$. Using the equations of motion for the
background, after some simple algebra, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq-4}
&& \Delta\Psi_{\rm GR} - 3{\mathcal H}\Psi_{\rm GR}'-3{\mathcal H}^2\Phi_{\rm GR} -
\frac{1}{3a^2} \Delta^2\chi = 4\pi G a^2 \delta\rho\, , \\
&& \Psi_{\rm GR}''+ 3{\mathcal H}\Psi_{\rm GR}'+ (2{\mathcal H}'+{\mathcal H}^2)\Psi_{\rm GR} +
\frac{1}{3}\Delta(\Phi_{\rm GR}-\Psi_{\rm GR}) + {\mathcal H}(\Phi_{\rm GR}-\Psi_{\rm GR})'
\nonumber \\ && {} +(2{\mathcal H}'+{\mathcal H}^2)(\Phi_{\rm GR}-\Psi_{\rm GR}) - \frac{1}{9a^2}
\Delta^2\chi = 4\pi G a^2 \delta p\, . \label{eq-5}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the arising equations are exactly like in GR apart from the presence of simple
additional terms containing $\chi$.
\subsection{Conservation equations}
The following standard conservation equations hold in the theory under consideration:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{conservation-0}
&& \delta\rho' + 3 {\mathcal H} (\delta\rho + \delta p) = 3(\rho + p) \Psi_{\rm GR}' + \frac{1}{a}
\Delta \delta u\, , \\
\label{conservation-i} && \delta u' + 3{\mathcal H} \delta u = a \delta p + a(\rho + p) \Phi_{\rm GR} +
a \Delta \delta {\mathcal S} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
This can be verified directly using equations (\ref{eq-1}), (\ref{psigr}), and
(\ref{eq-3}) above. Note that the field $\chi$, responsible for the modification, does
not appear in these equations. This is of no surprise as the stress-energy is conserved
in this theory in the usual way.
\subsection{Equations for the ``non-metricity'' scalar $\chi$}
At this point, the usual GR procedure would be to use the fact that $\Phi_{\rm GR} = \Psi_{\rm GR}$
(in the absence of shear) and obtain a system of equations for one of the potentials. In
our case, this is not possible because any such equation will involve contributions
containing the nonmetric scalar $\chi$. However, it is possible to obtain a closed system
of equations for this scalar. Thus, we solve for $\Phi_{\rm GR}$ and $\Psi_{\rm GR}$ in terms of
the new potential $\chi$ and deal with differential equations for $\chi$. The resulting
equations are not simple, but it is worth presenting them here to show that their
structure is similar to the corresponding equations in GR. Thus, we now substitute $\psi
+ \phi = \Phi_{\rm GR} - \Psi_{\rm GR}$, $\Psi_{\rm GR}$, and $\Phi_{\rm GR}$ from (\ref{eq-1}),
(\ref{psigr}), and (\ref{phigr}), respectively, into (\ref{eq-4}) and (\ref{eq-5}), and,
after some lengthy algebra, obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{constr}
4\pi G a^2 \delta \rho &=& \Delta( 4\pi G\kappa \chi) - 3{\mathcal H}\left(4\pi G\kappa\chi
\right)'-3 {\mathcal H}^2 \left(4\pi G\kappa\chi\right) \nonumber \\ && {} + \frac{2}{a^2}\left[
{\mathcal H}^2\Delta \chi - \frac{3{\mathcal H}}{2}\chi' \left({\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2 \right) + 3 {\mathcal H}^2 \left( {\mathcal H}^2
- 2{\mathcal H}' \right)
\chi\right] \nonumber \\
&& {} +6\pi G a^2\left[ \Delta \delta{\mathcal S} - 3{\mathcal H} \left( \delta {\mathcal S}' + {\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S}
\right )\right]\, , \\
4\pi G a^2 \delta p &=& \left(4\pi G\kappa\chi \right)'' + 3 {\mathcal H} \left( 4\pi G\kappa \chi
\right)' + \left(2{\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2 \right) \left(4\pi G\kappa \chi \right) \nonumber \\
&& {} + \frac{2}{a^2}\left[ {\mathcal H}^2 \chi'' + \frac{1}{3} \Delta\chi \left({\mathcal H}'-{\mathcal H}^2\right)
+ \frac{1}{2}\chi' \left({\mathcal H}'' + 7{\mathcal H}'{\mathcal H} - 3{\mathcal H}^3 \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \phantom{{} + \frac{2}{a^2}\Bigl[} {} + \chi \left( 2 {\mathcal H}'' {\mathcal H} +
2 {\mathcal H}'{}^2 - 2{\mathcal H}^2 {\mathcal H}' - {\mathcal H}^4 \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&& {} + 6\pi G a^2\left[ \delta {\mathcal S}'' + 5 {\mathcal H} \left(\delta {\mathcal S}'+ {\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S} \right) -
\frac{2}{3} \Delta \delta {\mathcal S}\right]\, . \label{dynamical}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, substituting $\Psi_{\rm GR}$ and $\Phi_{\rm GR}$ into (\ref{eq-3}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
4\pi G a \delta u = \left(4\pi G\kappa\chi \right)' + {\mathcal H} \left(4\pi G\kappa\chi \right)
+ \frac{1}{a^2} \left[ \chi' \left({\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2 \right) + 2\chi {\mathcal H} \left(2{\mathcal H}' - {\mathcal H}^2
\right) \right] \nonumber \\ {} + 6\pi G a^2 \left(\delta {\mathcal S}'+ {\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S}\right) \,
. \label{velocity}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation determines the scalar part of the velocity perturbation once the
perturbations $\chi$ and $\delta {\mathcal S}$ have been found.
Now, introducing the speed of sound $c_s$ via
\begin{equation}
\delta p = c_s^2 \delta \rho + \tau \delta {\mathcal E} \, ,
\end{equation}
we can write a single dynamical equation for $\chi$ with the entropy perturbation $\delta {\mathcal E}$
as the source. It reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
4\pi G a^2 \tau \delta {\mathcal E} &=& \left(4\pi G\kappa\chi \right)'' - c_s^2\Delta
\left(4\pi G\kappa \chi \right) + 3{\mathcal H} (1+c_s^2) \left(4\pi G\kappa \chi \right)'
\nonumber \\ && +
\left[2{\mathcal H}'+{\mathcal H}^2 \left( 1 + 3 c_s^2 \right)\right] \left(4\pi G\kappa\chi\right) \nonumber \\
&& {} + \frac{2}{a^2}\left( {\mathcal H}^2 \chi'' + \frac{1}{3}\Delta\chi \left[{\mathcal H}'-{\mathcal H}^2 \left(
1 + 3 c_s^2 \right) \right] \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \phantom{\frac{2}{a^2}\Bigl(}
{} + \frac{\chi'}{2} \left[ {\mathcal H}'' + {\mathcal H}' {\mathcal H} \left( 7 + 3
c_s^2 \right) + 3 {\mathcal H}^3 \left( c_s^2 - 1 \right) \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \phantom{\phantom{\frac{2}{a^2}\Bigl(}} {} + \chi \left[ 2{\mathcal H}'' {\mathcal H} + 2
{\mathcal H}'{}^2 - 2 {\mathcal H}^2 {\mathcal H}' \left( 1 - 3 c_s^2 \right) - {\mathcal H}^4 \left( 1 + 3 c_s^2 \right)
\right] \right)
\nonumber \\
&& {} + 6\pi G a^2 \left[ \delta {\mathcal S}'' + \left( 5 + 3 c_s^2 \right) {\mathcal H} \left( \delta
{\mathcal S}' + {\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S} \right) - \left( \frac{2}{3} + c_s^2 \right) \Delta \delta {\mathcal S}
\right] \, . \label{main-dynamical}
\end{eqnarray}
In the absence of shear ($\delta {\mathcal S} = 0$), this dynamical equation can be solved for
$\chi$, after which one can compute all other quantities of interest, such as the
relativistic potentials and perturbations of energy density and pressure.
\subsection{New relativistic potential}
The obtained complicated equations for $\chi$ can be considerably simplified by
introducing a new quantity
\begin{equation}\label{Phi}
\Phi := \left( 4\pi G\kappa + \frac{2{\mathcal H}^2}{a^2} \right) \chi \, .
\end{equation}
One rationale for considering precisely this combination is the identity that follows
directly from (\ref{constr}) and (\ref{velocity}):
\begin{equation}\label{dm-Phi}
4\pi G a^2 \left(\delta \rho+ \frac{3{\mathcal H}}{a}\delta u - \frac{3}{2} \Delta \delta
{\mathcal S}\right) = \Delta \Phi\, .
\end{equation}
Precisely the same identity holds in the case of GR with $\Phi$ on the right-hand side of
this equation being the relativistic potential $\Phi_{\rm GR}$, which suggests that the
quantity $\Phi$ should play the role of the main relativistic potential in our theory.
Below we shall see that this expectation is realized.
Anticipating the role that $\Phi$ is going to play, it is illuminating to rewrite the
main dynamical equation (\ref{main-dynamical}) in terms of $\Phi$. Most of the terms in
this equation combine into the usual GR-type equation for the potential $\Phi$. Few terms
remain, however, and these are the contributions due to non-metricity. It is most
convenient to write them in terms of $\chi$. We get:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Phi-dynamical}
4\pi G a^2 \tau \delta {\mathcal E} &=& \Phi'' - c_s^2\Delta \Phi + 3{\mathcal H} \left( 1 + c_s^2
\right) \Phi'+ \left[2{\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2 \left( 1 + 3 c_s^2 \right) \right] \Phi \nonumber \\
&& {} + 6\pi G a^2 \left[ \delta {\mathcal S}'' + 5{\mathcal H} \left(\delta {\mathcal S}'+ {\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S} \right) -
\frac{2}{3} \Delta \delta {\mathcal S} \right] \nonumber \\ && {} - \frac{8\pi
G}{3}(\rho+p)\Delta\chi - 4\pi G \left( p'-c_s^2 \rho' \right)\chi' \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here the part which does not contain $\chi$ is the standard GR dynamical equation for the
potential $\Phi$, while the part containing $\chi$ is the modification due to
non-metricity. In obtaining (\ref{Phi-dynamical}), we used the background field
equations. Let us also give an expression for the constraint (\ref{constr}) in terms of
the potential $\Phi$. Again using the background equations, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Phi-constr}
4\pi G a^2 \delta \rho = \Delta \Phi - 3{\mathcal H} \Phi' - 3{\mathcal H}^2 \Phi + 6\pi G a^2\left[ \Delta
\delta{\mathcal S} - 3{\mathcal H} \left( \delta {\mathcal S}' +{\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S} \right) \right] - 4\pi G\rho' \chi'
\, .
\end{equation}
The last term here is the contribution due to non-metricity. One can also give an
equation for the velocity perturbation in terms of the new potential:
\begin{equation}\label{Phi-vel}
4\pi G a\delta u = \Phi'+{\mathcal H}\Phi + 6\pi G a^2 \left( \delta {\mathcal S}' +{\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S} \right)
- 4\pi G (\rho + p) \chi' \, .
\end{equation}
Finally, we will also need an expression for equation (\ref{dynamical}) in terms of the
new potential $\Phi\,$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Phi-dyn-p}
4\pi G a^2 \delta p = \Phi'' + 3{\mathcal H} \Phi'+ \left(2{\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2 \right) \Phi + 6\pi G a^2
\left[ \delta {\mathcal S}'' + 5{\mathcal H} \left( \delta {\mathcal S}' + {\mathcal H} \delta {\mathcal S} \right) - \frac{2}{3}
\Delta \delta {\mathcal S} \right] \nonumber \\ {} - \frac{8\pi G}{3} (\rho + p) \Delta \chi -
4\pi G p' \chi' \, . \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Applicability limits of the theory} \label{sec:limits}
As we have discussed above, our classical theory is applicable in the case of small
deviations from the ``metric'' behavior, which is quantitatively expressed as
(\ref{strong-coupl}). Since we have (\ref{H-Lambd}) and, in the linear theory, according
to (\ref{perturb-s-B}),
\begin{equation}
H^{ij} \approx \delta B^{ij} = \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \chi_{,ij} - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij}
\Delta \chi \right)\,,
\end{equation}
we have the following condition:
\begin{equation} \label{applic}
\frac{k^2}{a^2} | \chi | = \frac{k^2}{a^2}\, \left| \frac{\Phi}{4 \pi G \kappa + 2 {\mathcal H}^2
/ a^2} \right| \ll 1 \, .
\end{equation}
This condition is not stronger than the usual condition of smallness of density contrast:
\begin{equation} \label{usuapplic}
\left| \frac{\delta \rho + 3 ({\mathcal H}/a) \delta u - \frac32 \Delta {\mathcal S}}{\rho} \right| \ll 1
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \frac{2 k^2}{3 {\mathcal H}^2 - \Lambda_0 a^2}\, |\Phi| \ll 1 \, ,
\end{equation}
provided the denominator $4 \pi G \kappa + 2 H^2$ in (\ref{applic}) does not approach
zero sufficiently closely. We have to assume that this never happens and that always
\begin{equation} \label{positive}
2 \pi G \kappa + \frac{{\mathcal H}^2}{a^2} > 0 \, .
\end{equation}
Note that this condition is also necessary in order that the change of variable
(\ref{Phi}) be non-degenerate. Recalling the definition (\ref{kappa}) of $\kappa$, we
obtain a constraint on the parameter $\beta$ or $g$ by considering a dust-dominated
universe: $ \beta > - 4/3$, or $g > -1$. Considering the inflationary universe with $p
\approx - \rho$, we get a stronger condition $\beta > - 1/3$, or $g > 0$. Finally,
considering the ``stiff'' matter with $p = \rho$ (which is realized, e.g., by the
kinetically-dominated regime of a scalar field), we have the constraint $\beta < 2/3$, or
$g < 1$. Thus, the physical values of $g$ or, respectively, $\beta = g - 1/3$ lie in the
domain
\begin{equation} \label{betacon}
0 < g < 1 \, , \qquad - \frac13 < \beta < \frac23 \, .
\end{equation}
In a similar way, we obtain a constraint on the parameter $\gamma$ by considering a
universe which is dominated by the cosmological constant: $\gamma > - 4/3$. An even
stronger condition can be obtained by considering a radiation-dominated universe. We then
have:
\begin{equation} \label{gammacon}
\gamma > 0\, .
\end{equation}
We, therefore, assume that inequalities (\ref{betacon}) and (\ref{gammacon}) are
satisfied by a large margin. In particular, the quantity $\beta$ cannot be much larger
than unity by absolute value.
\section{Evolution of scalar perturbations} \label{sec:evolution}
\subsection{Inflation} \label{sec:inflation}
The primordial spectrum of perturbations is obtained in the inflationary paradigm.
Therefore, we start with application of our theory to the simplest model of inflation
based on a single inflaton field $\varphi$. We assume that the inflaton has the usual
coupling to the metric defined by the $B$-field. Then its action can be written as
\begin{equation}
S[\varphi] = \int d^4x \sqrt{- {\rm det}\left( g_{\mu\nu} \right)}\left[ g^{\mu\nu}
\partial_\mu \varphi
\partial_\nu \varphi - V(\varphi)\right] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric defined by $B$.
The background field equations for $\varphi$ take the usual form
\begin{equation}\label{infl-background}
{\mathcal H}^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3} \left[ \frac12 \varphi'^2 + a^2 V(\varphi) \right] +
\frac{\Lambda_0 a^2}{3} \, , \qquad {\mathcal H}^2 - {\mathcal H}' = 4\pi G \varphi'^2 \, ,
\end{equation}
where, as before, the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the conformal time.
The equations for perturbations can be obtained from the general equations (\ref{constr})
and (\ref{velocity}) by substituting appropriate expressions for $\delta \rho$ and
$\delta u$:
\begin{equation}\label{infl-rho-u}
\delta \rho \to \left( \frac{\varphi'}{a} \right)^2 \left[ \left(
\frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} \right)' - 2{\mathcal H} \frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} - \Phi_{\rm GR}
\right]\, , \qquad \delta u \to \frac{\varphi'}{a} \delta\varphi\, .
\end{equation}
From these expressions, we find
\begin{equation}\label{infl-1}
\delta \rho + \frac{3{\mathcal H}}{a}\delta u = \left( \frac{\varphi'}{a} \right)^2 \left[ \left(
\frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} \right)' + {\mathcal H} \frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} - \Phi_{\rm GR}
\right]\, .
\end{equation}
To obtain a dynamical equation for perturbations, it remains to express this quantity in
terms of the potential $\Phi$ using (\ref{dm-Phi}). For this purpose, we first use
equation (\ref{eq-3}) to express $\Phi_{\rm GR}$ in terms of the potential $\Psi_{\rm GR}$:
\begin{equation}\label{infl-2}
{\mathcal H} \Phi_{\rm GR} = \left( {\mathcal H}^2 - {\mathcal H}' \right) \frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} +
\frac{1}{3a^2} \Delta \chi' - \Psi_{\rm GR}' \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have used expression (\ref{infl-rho-u}) for $\delta u$ as well as the background
field equations (\ref{infl-background}). Substituting (\ref{infl-2}) into (\ref{infl-1})
and once again using the background field equations, we can write equation (\ref{dm-Phi})
as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{infl-3}
\frac{{\mathcal H}^2-{\mathcal H}'}{{\mathcal H}} \left( {\mathcal H} \frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} + \Psi_{\rm GR} \right)' -
\frac{{\mathcal H}^2-{\mathcal H}'}{3a^2{\mathcal H}} \Delta\chi' = \Delta\Phi\, ,
\end{equation}
where, as before, $\Phi$ is given by (\ref{Phi}).
Now we use expressions (\ref{velocity}) and (\ref{psigr}), respectively, for $\delta u$
and $\Psi_{\rm GR}$ in terms of $\chi$ to transform the expression in the brackets of
(\ref{infl-3}) into the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{infl-4}
{\mathcal H} \frac{\delta\varphi}{\varphi'} + \Psi_{\rm GR} = \frac{{\mathcal H}^2/a^2}{{\mathcal H}^2-{\mathcal H}'}\left(
\frac{a^2 \Phi}{{\mathcal H}}\right)' + \frac{1}{3a^2} \Delta \chi\, ,
\end{equation}
where we have used the definition (\ref{Phi}) of the potential $\Phi$. Combining
equations (\ref{infl-3}) and (\ref{infl-4}), we see that the term containing
$\Delta\chi'$ cancels. The remaining term with $\Delta\chi$ can be converted to a term
with $\Delta \Phi$ by using the relation (\ref{Phi}) between $\chi$ and $\Phi$. The final
equation for the potential $\Phi$ is
\begin{equation} \label{conform}
\frac{{\mathcal H}^2-{\mathcal H}'}{{\mathcal H}} \left[ \frac{{\mathcal H}^2/a^2}{{\mathcal H}^2-{\mathcal H}'}\left( \frac{a^2
\Phi}{{\mathcal H}}\right)' \right]' = \left[ 1 + \frac{{\mathcal H}^2 - {\mathcal H}'}{3 \left( {\mathcal H}^2 + 6 \pi G a^2
\kappa \right)} \right] \Delta \Phi\, .
\end{equation}
Let us also present it in terms of the derivatives with respect to the physical time:
\begin{equation} \label{inflat}
\frac{\dot{H}}{H} \partial_t \left[ \frac{H^2}{a\dot{H}}\partial_t \left( \frac{a\Phi}{H}
\right)\right] = \left[ 1 - \frac{\dot{H}}{3 \left( H^2 + 6 \pi G \kappa \right) }\right]
\frac{\Delta \Phi}{a^2}\, .
\end{equation}
Apart from the term on the right-hand side proportional to $\dot{H}$, this is the usual
equation for the evolution of the relativistic potential during inflation. Note that the
denominator $H^2 + 6 \pi G \kappa $ in the last term on the right-hand side of
(\ref{inflat}) is positive by virtue of constraints (\ref{betacon}).
The quantity $6 \pi G \kappa$ in the case under consideration is given by the expression
\begin{equation} \label{kapin}
6 \pi G \kappa = 2 \pi G (3 g - 1) (\rho - 3 p) + \frac{3}{4 \ell^2} - \Lambda_0 = ( 3g -
1) \left( 3 H^2 + \frac32 \dot H \right) + \frac{3}{4 \ell^2} - 3 g \Lambda_0 \, .
\end{equation}
As we have already noted in Sec.~\ref{sec:lambda}, the equations for perturbations, in
general, are not invariant under the simultaneous change
\begin{equation} \label{shift1}
\Lambda_0 \to \Lambda_0 - \lambda \, , \qquad V (\varphi) + \frac{\lambda}{8 \pi G} \, ,
\end{equation}
which would be the case in general relativity. However, they are invariant after an
additional change
\begin{equation} \label{shiftel}
\frac{1}{\ell^2} \to \frac{1}{\ell^2} - 4 g \lambda \, .
\end{equation}
In particular, such a transformation will arise in the case where the parameter $\ell^2$
is fixed to be $\ell^2 = 1/4 g \Lambda_0$.
During the inflationary epoch, we have $|\dot{H}| \ll H^2$, and one can neglect the term
containing $\dot{H}$ on the right-hand side of (\ref{inflat}). Thus, we can argue that
the evolution of inflation-generated perturbations is unchanged in the theory under
consideration, and we can take the standard flat spectrum for the potential $\Phi$ as
initial conditions. This conclusion for the generated spectrum can be justified as
follows. Equations (\ref{dm-Phi}) and (\ref{infl-1}) imply the relation
\begin{equation} \label{match}
\Delta \Phi + 4 \pi G \varphi'^2 \Phi_{\rm GR} = \frac{4 \pi G \varphi'^2}{a} \left( \frac{a
\delta \varphi}{\varphi'} \right)' \, .
\end{equation}
On spatial scales smaller than the Hubble scales, with the comoving wavenumber $k$
satisfying $k^2 \gg {\mathcal H}^2$, we can neglect the self-gravity of the scalar field and
quantize the inflaton perturbation $\delta \varphi$ on the background of a homogeneous
and isotropic inflationary universe, obtaining the standard spectrum for the modes
$\delta \varphi_{\bf k}$. Then we can use equation (\ref{match}) to match the quantities
$\Phi$ and $\delta \varphi$ on small (sub-Hubble) spatial scales during inflation. In
doing this, the term $4 \pi G \varphi'^2 \Phi_{\rm GR}$ in (\ref{match}) can be neglected
(just as it is the case with a similar term in GR) since, according to (\ref{phigr}), it
is estimated as
\begin{equation}
4 \pi G \varphi'^2 \Phi_{\rm GR} = 4 \pi G \varphi'^2 \left[\Phi + {\mathcal O} \left( {\mathcal H}^{-1}
\right) \Phi' + {\mathcal O} \left( {\mathcal H}^{-2} \right) \Phi'' + {\mathcal O} \left( {\mathcal H}^{-2} \right) \Delta
\Phi \right] \, ,
\end{equation}
and is small in view of the condition $k^2 \gg {\mathcal H}^2 \gg 4 \pi G \varphi'^2$. Thus, the
quantity $\Phi$ on small scales will acquire the standard amplitude with scale-invariant
spectrum and then will evolve according to equation (\ref{inflat}), which, as we noted,
differs negligibly from the standard inflationary equation for the relativistic
potential.
In the regime of very long wavelengths, we can neglect all terms with Laplacians. In
this case, equation (\ref{match}) implies the relation
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\rm GR} \approx \frac{1}{a} \left( \frac{a \delta \varphi}{\varphi'} \right)' = \left(
\frac{\delta \varphi}{\varphi'} \right)' + \frac{{\mathcal H} \delta \varphi}{\varphi'}\, .
\end{equation}
Substituting this into (\ref{infl-rho-u}), we get
\begin{equation} \label{deltarho}
\delta \rho \approx - 3 {\mathcal H} \left( \frac{\varphi'}{a} \right)^2 \frac{\delta
\varphi}{\varphi'} = - \frac{3 {\mathcal H}}{a^2} \varphi' \delta \varphi \, .
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{psigr}) and (\ref{phigr}) with Laplacians neglected give
\begin{equation} \label{long}
\Psi_{\rm GR} \approx \Phi + \frac{{\mathcal H}}{a^2} \chi' \, , \qquad \Phi_{\rm GR} \approx \Phi -
\frac{1}{a^2} \chi'' + \frac{{\mathcal H}}{a^2} \chi' \, .
\end{equation}
Then, according to (\ref{infl-background}) and (\ref{infl-2}), we have
\begin{equation} \label{deltaphi}
4 \pi G \varphi' \delta \varphi \approx {\mathcal H} \Phi_{\rm GR} + \Psi'_{\rm GR} \approx {\mathcal H} \Phi + \Phi'
- 4 \pi G \varphi'^2 \chi' \approx {\mathcal H} \Phi \, ,
\end{equation}
where, in the last approximation, we have neglected the two terms $\Phi' - 4 \pi G
\varphi'^2 \chi'$ compared to ${\mathcal H} \Phi$, which is legitimate during inflation. Comparing
(\ref{deltarho}) and (\ref{deltaphi}), we get the usual relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho} \approx - 2 \Phi \, ,
\end{equation}
valid on super-Hubble spatial scales during inflation. Note that, in the same
inflationary approximation, we have $\Phi_{\rm GR} \approx \Psi_{\rm GR} \approx \Phi$ on
super-Hubble spatial scales.
\subsection{Evolution with a generic equation of state}
In this subsection, we would like to demonstrate that, on asymptotically large spatial
scales, the relativistic potential $\Phi$ defined in (\ref{Phi}) behaves just as in
general relativity, including the cases where the universe experiences slow or rapid
transitions between epochs with different effective equations of state. To see this,
consider equation (\ref{Phi-dynamical}) in the case of vanishing shear ${\mathcal S}$ for a system
described by a generic equation of state $p(\rho)$, which can interpolate between
different regimes. Note that this assumption implies vanishing of the entropy
perturbation, $\delta {\mathcal E} = 0$, as well as of the last term in equation
(\ref{Phi-dynamical}), which equation then takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{simple}
\Phi'' - c_s^2\Delta \Phi + 3{\mathcal H} \left( 1 + c_s^2 \right) \Phi'+ \left[2{\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2
\left( 1 + 3 c_s^2 \right) \right] \Phi - \frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho+p)\Delta\chi = 0 \, .
\end{equation}
By the standard change of function (see \cite[Sec.~7.3]{Mukhanov})
\begin{equation}
\Phi = u \exp \left[ - \frac32 \int \left( 1 + c_s^2 \right) {\mathcal H} d \eta \right] \propto
( \rho + p )^{1/2} u \, ,
\end{equation}
equation (\ref{simple}) is transformed to
\begin{equation} \label{equ}
u'' - c_{\rm eff}^2 \Delta u - \frac{\vartheta''}{\vartheta} u = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\vartheta \equiv \frac{1}{a} \left[ \frac23 \left( 1 - \frac{{\mathcal H}'}{{\mathcal H}^2} \right)
\right]^{-1/2} = \frac{1}{a} \left( \frac{\rho + \rho_\Lambda}{\rho + p} \right)^{1/2} \,
,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{ceff-u}
c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 + \frac{2 (\rho + p)}{3 \beta (\rho - 3 p) + 3 \gamma \rho_\Lambda + 4
\rho} \, ,
\end{equation}
and we have used definition (\ref{Phi}) and neglected the cosmological constant
contribution in the denominator.
The long-wave solution of (\ref{equ}) is obtained when the term with Laplacian is
neglected:
\begin{equation}
u (\eta) \approx C \vartheta (\eta) \int_{\eta_0}^\eta \frac{d \eta'}{\vartheta^2
(\eta')} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $C$ and $\eta_0$ are constants of integration. In this regime, the quantity
\begin{equation}
\zeta = \vartheta^2 \left( \frac{u}{\vartheta} \right)' \propto \Phi + \frac23 \frac{\rho
+ \rho_\Lambda}{\rho + p} \left(\Phi + \frac{1}{{\mathcal H}} \Phi' \right)
\end{equation}
is conserved.
Equation (\ref{equ}) can be recast in the form
\begin{equation} \label{equ1}
\left[ \vartheta^2 \left( \frac{u}{\vartheta} \right)' \right]' = c_{\rm eff}^2 \vartheta^2
\Delta \left( \frac{u}{\vartheta} \right) \, ,
\end{equation}
which, in particular, shows that the quantities
\begin{equation}
\frac{u}{\vartheta} = a \left( \frac{\rho + p}{\rho + \rho_\Lambda} \right)^{1/2} u
\propto \frac{a^2}{{\mathcal H}} \Phi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\vartheta^2 \left( \frac{u}{\vartheta} \right)' - \frac{\vartheta^2}{3 {\mathcal H}} \Delta \left(
\frac{u}{\vartheta} \right) \propto \Phi + \frac23 \frac{\rho + \rho_\Lambda}{\rho + p}
\left(\Phi + \frac{1}{{\mathcal H}} \Phi' - \frac{1}{3 {\mathcal H}^2} \Delta \Phi \right)
\end{equation}
should remain continuous during a rapid transition between different equations of
state. Since $a$ and ${\mathcal H}$ are obviously continuous in this case, it follows that $\Phi$
must also be continuous.
The relations derived in this subsection imply that the infla\-tionary and
post-infla\-tionary evolution of the potential $\Phi$ on large spatial scales will
reproduce those of general relativity. The only modification as compared with GR occurs
on small spatial scales, where oscillations in (\ref{equ}) proceed with effective speed
of sound (\ref{ceff-u}), different from $c_s^2$. During some periods in the cosmological
evolution, this difference can be small and lead to negligible effect in (\ref{equ}). In
this case, characterized by
\begin{equation}
\frac{2 (\rho + p)}{3 \beta (\rho - 3 p) + 3 \gamma \rho_\Lambda + 4 \rho} \ll c_s^2 \, ,
\end{equation}
we will say that perturbations evolve in the regime of {\em general relativity\/} (GR) on
all scales. In the opposite case, when the difference between $c_{\rm eff}^2$ and $c_s^2$ is
essential, we will say that they evolve in the regime of {\em modified gravity\/}.
From (\ref{psigr}) and (\ref{phigr}), one can obtain relations between the relativistic
potentials on small scales:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{psimod}
\Psi_{\rm GR} &=& \displaystyle \Phi + \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \frac13 \Delta \chi + {\mathcal H}
\chi' \right) \approx \left[ 1 - \frac{k^2}{12 \pi G a^2 \kappa + 6 {\mathcal H}^2} \right] \Phi
\, , \quad k^2 \gg {\mathcal H}^2 \, , \\ \nonumber \\
\Phi_{\rm GR} &=& \displaystyle \Phi + \frac{1}{a^2} \left( \frac23 \Delta \chi - \chi''
+ {\mathcal H} \chi' \right) \approx \left[ 1 + \frac{\left( 3 c_{\rm eff}^2 - 2 \right) k^2}{12 \pi G
a^2 \kappa + 6 {\mathcal H}^2} \right] \Phi \, , \quad k^2 \gg {\mathcal H}^2 \, . \qquad \label{phimod}
\end{eqnarray}
In the regime of general relativity, where $2 \pi G \kappa \gg {\mathcal H}^2/a^2$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{potgr}
\Psi_{\rm GR} \approx \left[ 1 - \frac{2k^2 \ell^2}{3 a^2} \right] \Phi \, , \quad
\Phi_{\rm GR} \approx \left[1 + 2 \left(c_{\rm eff}^2 - \frac23 \right)\frac{k^2 \ell^2}{a^2}
\right] \Phi \, , \quad k^2 \gg {\mathcal H}^2 \, .
\end{equation}
In deriving the above relations, we have taken into account that, in the high-frequency
regime under consideration, $\chi'' \approx c_{\rm eff}^2 \Delta \chi$, so that the term
proportional to $\chi''$ in (\ref{phigr}) gives a contribution of the same order as
$\Delta\chi$. We see that, even in the GR regime, the usual GR relation $\Phi_{\rm GR}
=\Psi_{\rm GR}$ is violated for physical wave numbers $k/a > 1/\ell$, i.e., on scales smaller
than the scale of deformation $\ell$.
\subsection{Radiation domination}\label{sec:rad-dom}
The evolution of scalar perturbations in a universe filled with fluid are most easily
analyzed using the system of equations (\ref{Phi-dynamical}), (\ref{Phi-constr}). For
simplicity, we set the shear to zero and restrict ourselves to adiabatic perturbations,
$\delta {\mathcal E}=0$.
At the stage of radiation domination, we have $a=a_0\eta$, so that ${\mathcal H}=1/\eta$,
${\mathcal H}'=-{\mathcal H}^2$, and ${\mathcal H}''= 2 {\mathcal H}^3$. The speed of sound at this stage is $c_s^2=1/3$.
Equation (\ref{Phi-dynamical}) then simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{rad-dom}
\Phi'' + \frac{4}{\eta}\Phi' - c_{\rm eff}^2 \Delta \Phi = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eff-cs}
c_{\rm eff}^2 = \frac{\gamma \rho_\Lambda +4 \rho}{3 \gamma \rho_\Lambda + 4\rho} \, ,
\end{equation}
and, in using equation (\ref{Phi}), we have taken into account that $\rho = 3p$, hence,
$\kappa = \gamma \rho_\Lambda = \mbox{const}$. Equation (\ref{rad-dom}) has the form of
the usual equation for a radiation-dominated universe apart from the fact that the
effective speed of sound became time-dependent.
In a very early universe, $\rho \gg \gamma \rho_\Lambda$, and the effective speed of
sound (\ref{eff-cs}) becomes equal to the speed of light. This is the modified-gravity
regime. In the course of time, if the quantity $\gamma \rho_\Lambda$ becomes dominant
over $\rho$, the effective speed of sound (\ref{eff-cs}) turns to its standard value
$1/\sqrt{3}$. This is the GR regime. As usual, the limit of GR is obtained by sending
$\gamma \to \infty$.
From the constraint (\ref{Phi-constr}), we find the expression for energy-density
perturbations during this stage:
\begin{equation}\label{drho-raddom}
4\pi G a^2 \delta \rho = \Delta\Phi - 3{\mathcal H} \Phi' \left( \frac{3 \gamma \rho_\Lambda}{3
\gamma \rho_\Lambda + 4 \rho} \right) - 3{\mathcal H}^2 \Phi \left[ 1- \frac{4(4\rho)^2}{(3 \gamma
\rho_\Lambda + 4 \rho)^2} \right] \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact that $\kappa = \gamma \rho_\Lambda = \mbox{const}$ during
radiation domination and that $\rho' = - 4 {\mathcal H} \rho$. Again, as $\gamma \to \infty$, this
equation takes the standard GR form.
As usual, the qualitative behavior of solutions of (\ref{rad-dom}) is easy to understand
in the two asymptotic regimes: $k \eta \ll 1$, corresponding to modes with wavelength
larger than the Hubble radius, and $k\eta \gg 1$, corresponding to modes that already
entered the Hubble radius. In the first case, the term $\Delta \Phi$ can be neglected,
and $\Phi = \mbox{const}$ is a non-decreasing solution. In this case, the last term in
equation (\ref{drho-raddom}) is dominant and gives $a^4 \delta \rho \propto \Phi$ with
coefficient of proportionality being a function of time. Note that the usual
general-relativity relation $\delta\rho/\rho = -2\Phi$ is no longer valid in our theory.
Indeed, this will hold only in the GR regime, where $\rho \ll \gamma \rho_\Lambda$, while
in the early universe we may have $\rho \gg \gamma \rho_\Lambda$. Thus, for $k \eta \ll
1$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{rad-relation}
\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho} \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
6 \Phi \, , &\rho \gg \gamma \rho_\Lambda \ \mbox{(modified-gravity regime)} \, ,\\
- 2 \Phi \, , &\rho \ll \gamma \rho_\Lambda \ \mbox{(GR regime)} \, .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
As a consequence, the long-wave gauge-invariant energy-density perturbation
$\delta\rho/\rho$ passes through zero for $\gamma \rho_\Lambda \sim \rho$, which is an
interesting phenomenon connected with the gauge choice in this model.
Note that the standard relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho} \approx - 2 \Phi_{\rm GR}
\end{equation}
remains to be true in both regimes, in view of relation (\ref{long}) between the
potentials $\Phi$ and $\Phi_{\rm GR}$ valid in the long-wave approximation. Since it is the
quantity $\Phi$ which remains constant on large scales during radiation domination, both
$\delta \rho / \rho$ and $\Phi_{\rm GR}$ change in the transition between the regimes of
modified gravity and GR. Relations (\ref{long}) in this case read
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi_{\rm GR} &\approx& \left[ 1 + \frac{2 (4 \rho)^2}{( 3 \gamma \rho_\Lambda + 4 \rho)^2}
\right] \Phi \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
3 \Phi \, , &\rho \gg \gamma \rho_\Lambda \ \mbox{(modified-gravity regime)} \, ,
\\
\Phi \, , &\rho \ll \gamma \rho_\Lambda \ \mbox{(GR regime)} \, .
\end{array} \right. \\ \nonumber \\
\Phi_{\rm GR} &\approx& \left[ 1 + \frac{4 \left( 9 \gamma \rho_\Lambda - 4 \rho \right) (4
\rho)^2}{( 3 \gamma \rho_\Lambda + 4 \rho)^3} \right] \Phi \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
- 3 \Phi \, , &\rho \gg \gamma \rho_\Lambda \ \mbox{(modified-gravity regime)} \, ,
\\
\Phi \, , &\rho \ll \gamma \rho_\Lambda \ \mbox{(GR regime)} \, .
\end{array} \right. \ \qquad
\end{eqnarray}
For modes with $k\eta\gg 1$, the term $\Delta \Phi$ in (\ref{rad-dom}) is important. The
dominant solution of (\ref{rad-dom}) oscillates with frequency determined by the
effective speed of sound (\ref{eff-cs}) and with a decaying amplitude $\propto \eta^{-2}
c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2} \propto a^{-2} c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}$. In this case, the first term on the
right-hand side of (\ref{drho-raddom}) is dominant, and the relation between $\delta \rho
/ \rho$ and the potential $\Phi$ is the same as in GR. The energy-density perturbation
$\delta\rho/\rho$ is now an oscillating function with frequency determined by
(\ref{eff-cs}) and with amplitude $\propto c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}$, which is constant both in the
modified and GR epochs and growing during the transition. The relativistic potentials on
such small scales are described by the general equations (\ref{psimod})--(\ref{potgr}).
Thus, as in GR, perturbations do not grow during radiation domination. This is true both
for the modified-gravity epoch in early universe and for the GR epoch at late times.
However, the relation between the energy density fluctuation $\delta\rho/\rho$ and the
main relativistic potential $\Phi$ on the super-Hubble scales is different at these
epochs, as shown by (\ref{rad-relation}). The effective speed of sound (\ref{eff-cs}),
which determines oscillations on sub-Hubble scales, is also different at different
epochs. During the transition occurring for $\gamma \rho_\Lambda \sim \rho$, if it is
realized at the radiation-dominated stage, the long-wave gauge-invariant energy-density
perturbation $\delta\rho/\rho$ passes through zero.
Perturbations at the radiation-dominated stage are studied in greater detail in
Sec.~\ref{sec:power} below.
\subsection{Matter domination} \label{sec:matter}
At this stage, we have $p = \delta p =0$, $a (\eta) \propto \eta^2$, and equation
(\ref{Phi-dynamical}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{mat-dom}
\Phi'' + \frac{6}{\eta}\Phi' - c_{\rm eff}^2 \Delta \Phi = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{effm-cs}
c_{\rm eff}^2 = \frac{2 \rho}{3\kappa + 4\rho} \, .
\end{equation}
In this case, $\kappa = \beta \rho + \gamma \rho_\Lambda$ is not constant [$\beta$ and
$\gamma$ are defined in (\ref{bg})]. On sufficiently large spatial scales, $k \ll {\mathcal H} /
c_{\rm eff}$, we have $\Phi \approx \rm{const}$ while, on small scales, $k \gg {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff}$,
the potential $\Phi$ oscillates with decreasing amplitude $\propto \eta^{-3}
c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2} \propto a^{-3/2} c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}$ and with effective speed of sound given by
(\ref{effm-cs}). This behavior is quite different from the case of general relativity,
where the corresponding relativistic potential remains constant at all spatial scales.
To determine the behavior of the density contrast, consider the quantity
\begin{equation}\label{delta-m}
\delta_m := \frac{\delta \rho+ 3({\mathcal H}/a)\delta u}{\rho} \, ,
\end{equation}
which is related to $\Phi$ through (\ref{dm-Phi}):
\begin{equation}\label{delta-chi}
4\pi G a^2 \rho\, \delta_m = \Delta \Phi \, .
\end{equation}
We see that, on large spatial scales, $k \ll {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff}$, the density contrast grows
like in GR: $\delta_m \propto a$, while, on small spatial scales, $k \gg {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff}$,
it {\em oscillates\/} with a slightly increasing amplitude
$\propto a^{-1/2} c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}\propto a^{1/4}$ and frequency
determined by the effective speed of sound in (\ref{effm-cs}).
It is useful to obtain a closed equation describing the evolution of $\delta_m$. Using
the conservation equations (\ref{conservation-0}) and (\ref{conservation-i}) as well as
our assumption $p = \delta p =0$, we get
\begin{equation}
\rho \delta_m' = 3 \rho \left( \Psi_{\rm GR}' + {\mathcal H} \Phi_{\rm GR} \right) + \frac{1}{a}\Delta
\delta u + \frac{3}{a} \left( {\mathcal H}' - {\mathcal H}^2 \right) \delta u \, .
\end{equation}
Taking into account equation (\ref{eq-3}) and the background equation ${\mathcal H}^2 - {\mathcal H}' = 4
\pi G a^2 (\rho + p)$, we see that the terms proportional to $\delta u$ cancel, so that
\begin{equation}\label{m-1}
\delta_m' = \frac{1}{a^2} \Delta \chi' + \frac{1}{a\rho} \Delta \delta u \, .
\end{equation}
Taking the second derivative of $\delta_m$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{m-2}
\delta_m'' = \frac{1}{a^2} \left(\Delta\chi'' - 2 {\mathcal H} \Delta \chi' \right) + \Delta
\Phi_{\rm GR} - \frac{{\mathcal H}}{a\rho} \Delta \delta u \, ,
\end{equation}
where we have used the conservation equation (\ref{conservation-i}) once again. The
following identity is a direct consequence of (\ref{eq-1}) and (\ref{psigr}):
\begin{equation}\label{m-3}
\Delta \Phi_{\rm GR} + \frac{1}{a^2} \Delta \left(\chi''-{\mathcal H} \chi' \right) =
\frac{2}{3a^2}\Delta^2\chi + \left( 4\pi G\kappa + \frac{2{\mathcal H}^2}{a^2}\right)\Delta \chi \, .
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{m-1})--(\ref{m-3}) and using the relation (\ref{delta-chi}) between
$\delta_m$ and $\Delta\chi$, we have
\begin{equation}
\delta_m''+{\mathcal H}\delta_m'- \frac{2}{3a^2} \Delta^2\chi= 4\pi G a^2\rho \delta_m \, .
\end{equation}
Finally, using the relation (\ref{Phi}) between $\Phi$ and $\chi$ as well as equation
(\ref{delta-chi}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\delta_m''+{\mathcal H}\delta_m' - \frac{2\rho}{3\kappa+4\rho} \Delta\delta_m = 4\pi G a^2\rho
\delta_m \, .
\end{equation}
It is illuminating to rewrite the above equation in terms of the physical time:
\begin{equation}\label{dm}
\ddot{\delta}_m + 2H \dot{\delta}_m -\frac{2\rho}{3\kappa+4\rho}
\frac{\Delta\delta_m}{a^2} = 4\pi G \rho \delta_m \, ,
\end{equation}
where $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the physical Hubble parameter. Equation (\ref{dm}) allows for a
straightforward passage to the GR limit: one just has to send $\kappa\to\infty$. For
finite $\kappa$, we get an extra term that leads to oscillations on sub-Hubble scales, an
effect absent in general relativity.
In view of the definition $\kappa=\beta \rho +\gamma \rho_\Lambda$, we can write:
\begin{equation} \label{ceff-m}
c_{\rm eff}^2 = \frac{2/3}{\beta + 4/3 + \gamma \rho_\Lambda/\rho} \, .
\end{equation}
Thus, at the early epoch with $\rho\gg \gamma \rho_\Lambda$ (if this condition is
realized during matter domination), we have oscillations with effective speed of sound
$c_{\rm eff}^2=2/(3\beta+4)$. If $\gamma \gg 1$, then, as the energy density decreases with
the expansion, one may enter into the regime $\rho_\Lambda \ll \rho \ll \gamma
\rho_\Lambda$ in which the usual GR behavior is recovered in a broad range of spatial
scales. Note that the physical spatial scale on which oscillations take place
$k/a> {\mathcal H}/c_{{\rm eff}}a \sim a^{-3/2} (\gamma\rho_\Lambda/\rho)^{1/2}\sim 1/\ell$ remains
constant during the matter domination era.
\subsection{Lambda domination}
At later epochs in its evolution, the universe is dominated by the cosmological constant.
It is thus necessary to consider the evolution of matter perturbations in such a
universe. The scale factor in a Lambda-dominated universe is given by
\begin{equation}
a (\eta) = - \frac{1}{\eta} \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda_0}} \, ,
\end{equation}
so that ${\mathcal H} = - 1 / \eta$ and ${\mathcal H}' = 1 / \eta^2 = {\mathcal H}^2$. Equation
(\ref{Phi-dynamical}) in this approximation reads
\begin{equation} \label{lambda-dom}
\Phi'' - \frac{3}{\eta} \Phi' + \frac{3}{\eta^2} \Phi - c_{\rm eff}^2 \Delta \Phi = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
with the effective speed of sound
\begin{equation}
c_{\rm eff}^2 = \frac{4 \pi G \rho }{6 \pi G \kappa + 3 {\mathcal H}^2 / a^2 } = \frac{
2\rho}{(3\beta+4)\rho + (3\gamma+4)\rho_\Lambda } \sim
\frac{2}{3\gamma+4} (\rho/\rho_\Lambda) \ll 1\, ,
\end{equation}
where we have taken into account that ${\mathcal H}^2 / a^2 = \Lambda_0 / 3 + 8 \pi G \rho / 3$,
$\kappa = \beta \rho + \gamma \rho_\Lambda$, and the $\Lambda$-domination
condition $\rho_\Lambda\gg \rho$. Equation (\ref{lambda-dom}) in this
case differs from the general-relativistic analog only by the term with $c_{\rm eff}^2 \Delta
\Phi$.
On sufficiently large scales, $k \ll {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff} $, the evolution proceeds as in the
case of general relativity, with the dominant mode
\begin{equation}
\Phi \propto \eta \propto a^{-1} \, .
\end{equation}
The evolution of the density contrast is given by equation (\ref{Phi-constr}):
\begin{equation}
4 \pi G a^2 \delta \rho = \Delta \Phi - 4 \pi G \rho' \chi' = \Delta \Phi - \frac92
c_{\rm eff}^2 {\mathcal H}^2 \Phi \, .
\end{equation}
One can see that the evolution is the same as in general relativity, $\delta \rho / \rho
\propto a \Phi = \mbox{const}$ in the range of scales $c_{\rm eff} {\mathcal H} \ll k \ll {\mathcal H} /
c_{\rm eff}$. However, the lower boundary in this case ($c_{\rm eff}^2 \ll 1$) corresponds to the
scales well beyond the Hubble radius, which are unobserved in our universe. Thus, we may
conclude that the long-wave perturbations, with $k \ll {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff} $, evolve in the GR
regime.
On small scales, $k \gg {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff} $, equation (\ref{lambda-dom}) describes
oscillations with adiabatically decreasing amplitude $\propto a^{-3/2} c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}
\propto a^{-3/4}$ (in the universe with pressureless matter). In this case, for $c_{\rm eff}^2
\ll 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
4 \pi G a^2 \delta \rho \approx \Delta \Phi \, ,
\end{equation}
so that the density contrast $\delta \rho / \rho$ oscillates with amplitude $\propto
a^{-1/2} c_{\rm eff}^{-1/2} \propto a^{1/4}$, similar to what happens in the regime of
matter domination.
The threshold comoving frequency which distinguishes between these two types of behavior
is growing as $k_\Lambda := {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff} \propto a^{5/2}$, and so the physical threshold
scale $a / k_\Lambda$ decreases from its value $\sim \ell$ at the matter-dominated stage
as $a/k_\Lambda \propto a^{-3/2}$.
\section{Effects of the modification of gravity on the power spectrum} \label{sec:power}
In this section, we give a qualitative analysis of the effect of modification of gravity
on the linear evolution of matter and radiation density perturbations in the adiabatic
mode.
First of all, as we have seen in Sec.~\ref{sec:inflation}, the spectrum on super-Hubble
scales generated during inflation is practically the same as in the usual inflationary
theory based on general relativity. The subsequent evolution of the spectrum depends on
the epoch at which the condition $\rho = \gamma \rho_\Lambda$ is reached, i.e., it
depends on the value of the parameter $\gamma$.
Dealing with the post-inflationary evolution, we consider a two-component universe filled
by non-interacting radiation and dark matter (we ignore the small contribution from the
baryons at the radiation-dominated epoch). Using the basic system of equations
(\ref{conservation-0}), (\ref{conservation-i}) and (\ref{Phi})--(\ref{Phi-dyn-p}), it is
possible to derive a closed system of second-order differential equations for the two
convenient variables, namely, the potential $\Phi$ and the entropy perturbation
\begin{equation} \label{s-m}
s_m := \frac34 \delta_r - \delta_m \, ,
\end{equation}
where, in this subsection, we have made the notation $\delta_r = \delta \rho_r / \rho_r$
and $\delta_m = \delta \rho_m / \rho_m$ for radiation and dark matter, respectively. One
of these two equations is just equation (\ref{Phi-dynamical}), and the combined system in
Fourier space reads [equation (\ref{sys-s}) is derived in the appendix]
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sys-phi}
&& \Phi'' + 3 {\mathcal H} \left(1 + c_s^2 \right) \Phi' + \left[ k^2 c_{\rm eff}^2 + 2 {\mathcal H}' + {\mathcal H}^2
\left( 1 + 3 c_s^2 \right) \right] \Phi = 4 \pi G a^2 c_s^2 \rho_m s_m \, , \\
&& \frac{1}{3 c_s^2} s_m'' + {\mathcal H} s_m' + \frac{k^2}{4} \frac{\rho_m}{\rho_r} s_m =
\frac{k^4}{16 \pi G a^2 \rho_r} \Phi \, . \label{sys-s}
\end{eqnarray}
System (\ref{sys-phi}), (\ref{sys-s}) differs from the corresponding system in general
relativity only by the presence of $c_{\rm eff}^2$ instead of $c_s^2$ in one place in
(\ref{sys-phi}), where $c_s^2$ and $c_{\rm eff}^2$ are respectively given by
\begin{equation} \label{sound}
c_s^2 = \frac{1}{3} \left( 1 + \frac{3 \rho_m}{4 \rho_r} \right)^{-1} \, , \qquad
c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 + \frac{2 (\rho + p)}{3 \kappa + 4 \rho} \, .
\end{equation}
Once a solution to (\ref{sys-phi}) and (\ref{sys-s}) is found, the density contrasts can
be determined using (\ref{s-m}) and (\ref{Phi-constr}):
\begin{eqnarray} \label{deltar}
\delta_r &=& - \frac{3 c_s^2}{4 \pi G a^2 \rho_r} \left[ 3 {\mathcal H} \Phi' + \left( k^2 + 3
{\mathcal H}^2 \right) \Phi \right] + \frac{4 {\mathcal H}}{a^2} \chi' + 3 c_s^2 \frac{\rho_m}{\rho_r} s_m
\, , \\
\delta_m &=& - \frac{9 c_s^2}{16 \pi G a^2 \rho_r} \left[ 3 {\mathcal H} \Phi' + \left( k^2 + 3
{\mathcal H}^2 \right) \Phi \right] + \frac{3 {\mathcal H}}{a^2} \chi' - 3 c_s^2 s_m \, , \label{deltam}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi$ is expressed through $\Phi$ by (\ref{Phi}). These equations formally differ
from their general-relativistic counterparts only by the terms containing $\chi$.
At the radiation-dominated epoch, equations (\ref{sys-phi}) and (\ref{sys-s}) take the
simple form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{rad-phi}
&& \eta^2 \Phi'' + 4 \eta \Phi' + k^2 c_{\rm eff}^2 \eta^2 \Phi = \frac12 \Upsilon \eta s_m \, , \\
&& \eta^2 s_m'' + \eta s_m' + \frac{k^2}{4} \Upsilon \eta^3 s_m = \frac{k^4}{6} \eta^4
\Phi \, , \label{rad-s}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. Here $\Upsilon$ is a dimensionless parameter defined by
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon = \left( \frac{8 \pi G}{3} \rho_{\rm eq} a_{\rm eq}^2 \right)^{1/2} \, , \qquad \Upsilon
\eta \ll 1 \, ,
\end{equation}
and $a_{\rm eq}$ and $\rho_{\rm eq}$ are the scale factor and radiation density at the
radiation-matter equality: $\rho_m = \rho_r = \rho_{\rm eq}$.
If the parameter $\gamma$ is such that the equality $\rho = \gamma \rho_\Lambda$ is
reached during inflation, then the evolution of the spectrum at the radiation-dominated
stage is the same as in general relativity. This follows from equations (\ref{sys-phi})
and (\ref{sys-s}), which, in this case, coincide with those of general relativity at the
radiation-dominated stage. Since inflation typically ends at energy densities $\rho_{\rm
infl} \sim 10^{-12}/ 4 \pi G^2$, and since
\begin{equation}
\gamma \rho_\Lambda \approx \frac{1}{8 \pi G \ell^2} \, , \qquad \gamma \gg 1 \, ,
\end{equation}
we have the estimate for $\ell$ in this case:
\begin{equation}
\ell < 10^{6} \ell_P \sim 10^{-27}\, \mbox{cm} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\ell_P = G^{1/2} \simeq 10^{-33}\,\mbox{cm}$ is the Planck length. Such small
values of $\ell$ make the theory practically indistinguishable from the general
relativity (which, we remember, is obtained in the limit $\ell \to 0$).
Assume that $\gamma \gg 1$ is such that the condition $\rho = \gamma \rho_\Lambda$ takes
place at the radiation-dominated epoch. Let us determine the range of values of the
parameter $\ell$ for which this is the case. The energy density $\rho$ at the
matter-radiation dominated stage is expressed as
\begin{equation}
\rho \simeq \frac{3 H_0^2}{8 \pi G} \left[ \Omega_m (1 + z)^3 + \Omega_r (1 + z)^4
\right] = \frac{3 H_0^2}{8 \pi G} \Omega_m (1 + z)^3 \left[ 1 + \frac{1 + z}{1 + z_{\rm
eq}} \right] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $z_{\rm eq}$ is the redshift of matter-radiation equality, $H_0$ is the current
value of the Hubble parameter, and $\Omega_r$ and $\Omega_m$ are the radiation and matter
density parameters, respectively. When making numerical estimates, for definiteness, we
will use the recently determined values of these parameters \cite{Komatsu:2010fb}:
\begin{equation} \label{params}
\Omega_m h_{75}^2 \approx 0.24 \, , \qquad z_{\rm eq} \simeq 3 \times 10^3 \, ,
\end{equation}
where $h_{75} = H_0 / 75 \, \mbox{km}/\mbox{s Mpc} \approx 1$.
The condition $\gamma \rho_\Lambda = \rho$ defines the redshift $z_\ell\,$:
\begin{equation} \label{zel}
1 + z_\ell = \left( \frac{1 + z_{\rm eq}}{3 H_0^2 \Omega_m \ell^2} \right)^{1/4} \, ,
\qquad z_\ell \gg z_{\rm eq} \, ,
\end{equation}
and the condition $z_\ell > z_{\rm eq}$ implies
\begin{equation} \label{ell-rad}
\ell < \left[ 6 \Omega_m H_0^2 (1 + z_{\rm eq})^3 \right]^{-1/2} \simeq 20\, \mbox{kpc}
\, .
\end{equation}
For the modes that enter the Hubble radius well in the GR regime, i.e., at $z < z_\ell$,
the spectrum of perturbations will not be modified by the end of the radiation-dominated
stage as compared to general relativistic cosmology, which can be seen as follows. Before
the Hubble-radius crossing, the terms with $k$ in system (\ref{sys-phi}) and
(\ref{sys-s}) can be dropped, after which this system coincides with the corresponding
system in GR. After the transition to GR regime, when $c_{\rm eff}^2$ becomes equal to
$c_s^2$, the system again coincides with that of general relativity for all scales $k$,
as was already discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:rad-dom}. Therefore, the behavior of the
solutions $\Phi$ and $s_m$ is general-relativistic during the whole evolution. The
non-standard terms with $\chi$ in equations (\ref{deltar}) and (\ref{deltam}) also become
unimportant in the GR regime. Hence, the density contrasts are expressed through the
basic functions $\Phi$ and $s_m$ also in a general-relativistic way. Therefore, their
amplitudes and phases will not be modified compared to the general-relativistic
expressions.
The boundary value of the comoving spatial scale $\lambda_\ell = a_0 / k_\ell$ that we
were talking about is given by the condition that the corresponding wave crosses the
Hubble radius at redshift $z_\ell$. We have
\begin{equation} \label{kell}
k_\ell = {\mathcal H}_\ell = \frac{a_\ell}{\sqrt{3}\, \ell} \, ,
\end{equation}
from which, using (\ref{zel}), we get
\begin{equation} \label{lambdal}
\lambda_\ell = \frac{a_0}{k_\ell} = \sqrt{3} (1 + z_\ell) \ell \simeq \lambda_{\rm eq} \left(
\frac{1 + z_\ell}{1 + z_{\rm eq}} \right) \left( \frac{\ell}{20\, \mbox{kpc}} \right) \simeq
100 \left( \frac{\ell}{20\,\mbox{kpc}} \right)^{1/2}\, \mbox{Mpc} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{\rm eq} = a_0 / k_{\rm eq} \simeq 100\, \mbox{Mpc}$ is the comoving spatial scale
corresponding to Hubble-radius crossing at matter-radiation equality, and, we remember,
this estimate works for $\ell < 20\,\mbox{kpc}$. For $\lambda
> \lambda_\ell$, or $k < k_\ell = a_0 / \lambda_\ell$, the spectrum of
perturbations will not be modified by the end of the radiation-dominated stage.
Consider now the modes that enter the Hubble radius at the modified-gravity epoch, where
$c_{\rm eff}^2 \approx 1$. Such modes satisfy $k \gg k_\ell$; their comoving spatial scales,
therefore, are considerably smaller than (\ref{lambdal}). In studying the evolution of
{\em adiabatic\/} perturbations on such scales, for not very large values of $\eta$, we
can neglect the terms with $\Upsilon$ in equations (\ref{rad-phi}) and (\ref{rad-s}).
Then, before the transition to the GR regime, we have $c_{\rm eff}^2 \approx \mbox{const} =
1$, and the exact solution of this system that describes the non-decaying mode with the
property $s_m \to 0$ as $\eta \to 0$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi &=& \frac{3 \Phi_0}{(k c_{\rm eff} \eta)^2} \left( \frac{\sin k c_{\rm eff} \eta}{k c_{\rm eff}
\eta} - \cos k c_{\rm eff} \eta
\right) \, , \label{phi-ad} \\
s_m &=& \frac{\Phi_0}{c_{\rm eff}^4} \left[\frac{\cos k c_{\rm eff} \eta - 1}{2} - \int_0^{k
c_{\rm eff} \eta} \frac{\cos x -1}{x} d x \right] \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\Phi_0}{c_{\rm eff}^4}
\left[\frac{\cos k c_{\rm eff} \eta - 1}{2} + {\cal C} + \ln k c_{\rm eff} \eta - {\rm Ci} ( k
c_{\rm eff} \eta) \right]\, , \label{s-ad}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi \approx \Phi_0 = \mbox{const}$ at $k \eta \ll 1$, ${\cal C} \approx 0.577$ is
the Euler constant, and ${\rm Ci} (x)$ is the cosine integral. We have retained the
constant $c_{\rm eff}$ in equations (\ref{phi-ad}) and (\ref{s-ad}) which, therefore, will be
applicable also to the case of general relativity, where $c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 = 1/3$.
Consider now a wave with a fixed comoving wave number $k$. It enters the Hubble
radius at the moment $\eta\sim 1/c_{{\rm eff}} k$. Thus, when we are in the modified
gravity regime the moment of Hubble-radius crossing occurs for a given wave earlier
than would be the case in GR. The oscillations in $\Phi$ thus start earlier, and the amplitude
of the gravitational potential $\Phi$ also drops more than in GR. A similar suppression
effect is also present in the matter power spectrum. From the above expression for
the entropy perturbation we learn that $s_m\propto (k \eta)^4$ for $k c_{{\rm eff}} \eta \ll 1$.
Thus, the entropy perturbation grows till the mode enters the Hubble radius where oscillations
start. Since in the modified gravity epoch the Hubble-radius entry occurs earlier, the
entropy perturbation grows considerably less then would be the case in GR and
a suppression of matter power spectrum ensues. These effects can be estimated as follows.
Well after the Hubble-radius crossing (at $k c_{eff} \eta > 1$), we can proceed to a new function
$u = \eta^2 \Phi$, for which equation (\ref{rad-phi}) with zero right-hand side gives
\begin{equation}
u'' + \left( k^2 c_{\rm eff}^2 - \frac{2}{\eta^2} \right) u = 0 \, .
\end{equation}
Therefore, an approximate solution to $\Phi$ in the regime $k^2 c_{\rm eff}^2 \gg {\mathcal H}^2 =
\eta^{-2}$ can be given in the WKB form
\begin{equation} \label{solu}
\Phi \propto \frac{1}{\eta^2 \sqrt{c_{\rm eff}}} \cos \int k c_{\rm eff} d \eta \, .
\end{equation}
Comparing this with the leading terms in (\ref{phi-ad}), (\ref{s-ad}), we conclude that
the WKB solution well after the Hubble-radius crossing can be approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi &\approx& - \frac{3 \Phi_0}{(k c_{\rm eff}^0 \eta)^2 } \sqrt{\frac{c_{\rm eff}^0}{c_{\rm eff}}}
\cos \int_0^\eta k c_{\rm eff} (\eta') d \eta' \, , \label{phi-wkb} \\ \nonumber \\ s_m
&\approx& \frac{\Phi_0}{2 \left( c_{\rm eff}^0 \right)^2 c_{\rm eff}^2}
\sqrt{\frac{c_{\rm eff}^0}{c_{\rm eff}}} \cos \int_0^\eta k c_{\rm eff} (\eta') d \eta' +
\frac{\Phi_0}{\left( c_{\rm eff}^0 \right)^4} \left( {\cal C} - \frac12 + \ln k c_{\rm eff}^0 \eta
\right) \, , \label{s-wkb}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{\rm eff}^0$ is the asymptotic initial value of the effective sound velocity, which
we have inserted here for comparison with the case of general relativity. The second
term in (\ref{s-wkb}) is just a source-free solution of equation (\ref{rad-s});
therefore, we have retained its form without any modification.
We note that the same expressions (\ref{phi-wkb}), (\ref{s-wkb}) will be obtained in
general relativity with the substitution of $c_s$ for $c_{\rm eff}$ everywhere. Therefore,
after the transition from the modified-gravity regime, where $c_{\rm eff}^2 (\eta) \approx 1$,
to the GR regime, where $c_{\rm eff}^2 (\eta) = c_s^2 (\eta) \approx 1/3$, solution
(\ref{phi-wkb}) for the potential $\Phi$ will evolve just like in the case of general
relativity except that its phase will be shifted and the amplitude of its oscillations
will be lower by a factor of
\begin{equation} \label{factor}
c_s^{-3/2} = 3^{3/4} \approx 2.3 \, .
\end{equation}
This comprises the suppression by $c_s^2$ due to an earlier entry into the regime of
acoustic oscillations with decaying amplitude, as well as amplification of the amplitude
by the factor $c_s^{-1/2}$ that occurs in the transition from the modified-gravity to the
GR regime.
The amplitudes of the radiation and matter energy densities on small scales
($k c_{{\rm eff}} \gg {\mathcal H}$)
will be given, according to (\ref{deltar}), (\ref{deltam}), by the expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_r \approx - \frac{3 c_s^2 k^2}{4 \pi G a^2 \rho_r} \Phi &=& \frac{6 \Phi_0
c_s^2}{\left( c_{\rm eff}^0 \right)^2} \sqrt{\frac{c_{\rm eff}^0}{c_{\rm eff}}} \cos \int_0^\eta k
c_{\rm eff} (\eta') d \eta' \, , \label{r-wkb} \\ \nonumber \\
\delta_m \approx \frac34 \delta_r - 3 c_s^2 s_m &\approx& \frac{9 \Phi_0 c_s^2}{2 \left(
c_{\rm eff}^0 \right)^2} \sqrt{\frac{c_{\rm eff}^0}{c_{\rm eff}}} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{3 c_{\rm eff}^2}
\right) \cos \int_0^\eta k c_{\rm eff} (\eta') d \eta' \nonumber \\ && {} - \frac{3 c_s^2
\Phi_0}{\left( c_{\rm eff}^0 \right)^4} \left( {\cal C} - \frac12 + \ln k c_{\rm eff}^0 \eta
\right) \, . \label{m-wkb}
\end{eqnarray}
We see that the amplitude of $\delta_r$, compared with its general-relativistic
counterpart, after transition to GR regime (where $c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 = 1/3$), will be
lower by the same factor (\ref{factor}), which will affect the CMB pattern on small
angular scales. If one wishes to exclude this modification in the CMB spectrum at
multipoles $l \lesssim 2500$, corresponding to the values reached by ACBAR
\cite{Reichardt:2008ay}, then one needs to impose the following constraint on the
parameter $\ell$:
\begin{equation} \label{ell-cmb}
\frac{l_{\rm rec}}{l_\ell} = \frac{\lambda_\ell}{\lambda_{\rm rec}} =
\frac{\lambda_\ell}{\lambda_{\rm eq}} \frac{\lambda_{\rm eq}}{\lambda_{\rm rec}} \simeq 0.4 \left(
\frac{\ell}{20\, \mbox{kpc}} \right)^{1/2} \lesssim \frac{200}{2500} \quad \Rightarrow
\quad \ell \lesssim 1\, \mbox{kpc} \, .
\end{equation}
Here, $l_{\rm rec} \approx 200$ is the characteristic multipole number corresponding to
the Hubble radius crossing at recombination, and $\lambda_{\rm rec} = a_0 / k_{\rm rec}
\approx 250\, \mbox{Mpc}$ is the corresponding comoving length.
The amplitude of matter perturbation on small scales under consideration is given by
(\ref{m-wkb}). In general relativity, we would always have $c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 = 1/3$, and
the oscillatory term would always be absent. In the present case of modified gravity,
the matter density contrast, apart from the usual monotonic evolution described by the
last term in (\ref{m-wkb}), also exhibits oscillations. However, these oscillations
cease after transition to the GR regime (where $c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 = 1/3$), and the matter
density contrast is then described by the usual monotonic term. Its amplitude is smaller
than that of general-relativistic expression by the factor $c_s^4 = 1/9$, although the
argument in the logarithm is larger by a factor of $\sqrt{3}$. We thus conclude that, in
the eventual power spectrum $P(k) \propto | \delta_m (k) |^2$ of dark matter, there will
be an additional suppression factor on small scales generated during the
radiation-dominated stage:
\begin{equation} \label{transfer}
\frac{P_{\rm mod} (k)}{P_{\Lambda{\rm CDM}} (k)} = \left[\frac{{\cal C} - \frac12 + \ln k
\eta_{\rm eq} }{9 \left({\cal C} - \frac12 + \ln \frac{k \eta_{\rm eq}}{\sqrt{3}}\right)} \right]^2
\approx \frac{1}{80} \, , \qquad k \gg k_\ell > k_{\rm eq} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $P_{\rm mod} (k)$ and $P_{\Lambda{\rm CDM}} (k)$ are the power spectra in the
modified gravity theory under consideration and in general relativity, respectively,
$\eta_{\rm eq}$ is the conformal time at the matter-radiation equality, and $k_\ell$ and its
corresponding comoving length are given, respectively, by (\ref{kell}) and
(\ref{lambdal}). Such a strong suppression will place additional constraint on the value
of $\ell$. In order that it does not disturb the observed power above the comoving
spatial scales of $\sim 1\, \mbox{Mpc}$, one would require $\lambda_\ell \lesssim 1\,
\mbox{Mpc}$, or
\begin{equation} \label{finres}
\ell \lesssim 2\, \mbox{pc}\, .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, suppression of the power of linear perturbations on comoving scales
below $1\, \mbox{Mpc}$ may be interesting from the viewpoint of the missing-satellite
problem (see \cite{Kravtsov:2009gi}).
During matter domination, there will be an additional modification of power caused by
oscillations on scales $k > k_m = {\mathcal H} / c_{\rm eff} \simeq a / \sqrt{2} \ell$ with slightly
increasing amplitude $\delta_m \propto a^{1/4}$ (see Sec.~\ref{sec:matter}). The
corresponding comoving length scale is
\begin{equation} \label{lambdam}
\lambda_m = \frac{a_0}{k_m} \simeq \sqrt{2} \ell\, (1 + z) \simeq 8\, \left( \frac{1 +
z}{1 + z_{\rm eq}} \right) \left( \frac{\ell}{2\, \mbox{pc}} \right) \, \mbox{kpc} \, .
\end{equation}
At present, the evolution of perturbations on such small spatial scales is non-linear,
and the linear-theory analysis of this paper is no longer applicable. On the other hand,
it is not easy to probe the spectrum on such scales in the linear regime in the early
universe. It is thus hard to see whether the new effect of matter density oscillations
could be detected with the currently available data.
The analysis made in this section, in particular, suggests that, if the condition $\rho =
\gamma \rho_\Lambda$ took place at the matter-dominated stage, which requires values of
$\ell$ larger than those given in (\ref{ell-rad}), this would modify the power spectra of
dark matter and radiation very significantly compared to the case of general relativity,
which is important from the viewpoint of current observations. For instance, the pattern
in the CMB power spectrum would be affected because of the essential difference in the
effective speed of sound $c_{\rm eff}^2$ from the usual one $c_s^2$ in this case, and the
matter power spectrum would be suppressed on all scales because of specific oscillations
on the matter-dominated stage. Whether it is possible to fit all available observations
in this case by varying cosmological parameters requires additional investigation using
numerical methods.
Finally, we note that we have studied here only the adiabatic mode, for which $s_m \to 0$
asymptotically in the past. For the bound (\ref{finres}) on the parameter $\ell$ that
arose in this section, the entropy mode is practically excluded, just as it is the case
in the $\Lambda$CDM model. It also remains to be seen whether one can loosen the
restrictions on the parameter $\ell$ in the presence of an entropy mode.
\section{Discussion}
The modified theory of gravity that was studied in this paper has several specific
features which make it an interesting object of investigation. Expressed in terms of the
self-dual two-forms of the Pleba\'{n}ski formalism, the theory is local and has the same
number of degrees of freedom as general relativity. Due to this property, the theory, in
particular, respects the analog of the Birkhoff theorem, possessing a unique
one-parameter family of (modified\,!) spherically symmetric vacuum solutions
\cite{Krasnov:2007ky}, which also turn out to be static. Unlike some other modifications
of general relativity, such as massive gravity, it has a continuous limit to general
relativity and, therefore, may be regarded as a smooth deformation of the latter. At the linearized
level, the modification is described by a parameter $\ell$ with dimension of length and a
dimensionless parameter $g$; they enter the fundamental potentials $V$ and $R$ defined in
(\ref{V}) and (\ref{R}), respectively. The value of $g$ is restricted to lie between zero
and unity from the requirement of absence of singularity in the equations for linear perturbations,
while the parameter $\ell$ is essentially free. The limit of general relativity is
obtained as $\ell \to 0$, irrespective of the value of $g$.
The cosmological properties of the theory also reflect the absence of new degrees of
freedom. Thus, the dynamics of an {\em ideally\/} homogeneous and isotropic universe
described by the modified gravity under consideration is absolutely the same as in
general relativity. For a realistic universe, which is homogeneous only statistically,
there will be the problem of averaging which might lead to modification of the effective
Friedmann equations, the issue that lies beyond the scope of the present paper.
The theory of linear perturbations is modified in a very interesting way. Concerning
perturbations of the scalar type, first of all, there exists an analog of the
relativistic potential $\Phi$ in this theory, which is related to the matter
perturbations in the usual way through Eq.~(\ref{dm-Phi}). Just as in general relativity,
it is also possible to obtain a system of second-order partial differential equations
describing the evolution of this potential; see Eqs.~(\ref{Phi})--(\ref{Phi-dyn-p}). This
system is different from its counterpart in general relativity. Its analysis, performed
in Secs.~\ref{sec:evolution} and \ref{sec:power}, reveals the following basic qualitative
features:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The inflationary theory of generation of primordial perturbation remains intact
because corrections due to modification of gravity at the inflationary stage are
suppressed by the small ratio $| \dot H | / H^2 \ll 1$.
\item The evolution of perturbations at a radiation-dominated stage, described by
(\ref{rad-dom}), proceeds with a modified effective time-dependent speed of sound
$c_{\rm eff}$, given by (\ref{eff-cs}). The relation between the energy density and
relativistic potential, Eq.~(\ref{drho-raddom}), is also modified as compared to
general relativity. For sufficiently low values of the length parameter, $\ell <
20\, \mbox{kpc}$, given by (\ref{ell-rad}), the transition from the
modified-gravity regime (where $c_{\rm eff} \approx 1$) to the general-relativistic
regime (where $c_{\rm eff} \approx c_s \approx 1/\sqrt{3}$) takes place at the
radiation-dominated stage. The modes that enter the Hubble radius after this
transition evolve just as in general relativity, so that the spectrum in this
long-wave region is not modified. The modes that enter the Hubble radius before
this transition experience some suppression in the course of the transition; their
amplitude drops by approximately $2.3$, see Eq.~(\ref{factor}). This will
affect the CMB angular power spectrum on sufficiently small scales; in order that
this spectrum remain unmodified below the multipole number $l \simeq 2500$
reached by ACBAR \cite{Reichardt:2008ay}, the fundamental length parameter of the
theory is further restricted to be $\ell \lesssim 1\, \mbox{kpc}$; see
Eq.~(\ref{ell-cmb}).
Modification of gravity during the radiation-dominated stage also has interesting
effect on the evolution of dark-matter perturbations on small scales, which is
described in Sec.~\ref{sec:power}. Specifically, the matter density contrast,
apart from the usual monotonic evolution also exhibits oscillations, described by
the first term in (\ref{m-wkb}), that cease after transition to the GR regime
(where $c_{\rm eff}^2 = c_s^2 = 1/3$). Moreover, the amplitude of the monotonically
growing part of matter perturbation is smaller than the similar expression in
general relativity by the factor $c_s^4 = 1/9$. This leads to a suppression of
the eventual power spectrum of dark matter by a factor $\sim 1/80$ [see
(\ref{transfer})] on the scales that enter the Hubble radius well before the
transition to general-relativistic regime. In order that this suppression does
not disturb the observed power above the comoving spatial scales of $\sim 1\,
\mbox{Mpc}$, one would require $\ell \lesssim 2\, \mbox{pc}$, which turns out to
be the strongest constraint on this parameter in the present scenario. On the
other hand, suppression of the power of linear perturbations on comoving scales
below $1\, \mbox{Mpc}$ may be interesting from the viewpoint of the
missing-satellite problem (see \cite{Kravtsov:2009gi}).
\item The evolution at the matter-dominated stage is qualitatively different from
that of general relativity because equation (\ref{mat-dom}) for the relativistic
potential still contains a nonzero effective speed of sound, given by
(\ref{effm-cs}) or (\ref{ceff-m}). For this reason, the closed equation
(\ref{dm}) for density contrast exhibits {\em oscillatory\/} character on
sufficiently small scales; the corresponding comoving spatial scale is given by
(\ref{lambdam}). In view of the previous constraint $\ell \lesssim 2\,
\mbox{pc}$, this behavior will only affect the comoving spatial scales smaller
than about $8\, \mbox{kpc}$. Note, however, that, at present, the evolution of
perturbations on such small spatial scales is non-linear, and the linear-theory
analysis of this paper is no longer applicable. On the other hand, it is not
easy to probe the spectrum on such scales in the linear regime in the early
universe. It is thus hard to see whether the new effect of matter density
oscillations could be detected with the currently available data.
\end{enumerate}
We should note that the above description is of qualitative character and, therefore,
needs to be substantiated by numerical integration of the derived system of exact
equations for perturbations, which will be the subject of subsequent work. We also leave
to the future work an analysis of the effect of modification on the gravitational waves,
with a preliminary description given in Appendix \ref{sec:tens}.
\acknowledgments
K.\,K.\@ was supported by an EPSRC Advanced Fellowship. Yu.\,S.\@ was supported by the
``Cosmomicrophysics'' programme and Program of Fundamental Research of the Physics and
Astronomy Division of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and by the State
Foundation for Fundamental Research of Ukraine under grant F28.2/083.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{chap:intro}
\setcounter{figure}{0} \setcounter{equation}{0}
In this note we study how a long, but finite, string of asymmetrically coupled damped oscillators reacts as one of its members (the \emph{leader}) changes its velocity suddenly. The aim is to study how the stability of large flocks depends on the kind of interaction between the individual agents.
\begin{figure}[ptbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.0in]{flocks7figA.eps}
\caption{\emph{ The communication graph of the system. Each agent is linearly coupled to its nearest neighbor. The arrows give the direction of the information flow. The interactions for the boundary agents are different from those in the interior.
At $t=0$ the agent labeled 0, the leader, undergoes a forced motion: a kick in the direction of the arrow above it. It receives no feedback from the flock. }}
\label{fig:comm-graph}
\end{figure}
Assume then that we have a string of oscillators as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:comm-graph}, where in principle each agent observes the relative distance and velocity of its immediate neighbors and uses
those to compute its own acceleration. The types of interaction are indexed by a parameter $\rho\in[0,1]$: each agent multiplies the information coming from the neighbor `in front' by weight $1-\rho$ and from the neighbor `behind' by the weight $\rho$. Naturally the interactions of the first and last agents are a little different from those with two neighbors. The leader itself is assumed not at all influenced by the rest of of the flock (an `independent leader'). At $t=0$ the agent labeled 0, the leader, undergoes a forced motion: namely its velocity goes instantaneously from 0 to 1 (it receives a `kick').
The response of the last agent is called the 'impulse response' function. We study this response function holding all parameters fixed,
except the number $N$ of agents.
The interplay between graph theory and coupled linear ODE's is described in detail in \cite{flocks2}. In particular,
the collection of agents connected by the arrows that give the information flow gives a directed graph, known as the \emph{communication graph}, see Figure \ref{fig:comm-graph}.
In \cite{flocks4, flocks5} we studied what happens if the weights are equal, that is: $\rho=\frac12$. In that case the perturbation propagates from the leader throughout the flock and is roughly multiplied by $N$, the size of the flock, when it arrives at the trailing agent (labeled $N$). The perturbation then decays as the system is assumed to be asymptotically stable. In \cite{flocks6} and this paper we take up the study of this system when $\rho\neq\frac12$. In the former we concluded that the \emph{frequency response} function grows exponentially for all $\rho\in [0,1)$. Here we we show that if $\rho\in(\frac12,1)$, then the impulse response function also shows exponential growth in $N$. When $\rho\in (0,\frac12)$ we conjecture that this is also true. (When $\rho=\frac12$, both grow only linearly with $N$).
We study systems of the form (for details see \cite{flocks6}):
\begin{equation}
\dot z = M z + \Gamma_0(t)\quad ,
\label{eq:indepleader}
\end{equation}
where $z=(z_1,\,\dot{z}_1,...,z_N,\,\dot{z}_N)$ is the vector of position and velocity of the agents. The leading car is not encoded since its
orbit $z_0(t)$ is a priori given. The matrix $M$ is defined in terms of the Kronecker product ($\otimes$)
\begin{equation}
M\equiv I \otimes A + P \otimes K \quad .
\end{equation}
Here $I$ and $P$ are $N$-dimensional square matrices, where $I$ is the identity and $P$ is given by
\begin{equation}
P= I-Q_\rho \quad where\quad Q_\rho=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & \rho & & & \\
1-\rho & 0 & \rho & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1-\rho & 0 & \rho \\
& & & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\label{eq:laplacian}
\end{equation}
The $2\times2$ matrices $A$ and $K$ are given by:
\begin{equation}
A= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right) \quad and \quad
K= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
f & g
\end{array}\right) \quad .
\label{eq:A-and-K}
\end{equation}
Finally:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_0(t) = \left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
(1-\rho)\left(fz_0(t)+g\dot z_0(t)\right) \\
0\\
\vdots
\end{array}\right) \quad .
\label{eq:Gamma_0}
\end{equation}
We consider the problem where the flock is at equilibrium for time $t < 0$, that is: the agents are at rest and properly spaced. At time $0$ we provide an impulse to the leader: $\ddot{z_0}(t)=\delta_0(t)$, the leader then advances at constant velocity equal to $1$ for time $t>0$.
This problem is ultimately motivated by what is called the \emph{canonical traffic problem} in \cite{flocks4, flocks5}, in which one imagines a long row of cars waiting for the traffic light to turn green. When that happens, the first car, the leader, quickly accelerates to the desired speed and the others aim to follow it. The problem now is to deduce the motion of the other agents $z_k(t)$, $k=1,...,N$ and $t>0$.
The control parameters $f,g < 0$, are assumed negative, implying asymptotic stability (\cite{flocks6}), so the flock ultimately follows the leader in equilibrium formation. Here we isolate the following problem: What is the transient behavior of $z_k(t)$? The orbit of the agent farthest from the leader, $z_N(t)$, is plausibly the one that suffers the worst effects (and this is amply born out by numerous numerical experiments). To simplify the discussion we concentrate on its orbit.
This problem constitutes part of a larger research project that aims to analytically understand the dynamics of a large number of agents trying to move coherently in a changing environment that causes a few elements, the leaders, to react to it. An interesting class of systems is given by the requirements that most agents ``receive information" from the same number of nearby agents (homogeneity), and that this information only consists of their neighbors' position and velocity. This pattern only changes for agents on the boundary of the flock (where it has fewer neighbors). In our case we furthermore insist on the interaction being \emph{linear} and involving only positions and velocities of the neighbors. The aim is to give a qualitative analysis of the transients of these systems (``Newtonian Networks" is a concept we propose hereby) as the number of agents is very large. The analysis below reflects some of the complications of this endeavor by examining a (apparently simple) paradigm of this idea.
\vskip .2in
\noindent{\bf Notational Conventions:} To avoid confusion, we list two important conventions here. The first is that we assume that both $f$ and $g$ are negative reals to insure asymptotic stability (Theorem \ref{theo:stable}). The second is that we define the symbol $\sqrt z$ as the root with angle in the interval $[0,\pi)$ (branch cut along the positive real axis).
\section{Preliminary Results} \label{chap:Zeros}
In this section we first give the eigenvalues of the matrix $M$ of of Equation (\ref{eq:indepleader}). We then give the expression for the frequency response function for the trailing agent and discuss its singularities. The following constant will frequently simplify formulae:
\begin{displaymath}
\kappa \equiv \frac{1-\rho}{\rho} \quad or \quad \rho = \frac{1}{1+\kappa} \quad .
\end{displaymath}
In the statement of the next result and that of Proposition \ref{roots} we use the following equation, where $\rho \in(0,1)$ and $\phi$ are real variables:
\begin{equation}\label{cot2}
(2\rho - 1)\cot\phi=\cot N\phi\; .
\end{equation}
Recall that the matrix $P$ is defined in Equation (\ref{eq:laplacian}).
\vskip.2in\begin{prop} (\cite{tridiagonal})
For any $\rho\in(0,1)$, the matrix $P$ has $N$ distinct eigenvalues $\{\lambda_\ell\}_{\ell=0}^{N-1}$: \\
\emph{\bf i) If $\rho\in (0,\frac{1}{2}]$:} for $\ell\in\{0,\ldots, N-1\}$, $\lambda_\ell=1-2\sqrt{\rho(1-\rho)}\,\cos \phi_\ell$, where $\phi_\ell \in \left( \frac{\ell\pi}N, \frac{(\ell+1)\pi}N\right)$ solves (\ref{cot2}).\\
\emph{\bf ii) If $\rho\in (\frac12,\frac{N+1}{2N}]$:} Identical to i).\\
\emph{\bf iii) If $\rho\in (\frac{N+1}{2N},1)$:} for $\ell\in\{1,\ldots, N-2\}$, $\lambda_\ell=1-2\sqrt{\rho(1-\rho)}\,\cos \phi_\ell$, where $\phi_\ell \in \left( \frac{\ell\pi}N, \frac{(\ell+1)\pi}N\right)$ solves (\ref{cot2}); $\lambda_0=\frac{(2\rho-1)^2}{2\rho^2}\left(\frac{1-\rho}{\rho} \right)^{N-1} + \mathcal{O}\left(\left(\frac{1-\rho}{\rho} \right)^{2N-2}\right)$ and $\lambda_{N-1}=2-\lambda_0$.
\label{prop:evalsP}
\end{prop}
\noindent One can show (see \cite{flocks2,flocks4, flocks5}) that the eigenvalues of $M$ defined in Equation (\ref{eq:indepleader}) are given by the solutions $\nu_{\ell\pm}$ of
\begin{equation}
\nu^2-\lambda_\ell g \nu-\lambda_\ell f= 0 \quad,
\label{eq:evals2}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_\ell$ runs through the spectrum of $P$. So:
\vskip.2in
\begin{theo} The eigenvalues of $M$ are
\begin{displaymath}
\nu_{\ell\pm} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda_\ell g \pm \sqrt{(\lambda_\ell g)^2 + 4 \lambda_\ell f}\right)= \frac{\lambda_\ell g}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{4f}{\lambda_\ell g^2}}\right) \quad ,
\end{displaymath}
where $\lambda_\ell$ runs through the spectrum of $P$. Because the $\lambda_\ell$ are contained in the interval $[0,2]$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:evalsP}), the system is stabilized (or globally stable) if and only if both $f$ and $g$ are strictly smaller than zero.
\label{theo:stable}
\end{theo}
\vskip.2in
\begin{cory} The eigenvalues $\nu_{\pm\ell}$ of $M$ in the complex $\nu$ plane either lie on the circle $|\nu+\frac{f}{g}|^2=\frac{f^2}{g^2}$, namely whenever $\frac{4|f|}{\lambda_\ell g^2}>1$, or else are real numbers less than or equal to $-\frac{|f|}{|g|}$.
\label{cory:location-evals}
\end{cory}
Now we turn to the frequency response function of the trailing car when $\rho\neq\frac12$.
\vskip.2in
\begin{cory} (\cite{flocks6}) For $\rho\in (0,1)\backslash \{\frac{1}{2}\}$ the frequency response function of the last agent is given by
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{c}
a_{N}(\nu)= \frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa} \;\kappa^N \; \frac{\mu_+ - \mu_-}
{\left(\mu_+-\mu_+^{-1}\right)\mu_+^{N}- \left(\mu_--\mu_-^{-1}\right)\mu_-^{N}} \quad ,\\
where \quad \mu_\pm=\mu_\pm(\nu) \equiv \frac{1}{2\rho}\left(\gamma\pm \sqrt{\gamma^2-4\rho(1-\rho)}\right) \quad and \quad
\gamma = \gamma(\nu)\equiv \frac{f+ g \nu -\nu^2}{f+ g\nu}
\quad .
\end{array}
\label{cor:trailing}
\end{displaymath}
As functions of $\nu$, the $a_k(\nu)$ in fact are proper rational functions.
\end{cory}
\vskip.2in
In what follows the location of the roots of the denominator of $a_N$ is important. Recall that $\mu_+\mu_-=\kappa$ and define the function
$f:\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$
equal to the denominator:
\begin{displaymath}
f(\mu)\equiv \mu^{N+1}-\mu^{N-1}-\left(\left(\frac{\kappa}{\mu}\right)^{N+1} - \left(\frac{\kappa}{\mu}\right)^{N-1}\right) \quad .
\end{displaymath}
We note that we have two different representations of the set
$\nu_{\pm \ell}$, one in terms of eigenvalues $\lambda_{\ell}$ and the other in terms of roots $\mu_{\pm \ell}$. The locations of the zeros $\mu_{\pm \ell}$ are described in the following result
\vskip.2in
\begin{prop} (\cite{tridiagonal}) \label{roots}
For any positive real number $\kappa$, the function $f$ has
$2N+2$ roots. Two of these are the fixed points of the involution $h:\mu\rightarrow \mu=\frac{\kappa}{\mu}$ and are given by
$\pm \sqrt{\kappa}$. The remaining $2N$ roots, $\{\mu_{\ell\pm}\}_{\ell=0}^{N-1}$, have period $2$ under the involution $h$ and are given as follows: \\
\emph{\bf i) If $\kappa\geq 1$:} $N$ roots are given by $\mu_{\ell+}=\sqrt\kappa \, e^{i\phi_\ell}$, where $\phi_\ell \in \left( \frac{\ell\pi}N, \frac{(\ell+1)\pi}N\right)$, for $\ell\in\{0,\ldots, N-1\}$, solves (\ref{cot2}); the remaining roots are the images under $h$ of these or: $\sqrt\kappa \, e^{-i\phi_\ell}$, respectively.\\
\emph{\bf ii) If $\kappa\in [\frac{N-1}{N+1},1)$:} Identical to i).\\
\emph{\bf iii) If $\kappa\in (0,\frac{N-1}{N+1})$:} $N-2$ roots are given by $\mu_{\ell+}=\sqrt\kappa \, e^{i\phi_\ell}$, where $\phi_\ell \in \left( \frac{\ell\pi}N, \frac{(\ell+1)\pi}N\right)$, for $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,N-2\}$, solves (\ref{cot2}); $N-2$ are images of these under $h$; the remaining roots are $\mu_{0+}\in(\sqrt{\kappa},1)$ and its images under $h$ and multiplication by -1. We have $\mu_{0+}= 1 -\frac{1}{2}(1-\kappa^2)\kappa^{N-1} + \mathcal{O}(\kappa^{2N-2})$.\\
\end{prop}
\vskip 0.5in
\section{Laplace transform and Residues} \label{chap:time}
In Equation (\ref{eq:indepleader}) we set $\ddot z_0(t)=\delta (t)$. Set the initial conditions as follows: for all $k\geq 1$: $\dot z_k(0)=z_k(0)=0$. Then $\ddot z_k(t)$ equals the Green's function of this problem (see \cite{flocks5}):
\begin{equation}
\ddot z_k(t) \equiv \frac{1}{2\pi i}\,\int_{r-i\infty}^{r+i\infty}\;a_k(\nu)e^{\nu t}\,d\nu \quad .
\label{eq:invlaplace}
\end{equation}
The actual impulse response functions $z_k(t)$ can be obtained from this by twice integrating with the usual initial conditions ($\dot z_k(0)=z_k(0)=0$). Here we calculate the impulse response of the last car (labeled by $N$). The strategy is to perform a residue expansion (or partial fraction expansion) of $a_N(\nu)$ (given in Corollary \ref{cor:trailing}).
Considering Corollary \ref{cor:trailing} we write $a_N(\nu)=\frac{p(\nu)}{q(\nu)}$ as a quotient of polynomials with degree($p$) at least that of degree($q$). The zeros of $q$ are the eigenvalues of $M$. Thus
according to Theorem \ref{theo:stable} the denominator in $a_N(\nu)$ has only simple roots located at $\nu_i$, except when for some $\ell$: $-4f=\lambda_\ell g^2$. Avoiding that case for simplicity, we have:
\begin{displaymath}
a_N(\nu)=\sum_i \frac{{\rm Res}(a_N,\nu_i)}{\nu-\nu_i} \quad where \quad {\rm Res_N}(a,\nu_i)= \frac{p(\nu_i)}{q'(\nu_i)} \quad .
\end{displaymath}
With this proviso, we will calculate all the residues ${\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\pm \ell})$, $\nu_{-\ell}=\overline{\nu_{\ell}}$ and
\begin{equation}
a_N(\nu) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{N-1}
\left(\frac{{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell-})}{\nu-\nu_{\ell-}} + \frac{{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell+})}{\nu-\nu_{\ell+}} \right) \quad.
\label{eq:residue}
\end{equation}
The indexing has been chosen so that the pair $\nu_{\pm \ell}$ correspondings to a pair $\mu_{\pm \ell}$ of zeroes of $f$.
This representation allows us to 'compute' the motion of the N-th agent via the inverse Laplace transform
\begin{equation}
z_N(t)= \sum_{\ell=0}^{N-1}
\left(\frac{{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell-})}{\nu_{\ell-}^2}\;e^{\nu_{\ell-}t}+ \frac{{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell+})}{\nu_{\ell+}^2} \;e^{\nu_{\ell+}t}\right) +C_N +D_N t\quad.
\label{eq:impulse-resp.}
\end{equation}
\vspace{.2in}
\noindent
The constants of integration $C_N$ and $D_N$ have to guarantee that $z_N(0)=0$, $\dot{z}_N(0)=0$.
\vskip .2in
\begin{theo}
If the poles are simple then
\begin{displaymath}
{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell\pm})= -\; \frac{(f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})^2}{\nu_{\ell\pm}\,(2f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})}\; \; \frac{\kappa^{N-1} \mu_{+\ell}^{N-3}(\mu_{+\ell}^2-\kappa)^2} {2N\mu_{+\ell}^{2N-2}(\mu_{+\ell}^2-1)+ 2\mu_{+\ell}^{2N}+2\kappa^{N-1}}\quad .
\end{displaymath}
\label{theo:residue}
\end{theo}
\noindent {\bf Proof:} If in the above Proposition we replace $\mu_-$ by $\kappa/\mu_+$, then the expression for $a_N$ in Corollary \ref{cor:trailing} is a rational function of $\mu_+$ alone:
\begin{displaymath}
a_N = \frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa}\; \frac{\kappa^N \mu_+^N(\mu_+^2-\kappa)}{(\mu_+^2-1)\mu_+ ^{2N}+(\mu_+^2-\kappa^2)\kappa^{N-1}}
\equiv \frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa}\; \frac{p_N(\mu_+)}{q_N(\mu_+)} \quad .
\end{displaymath}
(The polynomials $p_N$ and $q_N$ still have a factor $(\mu_+^2-\kappa)$ in common, which is kept to simplify the calculation.) Recall that $\mu_+$ is a function of $\gamma$ by (choose the ``+"root):
\begin{displaymath}
(1-\rho)-\gamma \mu + \rho \mu^2 = 0 \quad ,
\end{displaymath}
with $\gamma$ determined by $\nu_{\ell\pm}$ through
\begin{displaymath}
\gamma=1-\frac{\nu^2}{f+g\nu} \quad .
\end{displaymath}
The pole expansion of $a_N$ is performed as in \cite{flocks5}. When
the poles of $a_N$ are simple we obtain that
\begin{displaymath}
{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell\pm})=\frac{1}{\mu_+'(\nu_{\ell\pm})} {\rm Res}(a_N(\mu),\mu_{\ell\pm})
\end{displaymath}
Using the above relations, one obtains:
\begin{displaymath}
\mu_+'(\nu_{\ell\pm})= -(1+\kappa)\,\frac{\mu_+(\nu_{\ell\pm})^2}{\mu_+(\nu_{\ell\pm})^2-\kappa} \; \frac{\nu_{\ell\pm}(2f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})}{(f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})^2} \quad .
\end{displaymath}
Using this and replacing the residue of $a_N(\mu_+)$ by $\frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa}\,\frac{p_N(\mu_{+\ell})}{q_N'(\mu_{+\ell})}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\rm Res}(a_N(\nu),\nu_{\ell\pm})&=& -(1+\kappa)^{-1} \left(\frac{\mu_{+\ell}^2-\kappa}{\mu_{+\ell}^2}\right) \;
\frac{(f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})^2}{\nu_{\ell\pm}\,(2f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})}.\\%\;
&&\frac{(1+\kappa)\kappa^{N-1} \mu_{+\ell}^{N}(\mu_{+\ell}^2-\kappa)} {2N\mu_{+\ell}^{2N-1}(\mu_{+\ell}^2-1)+ 2\mu_{+\ell}(\mu_{+\ell}^{2N}+\kappa^{N-1})}\quad ,
\end{eqnarray*}
which after some simplification gives the desired result.
\hfill \vrule Depth0pt height6pt width6pt \vspace{6mm}
\vskip 0.5in
\section{The Dominant Poles} \label{chap:condition1}
We show that there are three cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item When $\rho> 1/2$ (or $\kappa<1$), the weight is more on the agent following. In this case two poles dominate the frequency response $a_N(\nu)$ and we can estimate the impulse response by the inverse Laplace transform.
\item When $\rho<1/2$ (or $\kappa>1$), the weight favors the agent in front. In this case no poles appear to be negligible, and the inverse transform is problematic.
\item When $\rho=1/2$ (or $\kappa=1$), equal weight is on the front and back neighbor. In this case on the order $\sqrt N$ poles dominate. The inverse transform can be done and this case is described in \cite{flocks5}.
\end{enumerate}
Theorem \ref{theo:stable} implies that the sign of $1+\frac{4f}{\lambda_\ell}$ determines whether the eigenvalues of the system are real or complex. Proposition \ref{prop:evalsP} tells us that when $\kappa<1$ the eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ is exponentially small. Given our assumptions (all parameters fixed, except $N\rightarrow\infty)$ we may thus assume that $\nu_{0\pm}$ are complex when $\kappa<1$. When $\kappa>1$ it is certainly possible that \emph{all} eigenvalues are real. To simplify the analysis we will assume from now on that all eigenvalues are pairs of complex conjugates (or that $2\frac{|f|}{|g|^2}>1$).
We now present the magnitudes of the residues as well as the relative location of the eigenvalues $\nu_{\pm \ell}$ to the real axis in terms of a table. First, define the following factors:
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{ccc}
I&\equiv & -\;\frac{(f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})^2}{\nu_{\ell\pm}\, (2f+g\nu_{\ell\pm})}\\[.4cm]
II&\equiv& \; \; \frac{\kappa^{N-1} \mu_{+\ell}^{N-3}(\mu_{+\ell}^2-\kappa)^2} {2N\mu_{+\ell}^{2N-2}(\mu_{+\ell}^2-1)+ 2\mu_{+\ell}^{2N}+2\kappa^{N-1}}\\[.4cm]
III&\equiv& \frac{1}{i\Im(\nu_{\ell\pm}) -\nu_{\ell\pm}}
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
The factors $I$ and $II$ multiply to produce the residue, while factor $III$ describes the relative inverse location of the poles to the imaginary axis: $III$ is large when the poles are near the imaginary axis.
The following tables hold:
\begin{tiny}
\[
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\kappa<1$ &&&&&&\\
\hline
$\# $ & $\lambda$ & $\nu$ & $\mu$ & I & II & III\\
\hline \hline
0+ & $\frac12 (1-\kappa)^2 \kappa^{N-1}$ & $\frac12 \lambda_0 g + i\sqrt{\lambda_0|f|}$ & $1-\frac12 (1-\kappa^2)\kappa^{N-1}$ & $\frac{-i\sqrt{|f|}}{2\sqrt{\lambda_{0}}}$ & $\lambda_0$ & $\frac{2}{\lambda_0 |g|}$\\
\hline
0- & $\frac12 (1-\kappa)^2 \kappa^{N-1}$ & $\frac12 \lambda_0 g - i\sqrt{\lambda_0|f|}$ & $\kappa(1+\frac12 (1-\kappa^2)\kappa^{N-1})$ & $\frac{i\sqrt{|f|}}{2\sqrt{\lambda_{0}}}$ & $\lambda_0$ & $\frac{2}{\lambda_0 |g|}$\\
\hline
$\ell+$ & $1-2\sqrt{\rho(1-\rho)}\cos\phi_\ell$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(\kappa^{N/2})$ & ${\cal O}(1)$\\
\hline
$\ell-$ & $1-2\sqrt{\rho(1-\rho)}\cos\phi_\ell$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(\kappa^{N/2})$ & ${\cal O}(1)$\\
\hline
$(N-1)+$ & $2-\lambda_0$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(\kappa^N)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$\\
\hline
$(N-1)-$ & $2-\lambda_0$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$ & ${\cal O}(\kappa^N)$ & ${\cal O}(1)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\]
\end{tiny}
\begin{tiny}
\[
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\kappa>1$ &&&&&&\\
\hline
$\# $ & $\lambda$ & $\nu$ & $\mu$ & I & II & III\\
\hline \hline
$\ell\pm$ & $1-2\sqrt{\rho(1-\rho)}\cos\phi_\ell$ & $\asymp 1$ & $\sqrt{\kappa}\;e^{\pm i\phi_\ell}$ & $\asymp 1$ & $\frac{2\kappa^{\frac{N+1}{2}}\; e^{-iN\phi_\ell}\;\sin^2 \phi_\ell}{N(\kappa\;e^{i\phi_\ell}-e^{-i\phi_\ell})}\left(1+{\cal O}(1/N)\right)$& $\asymp 1$\\[.3cm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\]
\end{tiny}
\vskip .1in
(The symbol $I\asymp 1$ means that the absolute value of the expression ``I" is ${\cal O}(1)$ but not ${ o}(1)$).
\vskip .1in
The accuracy in the table is as follows. Where the entry equals $ax$ the accuracy is ${\cal O}(x^2)$, where the term is $ax+bx^2$ (such as in both the $\nu$-column and the I-column) the accuracy is ${\cal O}(x^3)$. Otherwise exceptions are mentioned. For example, one of these, the entry for
$\nu_{\ell\pm}$, follows because the absolute value of the imaginary part of $\nu_{\ell\pm}$ is ${\cal O}(1)$. Note that the $\lambda$'s necessarily have the same ``+" and ``-" entries.
We first discuss the situation when $\kappa<1$. For $\nu$ close enough to the pole at $\nu_{0+}$, $a_N(\nu)$ can be estimated by evaluating the behavior of $a_N$ near that pole (see Equation (\ref{eq:residue})). Substitute $\nu = i\sqrt{\lambda_0|f|}$ and (see Equation (\ref{eq:residue})) multiply the factors I, II, and III, of the first line in the table to obtain the following result (see also Theorem 4.6 of \cite{flocks6}):
\vskip .2in
\begin{cory} When $\kappa<1$,
$a_N(i\sqrt{\lambda_0|f|})= -i \frac{\sqrt{2|f|}}{|g|}\;\frac{\kappa^{(1-N)/2}} {(1-\kappa)}\;+{\cal O}(1)$.
\label{cor:A_N}
\end{cory}
This result should be compared with Theorem 4.6 of \cite{flocks6} (especially its proof).
From Equation (\ref{eq:impulse-resp.}) and the table above, we see that there are only two poles that yield an exponential contribution to the impulse response function $z_N(t)$. From the table one can calculate this contribution by multiplying I and II, and dividing the result by the square of $\nu$ (see Equation (\ref{eq:impulse-resp.})).
\vskip .2in
\begin{cory} Using only the two principal poles (when $\kappa<1$) as an approximation, the impulse response for the trailing car is given by:
\begin{displaymath}
z_N(t) = t-\frac{1}{\sqrt{|f|}\;\sqrt{\lambda_0}} \; e^{\lambda_0 gt/2}\;\sin(\sqrt{\lambda_0 |f|}\;t) \quad
where \quad \lambda_0 = \frac12 (1-\kappa^2) \kappa^{N-1} \quad .
\end{displaymath}
(The two leading poles determine the dynamics of the last agent.)
\label{cor:orbit}
\end{cory}
The dynamics in this case is virtually entirely determined by the leading eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ of the (reduced) Laplacian.
Note that $\lambda_0$ is exponentially small, yet positive, in N. Also notice that the constant $g$ is negative. The motion $z_N(t)$ for a substantial time interval (as long as $\sqrt{\lambda_0 |f|}\;t$ is small) is roughly equal to $z_N(t)=t(1-e^{\lambda_0 gt/2})$ and therefore remains small, that is: for an amount of time $O(\kappa^{\frac{N}{2}})$ the agent appears to not move.
Now we turn to the case where $\kappa>1$. From the tables we conclude:
\vskip .2in
\begin{cory}
When $\kappa>1$ there are ${\cal O}(N)$ poles that play a role in the dynamics of the orbit of the trailing car. (All have exponentially large residues while other factors are ${\cal O}(1)$.)
\label{cor:many-poles}
\end{cory}
The fact that there are no dominant poles in this situation effectively prevents us from giving an approximation of the impulse response function.
\section{Impulse Stability} \label{chap:impulse}
In \cite{flocks6} we suggest the following notion of impulse stability.
\vskip .2in
\begin{defn} Consider Equation (\ref{eq:indepleader}) with forcing determined by $\ddot z_0(t)\equiv \delta(t)$ and subject to the initial conditions $z_k(0)=\dot z_k(0)=0$. Let $Z^{(i)}_N\equiv \sup_{t>0} |\frac{d^i}{dt^i}(z_N(t)-z_0(t))|$. The system is called `impulse stable' if it is asymptotically stable and if for $i$ equal to 0, 1 and 2: $\limsup_{N\rightarrow \infty}\; \left|Z^{(i)}_N\right|^{1/N}\leq 1$. Otherwise the system is `impulse unstable'.
\label{defn:impulse}
\end{defn}
Impulse instability in this sense means that if we give the leader a 'unit-kick', then that perturbation travels through the flock and causes $\sup|z_N(t)|$, $\sup |\dot z_N(t)|$, or $\sup |\ddot z_N(t)|$ to grow exponentially in $N$, before eventually dying out.
\vskip .2in
\begin{conj}
The system of Equation (\ref{eq:indepleader}) is impulse stable if and only if $\rho=\frac12$ (or $\kappa=1$).
\end{conj}
The fact that for $\rho=\frac12$ the system is stable in this sense was proved in \cite{flocks5}. When $\rho>\frac12$, Corollary \ref{cor:orbit} implies that for an amount of time $O(\kappa^{\frac{N}{2}})$ the trailing agent appears to not move. During all that time however the leader has traveled at unit speed. Thus at this point $t$ is in time $z_N(t)-z_0(t)$ is exponentially large in $N$. This proves impulse instability when $\rho>\frac12$.
The problem resides in the case $\rho<\frac12$. Due to Corollary \ref{cor:many-poles} we cannot easily find approximate solutions. Here is a heuristic argument in that case. Use the fact that $\mu_-\mu_+=\kappa$ to rewrite
\begin{equation}
a_N(\nu)=\frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa}\;\mu_-^N\;\frac{\mu_+-\mu_-}{\mu_+-\mu_+^{-1}} \;\left(1- \frac{\mu_--\mu_-^{-1}}{\mu_+-\mu_+^{-1}} \left(\frac{\mu_-}{\mu_+}\right)^N\right)^{-1} \quad
\label{eq:aN-to-mu}
\end{equation}
Now one shows (see the appendix of \cite{flocks6}) that there is an $r\in(0,1)$ for which $\frac{|\mu_-(i\omega)|}{|\mu_+(i\omega)|}<r$ and furthermore that there is an interval $(0,\omega_+)$ on which $|\mu_-(i\omega)|>1$. From this it follows that $a_N$ grows exponentially large (in $N$) as $N$ tends to infinity on a fixed interval $(0,\omega_+)$. Thus the $L_2$ norm $\parallel a_N(i\omega)\parallel_2$ of $a_N$ grows exponentially. Since the Fourier transform (and its inverse) preserve the $L_2$ norm (by Plancherel's theorem), we now have that $\ddot z_N$ has an exponentially growing $L_2$ norm. Until this point there is no problem. But now we want to prove that the sup-norm of $\ddot z_N(t)$ must also grow exponentially.
We know that $z_N$ is a linear combination of eigensolutions each of which decays with $e^{Re(\nu_{\ell\pm})t}$. In this case the numbers
$Re(\nu_{\ell\pm})$ are uniformly (in $N$) bounded by a strictly negative number. So it \emph{seems} reasonable that \emph{if}
such a function is to have an exponentially large $L_2$ norm then its sup-norm must grow exponentially as well. However, we have been unable to prove this rigorously.
\vskip .5in
\section*{Acknowledgements:} JJPV is grateful for useful conversations with Gerardo Lafferriere.
\vskip 1. in
|
\section{Motivation}
Entropy, which measures complexity of a dynamical system, has various definitions
in both topological and measure-theoretical contexts. Most of these definitions
are closely related to each other. Given a partition on a measure space,
the famous Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem asserts that for almost every
point the cell covering it, generated under dynamics, decays in measure with
the asymptotic exponential rate equal to the entropy. It is natural to consider
analogous objects in topological dynamics. Instead of measurable partitions,
the classical definition of topological entropy due to Adler, Konheim and
McAndrew involves open covers, which also generate cells under dynamics.
We would not like to speak of any invariant
measure as in many cases they may be scarce or pathologic, offering us very
little information about the local geometric structure.
Diameters of cells are also useless since usually the image of a cell may spread to the
whole space. Finally we arrive at Lebesgue number. It measures how large
a ball around every point is contained in some cell. It is a global characteristic
but exhibits local facts, in which sense catches some
idea of Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem. We also notice that the results
we obtained provides a good upper estimate of topological entropy which is
computable with reasonable effort.
\section{Preliminaries on Lebesgue number}
First we briefly discuss some preliminaries on Lebesgue number and open covers.
Some of those can be found in any textbook of elementary topology. For
the rest, as well as other facts we discuss in succeeding sections without proof, one can refer to,
for example, \cite{PW}.
The basic result we shall use is the following Lebesgue Covering Lemma.
\begin{theorem}
Let $(X,d)$ be a compact metric space. $\mathcal{U}$ is an open cover of
$X$. Then there is $\delta>0$ such that every open ball of radius at most
$\delta$ is contained in some element of $\mathcal{U}$. We call the largest
such number the Lebesgue number of the open cover.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $X\in\mathcal{U}$ then the theorem is trivial.
If $X\notin\mathcal{U}$, let
$$\delta(\mathcal{U},x)=\sup_{U\in\mathcal{U}}(\inf_{y\in X\backslash U}d(x,y)).$$
Then $\delta(\mathcal{U},x)$ is a continuous function on $X$ taking strictly
positive values. Since $X$ is compact, the function attains its minimum value
on $X$. So
$$\delta(\mathcal{U})=\min_{x\in X} \delta(\mathcal{U},x)>0$$
is the Lebesgue number of the open cover.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Another widely used formulation of Lebesgue Covering Lemma states that there
is $\bar\delta>0$ (the largest one) such that every set of diameter less
than $\bar\delta$
is contained in some element of $\mathcal{U}$. It is easy to see $\delta\le\bar\delta\le
2\delta$. This guarantees that Definition \ref{Lentropy} is not affected
if Lebesgue number is defined this way.
\end{remark}
We have some simple facts on Lebesgue numbers.
\begin{lemma}\label{finer}
For two open covers $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$, we say $\mathcal{U}$
is finer than $\mathcal{V}$, denoted by $\calu\succ\calv$, if every element of $\mathcal{U}$ is contained
in some element of $\mathcal{V}$. If $\mathcal{U}$ is finer than $\mathcal{V}$
then $\delta(\mathcal{U})\le\delta(\mathcal{V})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{shk}
Let $\mathrm{diam}(\mathcal{U})=\sup_{U\in\mathcal{U}}\mathrm{diam}(U)$.
For every open covers $\calu$ and $\calv$, if $\diam(\calu)<\delta(\calv)$,
then $\calu\succ\calv$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
For any two open covers $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$, let
$$\mathcal{U}\bigvee\mathcal{V}=\{U\cap
V|U\in\mathcal{U},V\in\mathcal{V}\}.$$ Then
$$\delta(\mathcal{U}\bigvee\mathcal{V})=\min\{\delta(\mathcal{U}),
\delta(\mathcal{V})\}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
On one hand, $\mathcal{U}\bigvee\mathcal{V}$ is finer than $\mathcal{U}$
and $\mathcal{V}$. By Proposition \ref{finer}
$$\delta(\mathcal{U}\bigvee\mathcal{V})\le\min\{\delta(\mathcal{U}),
\delta(\mathcal{V})\}$$
On the other hand, for every $x$, there are $U_x\in\mathcal{U}$ and $V_x\in\mathcal{V}$
such that
$$\delta(\mathcal{U},x)=\min_{y\in X\backslash U_x} d(x,y)\ge\delta(\mathcal{U}),
\;\delta(\mathcal{V},x)=\min_{y\in X\backslash V_x} d(x,y)\ge\delta(\mathcal{V})$$
Then $$\delta(\mathcal{U}\bigvee\mathcal{V},x)\ge\min_{y\in X\backslash (U_x\cap
V_x)} d(x,y)=\min\{\delta(\mathcal{U},x),\delta(\mathcal{V},x)\}
\ge\min\{\delta(\mathcal{U}),
\delta(\mathcal{V})\}$$
\end{proof}
Now let $f$ be a continuous map from $X$ to itself.
Let
$$\mathcal{U}_f^n=\bigvee_{k=0}^{n-1} f^{-k}(\mathcal{U}),\;\delta_n=\delta_n(f, \mathcal{U})=\delta(\mathcal{U}_f^n)$$
where $f(\mathcal{U})=\{f(U)|U\in\mathcal{U}\}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{mindel}
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an open cover, then
$$\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})=\min_{0\le k\le n-1}\delta(f^{-k}(\mathcal{U})).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{finless}
If $\calu\succ\calv$, then for every $n$, we have $f^{-n}(\calu)\succ f^{-n}(\calv)$
and $\calu_f^n\succ\calv_f^n$, hence $\delta(f^{-n}(\calu))\le \delta(f^{-n}(\calv))$
and $\delta_n(f,\calu)\le\delta_n(f,\calv)$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Decay of Lebesgue numbers}
Now we turn to the asymptotic decay of Lebesgue numbers.
\begin{definition}\label{Lentropy}
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an open cover of $X$. We set
$$h_L^-(f,\mathcal{U})=\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U}),$$
$$h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})=\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U}),$$
$$h_L^-(f)=\sup h_L^-(f,\mathcal{U})$$
and
$$h_L^+(f)=\sup h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
Here the supremums are taken over all finite open covers.
\end{definition}
From now on we use $h_L^*$ to denote either $h_L^+$ or $h_L^-$, when the argument works for both cases. We note that these numbers possess some properties
analogous to entropy.
\begin{lemma}
For every continuous map $f$ and every open cover $\calu$, we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $h_L^*(f,\calu)\ge 0$, hence $h_L^*(f)\ge 0$.
\item If $f$ is an isometry, then $h_L^*(f)=h_L^*(f,\calu)=0$.
\item $h_L^-(f,\calu)\le h_L^+(f,\calu)$, hence $h_L^-(f)\le h_L^+(f)$.
\item For every $n>0$, $h_L^*(f,\calu)=h_L^*(f,f^{-n}(\calu))=h_L^*(f,\calu_f^n)$.
If in addition $f$ is a homeomorphism, then the first equality also holds
for $n<0$.
\item If $\calu\succ\calv$, then $h_L^*(f,\calu)\ge h_L^*(f,\calv)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{multi}
For every $n>0$, $h_L^*(f^n)=n h_L^*(f)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
On one hand, for every finite open cover $\mathcal{U}$ and $m>0$, by Corollary
\ref{mindel}
$$\delta_m(f^n,\mathcal{U})=\min_{0\le j\le m-1}\delta(f^{-jn}(\mathcal{U}))\ge\min_{0\le
j\le mn-1}\delta(f^{-j}(\mathcal{U}))=\delta_{mn}(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
Taking limit we obtain $h_L^*(f^n,\mathcal{U})\le n h_L^*(f,\mathcal{U})$,
hence $h_L^*(f^n)\le n h_L^*(f)$.
On the other hand,
$$\delta_{m}(f^n,\mathcal{U}_f^n)=\min_{0\le
j\le m-1}\delta(f^{-jn}(\mathcal{U}_f^n))=\min_{0\le
j\le mn-1}\delta(f^{-j}(\mathcal{U}))=\delta_{mn}(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
This implies $h_L^*(f^n,\mathcal{U}_f^n)\ge n h_L^*(f,\mathcal{U})$.
So $h_L^*(f^n)\ge n h_L^*(f)$.
\end{proof}
Applying Corollary \ref{mindel}, we also have:
\begin{corollary}\label{nine}
$$h_L^+(f,\calu)\ge\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta(f^{-n}(\calu)).$$
$$h_L^-(f,\calu)\ge\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta(f^{-n}(\calu)).$$
(We intentionally replace $f^{1-n}$ by $f^{-n}$ in the limits.)
\end{corollary}
In fact, we have:
\begin{proposition}\label{eqdef}
$$h_L^+(f,\calu)=\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta(f^{-n}(\calu))$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The analogous result is not necessarily true for $h_L^-$.
\end{remark}
The proposition is a corollary of the following lemma.
We also note that Lebesgue
number is always bounded by the diameter of the space.
\begin{lemma}
Let $a_n\ge K$ be real numbers, uniformly bounded from below. Let
$$b_n=\max\{a_k|1\le k\le n\}.$$
Then
$$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ a_n}n=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ b_n}n$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $a_n\le b_n$. So $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ a_n}n\le\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ b_n}n.$$
Note that $\{b_n\}$ is a non-decreasing sequence. If there is $N$ such that
for all $n>N$, $b_n=b_N$, then
$$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ b_n}n=0=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac Kn\le\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ a_n}n.$$
Otherwise, the set $J=\{n_j|b_{n_j-1}<b_{n_j}\}$ has infinitely many elements.
If $n_j\in J$ then we must have $a_{n_j}=b_{n_j}$.
$$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ b_n}n=\limsup_{j\to\infty}\frac{ b_{n_j}}{n_j}=\limsup_{j\to\infty}\frac{ a_{n_j}}{n_j}\le\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{ a_n}n.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{eql}
$$h_L^*(f)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\inf_{\mathrm{diam}(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon}h_L^*(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $h_L^*(f)\ge h_L^*(f,\calu)$ for every open cover $\calu$.
So
$$h_L^*(f)\ge\limsup_{\epsilon\to 0}\inf_{\mathrm{diam}(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon}h_L^*(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
For every $\theta>0$, if $h_L^*(f,\calv)>h_L^*(f)-\theta$, then
for every $\epsilon<\delta(\calv)$ and every open cover $\calu$ with
$\diam(\calu)<\epsilon$, we have $h_L^*(f,\calu)\ge h_L^*(f,\calv)>h_f^*(f)-\theta$.
So $$h_L^*(f)\le\liminf_{\epsilon\to 0}\inf_{\mathrm{diam}(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon}h_L^*(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
This proposition implies that in Definition \ref{Lentropy} the supremums
may be taken over all open covers (not necessarily finite).
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}
For every sequence of open covers $\{\calu_k\}_{k\ge
1}$,
if $\diam(\calu_k)\to 0$, then $h_L^*(f,\calu_k)\to h_L^*(f)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
If $f$ is an expansive homeomorphism with expansive constant $\gamma$,
then for every open cover $\calu$ of diameter less than $\gamma$,
$h_L^*(f,\calu)=h_L^*(f)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, every element of
$\bigvee_{n=-\infty}^\infty f^n(\overline\calu)$
contains at most one point. $\calu$ is a generator.
By \cite[Theorem 5.21]{PW}, for every $\epsilon>0$ there is $N>0$ such that
$\diam(\bigvee_{n=-N}^N f^n(\calu))<\epsilon$. But $h_L^*(f,\calu)=h_L^*(f,\bigvee_{n=-N}^N f^n(\calu))$. So $h_L^*(f,\calu)=h_L^*(f)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{lbd}
Let $X_\infty=\bigcap_{n=0}^\infty f^{n}(X)$.
If $x,y\in X_\infty$, for each $n>0$, let
$$D(f^{-n}(x),f^{-n}(y))=\inf\{d(z,z'):f^n(z)=x, f^n(z')=y\}.$$
If $X_\infty$ is not a single point, then
\begin{align*}
h_L^-(f)\ge&\sup_{x\ne y\in X_\infty}\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log\frac{d(x,y)}{D(f^{-n}(x),f^{-n}(y))},\\
h_L^+(f)\ge&\sup_{x\ne y\in X_\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log\frac{d(x,y)}{D(f^{-n}(x),f^{-n}(y))}.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We only show the first inequality. Proof of the other one is similar.
Let $$\sup_{x,y\in X}\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log\frac{d(x,y)}{d(f^{-n}(x),f^{-n}(y))}=\lambda$$
Then for every $\epsilon>0$, there are $x_0,y_0\in X_\infty$ such that
$$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log\frac{d(x_0,y_0)}{d(f^{-n}(x_0),f^{-n}(y_0))}>\lambda-\epsilon$$
So there is $n_0>0$ such that if $n>n_0$ then
$$\frac1n\log\frac{d(x_0,y_0)}{d(f^{-n}(x_0),f^{-n}(y_0))}>\lambda-2\epsilon$$
For any open cover $\mathcal{U}$ of diameter less than $d(x_0,y_0)$,
$y_0$ is not covered by any element of $\mathcal{U}$ covering $x_0$.
So every element of $f^{-n}(\calu)$ covering a point of $f^{-n}(x_0)$ can
not cover any point of $f^{-n}(y_0)$.
This implies that $$\delta_{n+1}(f,\mathcal{U})<d(f^{-n}(x_0),f^{-n}(y_0))$$
$$h_L^-(f,\mathcal{U})=\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log \delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})\ge\lambda-2\epsilon$$
Apply Proposition \ref{eql} and let $\epsilon\to 0$, then we obtain $h_L^-(f)\ge\lambda$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The inequalities may be strict. See Example \ref{exlbd}.
\end{remark}
\section{Lebesgue numbers, entropy and dimensions}
In this section we investigate the relations between decay of Lebesgue numbers,
topological entropy and sorts of dimensions. We consider the three definitions
of topological entropy: one using open covers, oene using separated sets,
and one closely related to Hausdorff dimension. Each of them has something
to do with Lebesgue numbers.
\subsection{Lebesgue numbers and minimal covers}
Denote by $S(\mathcal{U})$ the smallest cardinality of a sub-cover of $\mathcal{U}$.
For a given continuous map $f$
on a compact metric space $X$, the topological entropy of $\mathcal{U}$
is
$$h(f,\mathcal{U})=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log S(\mathcal{U}_f^n).$$
The topological entropy $h(f)$ of $f$ is then defined as the maximum of $h(f,\mathcal{U})$
taking
over all finite open covers of $X$.
Denote by $B(x,\gamma)=\{y\in X| d(x,y)<\gamma\}$ the open $\gamma$-ball
around $x$. Let $N(\gamma)$ be the minimal number of $\gamma$-balls needed
to cover $X$. The upper box dimension of $X$ is defined by
$$\dimb(X)=\limsup_{\gamma\to 0}-\frac{\log N(\gamma)}{\log \gamma}.$$
It is clear that if $\gamma_1\ge\gamma_2$ then $N(\gamma_1)\le N(\gamma_2)$.
\begin{lemma}
For every open cover $\mathcal{U}$, if $\mathcal{W}$ is a minimal
sub-cover then
$N(\delta(\mathcal{W}))\ge |\mathcal{W}|=S(\mathcal{U})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{W}=\{W_j\}$. Then for each $j$, there is $x_j\in W_j$ such
that $x_j\notin W_k$ for all $k\neq j$. Otherwise $\mathcal{W}-\{W_j\}$ is
a sub-cover of $\mathcal{U}$ with smaller cardinality.
As every $\delta(\mathcal{W})$-ball is covered by some element of $\mathcal{W}$,
it can cover at most
one element in $\{x_j\}_{1\le j\le |\mathcal{W}|}$.
So the minimal number of $\delta(\mathcal{W})$-balls needed to cover
$X$ is no less than $|\mathcal{W}|$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let
$\Delta(\mathcal{U})=\max\{\delta(\mathcal{W})|\mathcal{W}\text{ is a
minimal sub-cover of }\mathcal{U}\}$.
Then $N(\Delta(\mathcal{U}))\ge S(\mathcal{U})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{definition}
For every open cover $\mathcal{U}$,
let $\Delta_n=\Delta(\mathcal{U}_f^n)$. We set
$$h_L^\Delta(f,\calu)=\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\Delta_n$$
and
$$h_L^\Delta(f)=\sup_{\mathcal{U}}h_L^\Delta(f,\calu),$$
where the supremum is taken over all finite open covers.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
For every $\calu$, we have $\delta(\calu)\ge\Delta(\calu)$. So
$h_L^\Delta(f,\calu)\ge h_L^-(f,\calu)$ and $h_L^\Delta(f)\ge h_L^-(f)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{entpar}
$$\dimb(X)\cdot h_L^\Delta(f,\calu)\ge h(f,\mathcal{U}).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $h(f,\mathcal{U})=0$ then the theorem is trivial since $\Delta_n$ is non-increasing.
If $h(f,\mathcal{U})>0$ then as $n\to\infty$, $S(\mathcal{U}_f^n)\to\infty$.
But $N(\Delta_n)\ge S(\mathcal{U}_f^n)$, we must have $\Delta_n\to 0$.
Fix a small $\epsilon>0$. For every $N_0>0$, by definition of the upper box dimension,
there is $\gamma_0>0$ and $N_1>N_0$ such that $\Delta_n<\gamma_0$ for all $n>N_1$, and
$$-\frac{\log N(\Delta_n)}{\log \Delta_n}<\dimb(X)+\epsilon.$$
Hence
$$-\log\Delta_n\cdot({\dimb(X)+\epsilon})>\log N(\Delta_n)\ge\log S(\mathcal{U}_f^n),$$
$$\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\Delta_n
\cdot{\dimb(X)+\epsilon}\ge \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log S(U_f^n).$$
Let $\epsilon\to 0$ then the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
$$\dimb(X)\cdot h_L^\Delta(f)\ge h(f).$$
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Lebesgue numbers and separated sets}
The last subsection is just a warm-up. Usually, it is not convenient
to refer to Lebesgue number of the minimal cover as it might be quite different
from Lebesgue number of the original one. So we shall not focus on $h_L^\Delta$
but turn to $h_L^-$ and $h_L^+$.
For a continuous map $f$ on a compact metric space $(X,d)$, we define for
each $n$ a metric
$$d_f^n(x,y)=\max_{0\le k\le n-1} d(f^k(x),f^k(y)).$$
Recall for $\epsilon>0$, $E\subset X$ is said to be an $(n,\epsilon)$-separated set if $d_f^n(x,y)>\epsilon$ for distinct points $x,y\in E$. Let
$s_n(f,\epsilon)=\max |E|$, where the maximum is taken over all $(n,\epsilon)$-separated
sets. Then
$$h(f)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac1n \log s_n(f,\epsilon)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac1n \log s_n(f,\epsilon).$$
Now we consider an open cover $\mathcal{U}=\{U_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ of
$X$.
\begin{lemma}
For a given open cover $\mathcal{U}$ and $\epsilon>0$, if $\diam(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon$,
then for each $n$, $N(\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U}))>s_n(f,\epsilon)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $E$ be an $(n,\epsilon)$-separated set of cardinality $s_n(f,\epsilon)$.
If distinct points $x,y\in E$ are covered by the same $\delta_n$-ball, then
the ball is covered by some element
$$V=\bigcap_{k=0}^{n-1} f^{-k}(U_{i_k})\subset \mathcal{U}_f^n,$$
where $U_{i_k}\in\mathcal{U}$ is some element of
$\mathcal{U}$ for each $k$.
This implies that $x,y\in V$ and $f^k(x),f^k(y)\in
U_{i_k}$. Since $\diam(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon$, $d(f^k(x),f^k(y))<\epsilon$ for
$0\le k\le n-1$. So $d_f^n(x,y)<\epsilon$, which contradicts the fact that
$x$ and $y$ are $(n,\epsilon)$-separated.
So each $\delta_n$-ball can cover at most one point in $E$. $N(\delta_n)>s_n(f,\epsilon)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{lebent}
$$\dimb(X)\cdot h_L^-(f)\ge h(f)$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $h(f)=0$ then it is trivial.
If $h(f)>0$ then for all small $\epsilon>0$, as $n\to\infty$, $s_n(f,\epsilon)\to\infty$.
But for every open cover $\mathcal{U}$ such that $\diam(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon$,
we have $N(\delta_n)\ge s_n(f,\epsilon)$. Hence $\delta_n\to 0$.
Fix a small $\theta>0$. For every $N_0>0$, by definition of the upper box dimension,
there is $\gamma_0>0$ and $N_1>N_0$ such that $\delta_n<\gamma_0$ for all $n>N_1$, and
$$-\frac{\log N(\delta_n)}{\log \delta_n}<\dimb(X)+\theta$$
Hence
$$-\log\delta_n\cdot({\dimb(X)+\theta})>\log N(\delta_n)\ge \log s_n(f,\epsilon)$$
$$(\dimb(X)+\theta)\cdot\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})\ge\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n \log s_n(f,\epsilon)$$
This is true for every $\mathcal{U}$ with diameter less than $\epsilon$ and
every $\theta>0$.
Let $\epsilon\to 0$ and apply Proposition \ref{eql}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Hausdorff dimension and Bowen's definition of topological entropy}
This part has been inspired by \cite{Misiu}. Instead of box dimension we
now discuss Hausdorff dimension.
By considering Lebesgue numbers we obtain an inequality relating Hausdorff
dimension and topological entropy, which implies \cite[Theorem
2.1]{Misiu} and \cite[Theorem 2]{DZG} (See Corollary \ref{Lip}).
Recall Bowen's definition of topological entropy \cite{Bowen} that is equivalent
to those we have discussed as the space $X$ is assumed to be compact.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a finite open cover of $X$. For a set $B\subset X$ we
write $B\succ\mathcal{U}$ if $B$ is
contained in some element of $\mathcal{U}$.
Let $n_{f,\mathcal{U}}(B)$ be the largest nonnegative integer $n$
such that $f^k(B)\succ \mathcal{U}$ for $k = 0, 1,\dots,n-1$. If $B\nprec\mathcal{U}$
then $n_{f,\mathcal{U}}(B) = 0$ and if
$f^k(B)\succ\mathcal{U}$ for all $k$ then $n_{f,\mathcal{U}}(B)=\infty$.
Now we set $\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(B) = \exp(-n_{f,\mathcal{U}}(B))$.
If $\mathcal{B}$ is also a cover of $X$, we set
$$\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{B}) = \sup_{B\in\mathcal{B}}
\mathrm{diam}\mathcal{U}(B)$$
and for any real number $\lambda$,
$$D_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{B}, \lambda)=\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}}
(\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(B))^\lambda.$$
Then there is a number $h_\mathcal{U}(f)$ such that
$$\mu_{\mathcal{U},\lambda}(X)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
\inf\{D_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{B}, \lambda)| \mathcal{B}\text{ is a cover of
} X\text{ and }\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{B}) < \epsilon\}$$
is $\infty$ for $\lambda<h_\mathcal{U}(f)$ and $0$ for $\lambda>h_\mathcal{U}(f)$.
As showed in \cite{Bowen}, we have
$$h(f)=\sup\{h_\mathcal{U}(f)| \mathcal{U}\text{ is a finite open cover of
} X\}.$$
The classical Hausdorff measure is defined as
$$\mu_\lambda(X)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\inf\{\sum_{U\in\mathcal{U}}(\diam(U))^\lambda|
\mathcal{U} \text{ is a cover of } X \text{ and } \diam(\mathcal{U})<\epsilon\}.$$
We know the Hausdorff dimension of $X$ is a number $\dimh(X)$ such that $\mu_\lambda(X)=\infty$
for $\lambda<\dimh(X)$ and $\mu_\lambda(X)=0$ for $\lambda>\dimh(X)$.
\begin{theorem}
$$\dimh(X)\cdot h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})\ge h_\mathcal{U}(f).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take $K>h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})\ge 0$. Then there is $n_0$ such that for every $n>n_0$,
$$-\frac1{n-1}\log\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})<K.$$
For $B\in X$, if
\begin{equation}\label{dia}
\diam(B)\le\exp -K(n-1)<\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})
\end{equation}
then $n_{f,\mathcal{U}}(B)\ge n$ since $B$ is contained in $\mathcal{U}_f^n$.
(\ref{dia}) is satisfied for
$$n\le-\log(\diam(B))/K+1.$$
So
\begin{equation}\label{nfa}
n_{f,\mathcal{U}}(B)>-\log(\diam(B))/K\;\text{and}\;\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(B)<(\diam(B))^{1/K}.
\end{equation}
Now fix $\lambda>\dimh(X)$. By the definition of Hausdorff dimension, $\mu_\lambda(X)=0$.
For every
$\epsilon>0$ small enough (much smaller than $\delta_{n_0}(f,\mathcal{U})$) and
every small $\gamma>0$, there is a cover $\mathcal{B}$ such that $\diam(\mathcal{B})<\epsilon$
and
$$\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}}(\diam(B))^\lambda<\gamma.$$
By (\ref{nfa}) we have
$$D_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{B}, \lambda K)=\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}}
(\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(B))^{\lambda K}<\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}}(\diam(B))^\lambda<\gamma$$
while $\mathrm{diam}_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{B})<\epsilon^{1/K}$.
This implies that $\mu_{\mathcal{U},\lambda K}(X)=0$.
Hence $\lambda K>h_\mathcal{U}(f)$, whenever $\lambda>\dimh(X)$
and $K>h_L^+(\mathcal{U})$. So $\dimh(X)\cdot h_L^+(\mathcal{U})\ge h_\mathcal{U}(f)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Similarly, for $Y\subset X$ we can define $\mu_{\mathcal{U},\lambda}(Y)$,
$h_\mathcal{U}(f,Y)$,
$\mu_{\lambda}(Y)$ and $\dimh(Y)$ (as in \cite{Misiu}). It is not difficult
to show that if $\mathcal{U}$ is a finite open cover of $Y$, then
$$\dimh(Y)\cdot h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})\ge h_\mathcal{U}(f,Y).$$
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{hausleb}
$$\dimh(X)\cdot h_L^+(f)\ge h(f).$$
\end{corollary}
\section{Lipschitz maps}
We have shown that $h_L^-$ and $h_L^+$ provide upper estimates of topological
entropy.
Now we show that these numbers are bounded for Lipschitz
maps. Recall that a continous map $f$ is Lipschitz with constant $L(f)>0$
if for every $x,y\in X$, $d(f(x),f(y))\le L(f)\cdot d(x,y)$.
Here we assume that $L(f)$ to be the smallest one among such numbers.
\begin{theorem}\label{LLL}
If $f$ is Lipschitz with constant $L(f)$, then for every finite open cover
$\mathcal{U}$, $h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})\le\max\{\log L(f),0\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $L=\max\{L(f),0\}$.
For every $x\in X$ and every $y\in B(x,\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot L^{-(n-1)})$,
$$d(f^j(x),f^j(y))\le L^j\cdot d(x,y)\le \delta(\mathcal{U})$$
for $j=0,1,\dots,n-1$.
This implies that
$$f^j(B(x,\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot L^{-(n-1)}))\subset B(f^j(x),\delta(\mathcal{U}))\subset
U_j$$
for some $U_j\in\mathcal{U}$, $j=0,1,\dots,n-1$. So $\delta(\mathcal{U}_f^n,x)\ge\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot
L^{-(n-1)}$ for every $x\in X$, hence $\delta_n\ge\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot L^{-(n-1)}$.
$$h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})=\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log\delta_n\le\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac1n\log(\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot
L^{-(n-1)})=\log L.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{Lip}\textnormal{(see also \cite{DZG}\cite{Misiu})}
If $f$ is Lipschitz with constant $L(f)>1$, then for every $Y\subset X$,
$$\dimh(Y)\cdot\log L(f)\ge {h(f,Y)}.$$
In particular,
$$\dimh(X)\cdot\log L(f)\ge h(f).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
We note (thanks to Anatole Katok) long before Bowen's definition of topological entropy was introduced, the weaker result involving the box dimension (see, e.g.\cite[Theorem
3.2.9]{KB}) had been proved by Kushnirenko:
$$\dimb(X)\cdot\max\{\log L(f),0\}\ge h(f).$$
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{hauslip}
If $f$ is Lipschitz, let $$l(f)=\inf\{\frac1n\log L(f^n)|{n\ge 1}\}.$$
Then for every finite open cover $\mathcal{U}$, $h_L^+(f,\mathcal{U})\le\max\{l(f),0\}$.
If $l(f)>0$, then for every $Y\subset X$,
$$\dimh(Y)\cdot l(f)\ge h(f,Y).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
If $f$ is Lipschitz ($L(f)<\infty$), then the sequence $\{\log L(f^n)\}_{1\le\
n\le\infty}$ is sub-additive. In this case
$$l(f)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log L(f^n).$$
In general, $h_L^-(f)$, $h_L^+(f)$ and $l(f)$ may be different from each
other. Some examples will be discussed in the next section.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
$h_L^*(f)$ is invariant under bi-Lipschitz conjugacy.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a bi-Lipschitz conjugacy between $f$ on $X$ and $g$ on $Y$.
For a finite open cover $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$ and every $x\in X$, there is
$U\in\mathcal{U}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
U\supset B(x,\delta(\mathcal{U}))\supset H^{-1}(B(H(x),\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot
L(H^{-1})^{-1}).
\end{equation*}
Then
$$B(H(x), \delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot L(H^{-1})^{-1})\subset H(U)\in H(\mathcal{U}).$$
As $H$ is a homeomorphism, this implies
\begin{equation}\label{conj}
\delta(H(\mathcal{U}))\ge\delta(\mathcal{U})\cdot L(H^{-1})^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $H$ is a conjugacy, $$g^{-n}(H(\mathcal{U}))=H(f^{-n}(\mathcal{U})).$$
Replace $\mathcal{U}$ by $g^{-n}(H(\mathcal{U}))$ in (\ref{conj}), then
$$\delta(g^{-n}(H(\mathcal{U})))\ge\delta(H(f^{-n}(\mathcal{U})))\cdot
L(H^{-1})^{-1}$$
and hence
$$\delta_n(g,H(\mathcal{U}))\ge \delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})\cdot L(H^{-1})^{-1}.$$
Taking the upper limit we have
$h_L^*(f)\ge h_L^*(g)$. The other direction is the same.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
$h_L^*$ depends on the metric chosen and is
not a topological invariant. By the above theorem each of them is the same
for strong equivalent metrics ($C_1d(x,y)<d'(x,y)<C_2d(x,y)$).
Box dimension and Hausdorff dimension also depend on the metric. However,
the inequalities we obtained holds for any metric, making entropy, a topological
invariant, bounded by geometric numbers.
\end{remark}
\section{Examples}
To finish this paper, we put here several examples.
\begin{example}
Let $f:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ be defined by $f(x)=\sqrt x$. Then $h_L^*(f)=\infty$.
\begin{proof}
Take any finite open cover $\mathcal{U}$ with diameter less than $1/10$.
Then $1/2\notin U$
for every $U\in\mathcal{U}$ covering $0$.
$$\delta_n(f,\mathcal{U})\le\delta(f^{-n}(\mathcal{U}))\le |f^{-n}(1/2)-f^{-n}(0)|=2^{-2^n}.$$
So $h_L^*(f)=\infty$.
\end{proof}
This example
shows that the numbers $h_L^*(f)$ may be unbounded even if $h(f)=0$. It also shows that $h_L^*(f^{-1})$ may be different from $h_L^*(f)$,
when $f$ is a homeomorphism (here $h_L^*(f^{-1})=0$).
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $f:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ be defined by $f(x)=\sqrt{1-x^2}$, then $f$ is not
Lipschitz. But as $f^2(x)=x$, we have
$h_L^*(f,\calu)=0$ for every open cover $\calu$. So $h_L^*(f)=0$.
\end{example}
The following examples show that even for a Lipschitz map $f$, in the inequality
$h_L^-(f)\le h_L^+(f)\le l(f)$, every relation may be strict. There
can be orbits with expanding rates $l(f)$
of arbitrary but finite length. So for any fixed open cover the decay will
no longer depend on $l(f)$ after finite iteration. These examples illustrate
this mechanism and in fact can be modified to be homeomorphisms.
\begin{example}\label{ex3}
Let us consider the compact space $$X=\{0\}\cup\{2^{-m}:m=1,2,\dots\}$$ with
the induced metric and topology from $\mathbb{R}$.
Define $f$ on $X$ by
$$f(x)=\begin{cases}x,&x=2^{-2^k}\text{ for some integer }k \text{ or } x=0;\\
2x, & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$
It is easy to check that $f$ is continuous.
Clearly $L(f)=2$. For every large $n$ we have $f^n(2^{-2^{n+1}+1})=2^{-2^{n+1}+n+1}$ so that
$L(f^n)\ge 2^n$. So $l(f)=\log 2$.
On the other hand, denote by $$X_N=\{0\}\cup\{2^{-m}:m>N\}.$$
If $\mathcal{U}$ is an open cover of $X$, then there is
an element $U_0$ of $\mathcal{U}$ and $N_0>0$ such that $U_0\supset X_{N_0}$.
Let $k_0$ be an integer such that $2^{k_0-1}\le N_0<2^{k_0}$. Then for every
$n$, $f^{-n}(U_0)\supset X_{2^{k_0}}$. As $f^{-n}(\mathcal{U})$ is still
an open cover, we have $$\delta(f^{-n}(\mathcal{U}))\ge d(2^{-2^{k_0}}, 2^{-2^{k_0}+1}),$$
which is independent of $n$. So by Proposition \ref{eqdef}, $h_L^+(f)=0$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{diffl}
Fix $a\ge b>1$. Consider the compact space
\begin{align*}
X_{a,b}=&\{0\}\cup \{a^{-m}:m=1,2,\dots\}\\
&\cup\{\frac{qa^{-2^p}}{a+q}:p\in\mathbb{N}, q\in\mathbb{N}\}\\
&\cup\{a^{-2^p}(1+ b^{q}):p\in\mathbb{N},
q\in\mathbb{Z}, 1+b^q<a\}
\end{align*}
with the induced metric and topology from $\mathbb{R}$. Define $f$ on $X$ by
$$f(x)=\begin{cases}
x,& x=2^{-2^k}\text{ for some integer }k \text{ or } x=0;\\
\min\{y\in X_{a,b}: y>x\}, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
It is easy to check that $f$ is a homeomorphism. Similar argument as Example
\ref{ex3} shows that $l(f)=\log a$ and $h_L^*(f)=\log b$.
This example also shows that $h_L^*(f)$ is far from a topological invariant
since all these functions are topologically conjugate for arbitrary values
of $a$ and $b$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
In Example \ref{diffl} we can replace $X_{a,b}$ by
\begin{align*}
X_{a}=\{0\}\cup \{a^{-m}:m=1,2,\dots\}\cup\{a^{-2^p}(\frac{q}{a+q})^{\pm 1}:p\in\mathbb{N}, q\in\mathbb{N}\}.
\end{align*}
Then $l(f)=\log a$ and $h_L^*(f)=0$. This together with Example \ref{diffl}
imply that for every $l\ge 0$, the
collection of possible values
$$\{h_L^*(f): f \text{ is a homeomorphism and } l(f)=l\}$$
is the whole interval $[0,l]$.
Moreover, if we consider $g=(f,Id)$ on $X_{a}\times[0,1]$, then
we have $\dimh(X)=1, h(g)=0, l(g)=\log a$ and $h_L^*(g)=0$.
This shows that Corollary \ref{hausleb} can be a strictly better estimate than
Corollary \ref{hauslip} (also the results in \cite{DZG}\cite{Misiu}).
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $a>b>0$. Consider a sequence $\{s_n\}$ defined by
$$s_1=0, s_2=a, s_n=\begin{cases}s_{n-1}+a,& 2^{2^{2k-2}}\le n<2^{2^{2k-1}}\text{ for
some } k\in\mathbb{N};\\
s_{n-1}+b,& 2^{2^{2k-1}}\le n<2^{2^{2k}}\text{ for
some } k\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{cases}$$
Then
$$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac1n s_n=a\text{ and }\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac1n
s_n=b.$$
Let $t_n=\exp(-s_n)$, then
$$X=\{0,1\}\cup\{t_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$$
is a compact metric space with the induced metric from $\mathbb{R}$. Define
$$f(x)=\begin{cases}x, &x=0\text{ or }x=1;\\
t_{n-1},&x=t_n, n\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{cases}$$
Then $f$ is continuous. It is not difficult to see that
$h_L^+(f)=l(f)=a$ but $h_L^-(f)=b$.
We can even incorporate the idea of Example \ref{diffl} and obtain examples
of homeomorphisms
for which the strict inequality
$h_L^-(f)<h_L^+(f)<l(f)$ holds.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{exlbd}
This is the last example and it shows how the inequalities in Proposition
\ref{lbd} may be strict when $X_\infty$ is not a single point. Let $X=[0,1]\times
[0,1]/\sim$ be the cylinder parametrized
by $[0,1)\times [0,1]$, where $(0,y)\sim (1,y)$ for every $y\in[0,1]$.
Define
$$f(x,y)=\begin{cases} (2x,y), \text{if }2x<1;\\
(0,y), \text{if }2x\ge 1.
\end{cases}$$
Then $X_\infty=\{0\}\times [0,1]$.
For every $z_1\ne z_2\in\{0\}\times [0,1]$, $D(f^{-n}(z_1),f^{-n}(z_2))\ge
d(z_1,z_2)$, hence
$$\sup_{x\ne y\in X_\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\log\frac{d(x,y)}{D(f^{-n}(x),f^{-n}(y))}=0.$$
But for every open cover $\calu$ of diameter sufficiently small, consider
the radius of the ball centered at $(0,0)$ that can be covered by $f^{-n}(\calu)$, we
see
$h_L^*(f,\calu)=\log
2$.
\end{example}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is partially
supported by the Center of Dynamics and Geometry in Department of Mathematics,
Pennsylvania State University. I would like to thank Anatole Katok and Michal Misiurewicz for
reading the drafts of the paper and providing numerous helpful
comments.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Following Loss and DiVincenzo's proposal of spin-based quantum computing with quantum dots (QDs),\cite{Loss} and motivated by the realization of well-defined single and double QDs,\cite{Tarucha,Ciorga,Johnson,Delft,Hatano} and the observation of a robust spin degree of freedom,\cite{Fujisawa, Elzerman, Petta, Amasha} considerable effort has been devoted to implementing electron spin qubits with QDs. The requirements are the coherent manipulation and detection of single electronic spins, and both have recently been met with an electron spin resonance (ESR) technique \cite{Koppens, Nowack, Laird, Michel} for a double QD in a Pauli spin blockade condition.\cite{Ono, Johnson, Koppens}
The application of electron spin resonance to spin qubits still presented a challenge, because a sufficiently strong ac magnetic field has to operate on single electrons in a QD. A straightforward technique was initially developed, which involves using a micro-coil placed on top of a QD with an ac current flowing through it.\cite{Koppens}
However, this is accompanied by joule heating caused by the mA order current flowing through the coil, and so is not useful for making multiple qubits. Electric dipole induced spin resonance (EDSR) is a way to avoid such joule heating, and has been demonstrated using a spin-orbit interaction \cite{Nowack,Golovach} and an inhomogeneous hyperfine field.\cite{Laird} With both techniques, a local ac magnetic field for a QD is generated by employing a microwave (MW) electric field to the QD. More recently, we proposed and demonstrated a technique using a slanting Zeeman field imposed by a micro-magnet,\cite{Tokura, MichelAPL, Michel} which produces a stray magnetic field across a QD. The transverse component is a magnetic field gradient of $\sim $ T/${\rm \mu}$m perpendicular to the externally applied dc magnetic field, and a local effective MW magnetic field is generated by applying an MW electric field to oscillate an electron inside the dot. The longitudinal component is an inhomogeneous magnetic field parallel to the external field, which weakly modulates Zeeman energy across two dots. This field component depends on the micro-magnet geometry relative to the QD, and therefore can be used to selectively address two or more electrons in a coupled multiple QD at different spin resonance frequencies, leading to scalable qubits with a QD array.\cite{Michel,MichelNJP}
Double QDs with two electrons are basic elements for operating various quantum gates, such as swap and control-not gates,\cite{Petta} all of which utilize the rotation of individual electron spins and the modulation of exchange coupling between electrons. The manipulation of two-electron spins has been demonstrated for swap by electrically modulating the inter-dot tunnel coupling in a double QD (Ref. \onlinecite{Petta}) but not the coherent selective manipulation of individual electron spins or two spin qubits.
In this paper, we report the coherent manipulation of individual electron spins in a series coupled double QD using EDSR combined with the micro-magnet effect. We measure a current flowing through a double QD to detect the EDSR current and Rabi oscillations in response to MW irradiation of the double dot in the continuous wave (CW) mode and pump-and-probe (p-p) mode, respectively. The CW EDSR peak and the Rabi frequency measured for various MW powers are both higher for one of the two dots located closer to the MW gate, reflecting the effect of the larger MW electric field on this dot. In addition, they increase quadratically and linearly, respectively, with MW voltage.
These results coincide consistently with the values calculated for our EDSR scheme using the density matrix approach.\cite{Tokura, MichelAPL}
We present the results of the CW and pump-and-probe experiments in Secs. II and III, respectively. We compare these results quantitatively in Sec. IV in terms of the MW electric field distribution calculated using photon assisted tunneling spectroscopy, and we provide our conclusion in Sec. V.
\section{CONTINUOUS WAVE EXPERIMENT}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.22\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure1a}\\
(a)
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.23\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure1b}\\
(b)
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:sampleSEM}
(a) Scanning electron micrograph of the device.
Two electrons are confined in a lateral double quantum dot by Schottky gates (gray) deposited on the surface of an AlGaAs/GaAs hetero-structure, in which a two-dimensional electron gas is located 100 nm below the surface. An MW gate is placed to the left of the double dot. A cobalt micro-magnet (shown in yellow/light gray) is placed on top of the dot with a 100 nm thick calixarene insulator film between them.
In this image, the cobalt micro-magnet is intentionally displaced to show the arrangement of the Schottky gate electrodes.
The device is placed in a dilution refrigerator with an electron temperature of $\sim$ 150 mK that was estimated by measuring the peak width of the Coulomb peak.
(b) Energy diagram of the double quantum dot used for the CW EDSR experiment.
}
\end{figure}
We micro-fabricated a lateral dot sample by using electron beam and optical lithography as well as vacuum electron beam deposition.
Figure \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(a) shows a scanning electron micrograph of a device that we made for a fabrication test. It is similar to the device used in our experiment. We isolate two electrons and separate them from each other spatially using a gate-defined double QD,\cite{Michel} connected in series to source and drain reservoirs. The QD parameters estimated from the measurement of stability diagrams are as follows; tunnel coupling t= 0.83 $\rm \mu$eV, nominal charging energy, V$_{\rm intra}$ = 5.0 meV, and inter-dot coupling energy, V$_{\rm inter}$ = 1 meV.
The micro-magnet is magnetized in-plane (the magnetization is shown by an arrow labeled M$\rm_{Co}$) by applying a sufficiently large external in-plane magnetic field $B_0$ exceeding 0.5 T.\cite{Michel} The micro-magnet is located above the double dot, and generates static out-of-plane (red arrows) and in-plane (blue arrows) stray fields. In our calculation, the out-of-plane stray field has a large gradient of 0.8 T/$\rm \mu$m, and the in-plane fields at the two dots differ by 20 $\sim$ 30 mT. The MW electric field, $E_{\rm MW}$, is produced by applying an MW voltage, $V_{\rm MW}$, to the MW gate electrode in Fig. \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(a) closer to the left QD of the two QDs. The same electrode is used to detune the inter-dot energy levels in the p-p measurements.
To detect EDSR, we placed the double dot in a Pauli spin blockade (P-SB) regime in Fig. \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(b) and applied a CW MW. Figure \ref{fig:CW}(a) shows the current $I_{\rm dot}$ through the double dot vs the external magnetic field $B_0$ measured for the MW at 25.6 GHz (note that we previously obtained similar data using the same device but under different conditions.). The source-drain bias was set at 1.0 $\sim$ 1.5 mV, which is at least 10 times larger than the single photon energy (typically less than 100 $\rm \mu$eV), to avoid photon assisted tunneling (PAT) through the outer barriers. In this figure, we can see two peaks separated by 30 mT, reflecting the EDSR for the individual electron spins in the two dots. The current through the double dot is initially blocked by Pauli exclusion once a spin triplet state has been formed in the double dot.\cite{Ono} The spin-flip induced by EDSR dissolves the stacked state of spin triplet states. In our scheme, only one of two electrons spins flips on resonance while the other stays the same in the off-resonance state, and the electron state transits to the mixed state of a spin triplet and singlet state, which lifts the blockade and gives rise to a finite leakage current in the resonance condition on either dot.
With low MW power, the EDSR peak height, $I_{\rm EDSR}$, is proportional to the square of the MW induced magnetic field, $B_{\rm MW}$.
By using a standard density matrix approach, we can explicitly derive the formula $I_{\rm EDSR} \cong \frac{2 \pi ^2 e \Gamma_\phi \nu_{\rm Rabi}^2}{(\Gamma_\phi)^2+\delta^2}$ for the lowest order of $\nu _{\rm Rabi}$ where $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ is the Rabi frequency proportional to $B_{\rm MW}$, therefore $I_{\rm EDSR}$ is quadratic with respect to the MW induced magnetic field, $B_{\rm MW}$.
$\Gamma_\phi$ and $\delta$ are the decoherence rate and the inter-dot energy detuning, respectively.
The components of $\Gamma_\phi$ are the spin decoherence rate and the inter-dot inelastic tunneling rate.
$B_{\rm MW}$ is proportional to the field gradient times the root-mean-square displacement of an electron and, therefore, $I_{\rm EDSR} \propto (E_{{\rm MW}_i} b_{{\rm SL}_i})^2$, where $E_{{\rm MW}_i}$ and $b_{{\rm SL}_i}$ (i=1,2) are the amplitude of the MW electric field and the out-of-plane magnetic field gradient across the double dot, respectively.\cite{Michel} Here, i = 1 and 2 for the left and right QDs, respectively. Since $b_{\rm SL}$ is almost uniform over the double dot, the higher amplitude of the peak at a smaller $B_0$ in Fig. \ref{fig:CW}(a) is assigned to the EDSR for the spin located in the left QD closer to the MW gate, because $E_{{\rm MW}_1}>E_{{\rm MW}_2}$ and thus $B_{{\rm MW}_1}>B_{{\rm MW}_2}$.
We plot the MW power dependence of each EDSR peak height $I_{\rm EDSR}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:CW}(b).
The power dependences for each peak fit well to a linear relation. The MW power is quadratic with respect to the magnitude of the MW electric field, and this indicates that $I_{\rm EDSR} \propto E_{\rm MW}^2$ as expected. So from the ratio of the slopes between the two straight lines, we are able to calculate an $E_{\rm MW}$ ratio of 1.58 (= $\sqrt{2.5}$) between the two dots.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure2a}\\
(a)
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.20\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure2b}\\
(b)
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:CW}
(a) Current I$_{\rm dot}$ as a function of external magnetic field $B_0$ for MW irradiation at a frequency of 25.6 GHz and a power of -37 dBm. High and low EDSR peaks are observed at 4.70 and 4.73 T, respectively.
(b) EDSR current $I_{\rm EDSR1,2}$ vs MW input power. The local electric field depends on the position of each dot, and is proportional to the square root of the MW power.
The slopes of the two straight lines are quadratic to $E_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $E_{\rm EDSR2}$,
and the ratio of the two peaks $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$, $(E_{\rm EDSR1}/E_{\rm EDSR2})^2$, agrees with the values evaluated in the following discussions.
}
\end{figure}
\section{PUMP-AND-PROBE EXPERIMENT}
After the CW EDSR experiment, we readjusted the device conditions and performed a p-p experiment to observe Rabi oscillations. Here, we focus on two EDSR peaks observed at 3.30 and 3.32 T for an MW frequency of 18.5 GHz.
The procedure of the p-p experiment is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(a) and consists of initialization, pump-and-probe stages. For initialization, the electron state is set in the P-SB condition where the configurations of ($\uparrow$,$\downarrow$), ($\downarrow$,$\uparrow$), and ($\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\uparrow \downarrow- \downarrow \uparrow )$,0) are almost all degenerate as in Fig. \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(b).
Hereafter, the arrows in the brackets show the electron states of each dot. $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ indicate the ground and excited spin states, respectively. The first arrow shows the electron state of the left dot and the second shows that of the right dot. $\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\uparrow \downarrow- \downarrow \uparrow )$ is the spin singlet state in one dot and ``0'' indicates an empty dot.
Under the P-SB condition, the two-electron state is initialized for one of the triplet states, for example, the ($\uparrow$,$\uparrow$) state. In the pump stage, the electron state is adiabatically moved to the region of the Coulomb blockade by tuning the MW gate voltage, and then an MW resonant with one of the electron spins is applied for a finite burst time, $\tau_b$.
The electron spin flips coherently between the ground and excited states during the burst time.
This is Rabi oscillation. Finally, in the probe stage, we adiabatically restore the MW gate voltage to the initial P-SB condition after turning off the MW.
If the spin is flipped in either dot, the hybridized singlet states of ($\uparrow$,$\downarrow$), ($\downarrow$,$\uparrow$), and ($\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\uparrow \downarrow- \downarrow \uparrow )$,0) are readily formed to allow a finite leakage current.
We measured the EDSR current, $I_{\rm EDSR}$, for various $\tau_b$ values ranging from 600 to 200 ns in the p-p, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(b).
The p-p repetition rate was 500 kHz. Each data point is the average $I_{\rm EDSR}$ measured over 20 s. We had a technical problem with $\tau_b <$ 200 ns, and so we concentrated solely on $\tau_b >$ 200 ns. The oscillatory current with $\tau_b$ indicates Rabi oscillations with a frequency $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ of 8.9 MHz in the sinusoidal curve fit including a linearly increasing background and a phase offset as $a + b \tau_b + c \sin ( 2 \pi \nu_{\rm Rabi} \tau_b + \phi_0)$.
The current is proportional to the population of ($\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\uparrow \downarrow- \downarrow \uparrow )$,0) just after switching to probe stage and we deduced that the population should be proportional to $\sin^2\left(2 \pi \nu _{\rm Rabi} \tau_b / 2 \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\sin\left(2 \pi \nu _{\rm Rabi} \tau_b \right)\right)$ by solving the master equation.
Here we neglect the damping effect. We explain the physical meanings of parameters $a$, $b$, $c$, and $\phi_0$ in the subsequent paragraphs.
We also performed the same p-p measurement for the other EDSR peak at 3.32 T.
However, the p-p $I_{\rm EDSR}$ was too small to be resolved, probably because we had adjusted the device conditions to maximize the larger EDSR peak by sacrificing the smaller EDSR peak.
We finally performed Rabi oscillation experiments for both spins to determine whether the Rabi
frequencies are consistently characterized by the CW EDSR data with the MW power across each dot as a parameter.
So, we readjusted several gate voltages to restore the $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$ conditions of Fig. 2 to observe Rabi oscillations for both spins.
We used the technique described in Ref. \onlinecite{Nowack} to average out the effects of nuclear spin polarization for the two peaks. For each fixed burst time,
we recorded five current traces by externally sweeping the magnetic field $B_0$ five times. We swept the magnetic field from high to low to minimize the nuclear spin polarization effect.\cite{Jonathan,Vink}
We observed large and small EDSR peaks, namely, $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$, around 3.30 and 3.32 T, respectively, for each 20-h run of the $B_0$ sweep and then averaged $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$. Figure \ref{fig:PP}(c) shows typical $I_{\rm EDSR}$ data vs $\tau_b$ measured at MW powers of -27 and -28 dBm in the upper and lower panels, respectively. We applied the same sinusoidal fitting as that in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(b) to trace the oscillatory $I_{\rm EDSR}$ data. Although the data points are more scattered than those in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(b)
, the $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$ data sets
are fairly well traced, using the common parameters $a=12.8 \pm 4.43$ fA and $c=2.8 \pm 0.66 {\rm fA}$ for both $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$ and $b=8.36 \pm 0.83{\rm fA/\mu s \cdot mV}$ and $3.66 \pm 1.20 {\rm fA/\mu s \cdot mV}$ for $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$, respectively.
The phase offset $\phi_0$ is reported to be about $\pi/4$ reflecting the fluctuating nuclear field,\cite{Koppens,KoppensEcho} however, the value can be affected by the condition of the quantum dot.\cite{Rashba}
Taking account of this point, we used $\phi_0$ as a fitting parameter but with a value between 0 and $\pi/4$ for each data set used in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(b).
Then, we managed to calculate $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ values of 15 and 11 MHz for $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$, respectively, as shown in the upper panel. We analyzed the data in the lower panel and calculated values of 11 and 8 MHz for $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$, respectively.
Parameter $a$ is the current offset and is responsible for the positive probability of the probed singlet ($\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\uparrow\downarrow-\downarrow\uparrow\right)$,0) state. This value is common to both oscillations as expected. Parameter $c$ is the Rabi oscillation amplitude and $b$ is the linear background with respect to $\tau_b$.
We consider that EDSR is accompanied by a parallel leakage path of PAT between ($\uparrow$,$\downarrow$) or ($\downarrow$,$\uparrow$) and ($\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\uparrow\downarrow-\downarrow\uparrow\right)$,0).
In the pump stage, an electron spin turns downwards in a half period of Rabi oscillation.
Before it turns upwards again, the electron can only move from the right dot to the left dot through PAT with multiple photons to compensate for the large voltage drop between the two dots. When PAT does not occur, the spin continues rotating in the right dot, but in the next Rabi cycle, the down spin has another chance of moving to the left dot by PAT.
The probability of an electron moving is proportional to $\tau_b$,
so the background leakage current increases linearly with $\tau_b$. It is also larger for larger EDSR peaks or faster Rabi oscillations, and we have just begun another experiment to enable us to understand the mechanism.
The PAT process can cause extra decoherence; in the pump stage, the MW burst rotates one spin coherently, but the PAT can hybridize two spin singlet states before the MW burst finishes.
The correlation coefficients, $R^2$, evaluated for the sinusoidal fitting used here, are about 0.7
while the value for linear fitting for the background is about 0.59.
This is not very high and reflects the ambiguity caused by the scattering of the data points and the influence of a linearly increasing background. The data scattering is partly the result of the reduced averaging time for sweeping over the wider range of magnetic field, but it is mainly due to the fluctuating hyperfine field and spin resonance dragging effect.\cite{Koppens,Michel,Vink} These effects can be even more significant in the p-p measurement than in the CW ESR measurement
because less averaging is employed.
The $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ values obtained for different MW input powers are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(d).
The horizontal axis is the square root of the MW power, which is proportional to the driving voltage.
All the data for each $I_{\rm EDSR}$ fall on a straight line crossing the origin.
By comparing the slopes of the two straight lines,
we find that $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ for $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ for the left dot is 1.4 times larger than that for $I_{\rm EDSR2}$ for the right dot.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.225\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure3a}
(a)\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure3b}\\
(b)\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\\[5mm]
\begin{minipage}{0.225\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure3c}
(c)\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure3d} \\
(d)\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\\[5mm]
\begin{minipage}{0.30\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure3e} \\
(e)\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:PP}
(a) Schematic diagram of p-p measurement, including the MW gate voltage setting sequence.
The pulse amplitude, repetition frequency,
and MW frequency are 280 $\rm \mu$ eV, 500 kHz, and 18.5 GHz, respectively.
(b) EDSR current vs MW burst time ($\tau_b$) measured for $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ (left dot).
The solid line shows the fitting of a sinusoidal curve with a linear background (explained in the text) to Rabi oscillations of $I_{\rm EDSR1}$. (c) MW burst time dependence of the two EDSR peaks for two MW powers.
The closed and open dots represent $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$, respectively.
The error bars represent the standard deviation of the current peak values of five measurements.
(d) Rabi oscillation frequency, $\nu _{\rm Rabi}$, derived by fitting various MW $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ values vs the square root of the MW power to the data in (c). The large error bars reflect the ambiguity in the sinusoidal fitting.
(e) PAT data of $I_{\rm dot}$ vs inter-dot detuning $\delta$ measured for various powers. As the MW power is increased, more PAT peaks are observed. These PAT peaks are well reproduced by the square of Bessel functions with the inter-dot MW voltage drop as a fitting parameter.
}
\end{figure}
The Rabi frequency $\nu _{\rm Rabi}$ is proportional to the MW induced magnetic field, $B_{\rm MW}$, which is proportional to the MW induced electric field, $E_{\rm MW}$, across the double dot, i.e., $\nu _{\rm Rabi} = g \mu _e B_{\rm MW} / 2h = g \mu _e / 2h \times e E_{\rm MW} l_{\rm orb} ^2 / \Delta \cdot b_{\rm SL}$.\cite{Tokura,Michel} Here, the orbital spread, $l_{\rm orb}$, the QD confinement energy, $\Delta $, and the magnetic field gradient, $b_{\rm SL}$ are 48 nm, 0.5 meV, and 0.8 T/$\rm \mu$m, respectively.\cite{Michel} These are all fixed parameters in the present experiment.
The only parameter that is varied is the MW electric field $E_{\rm MW}$ used to modulate the Rabi oscillation and therefore, the $\nu _{\rm Rabi}$ ratio between $I_{\rm EDSR1}$ and $I_{\rm EDSR2}$ is compared directly with the $E_{\rm MW}$ ratio between the two dots.
For an MW power of -27 dBm, the mean value $\bar \nu _{\rm Rabi}$ between the two $\nu _{\rm Rabi}$ values is 13 MHz in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(c). We use this frequency $\bar \nu _{\rm Rabi}$ to derive the mean values of $B_{\rm MW}$ and $E_{\rm MW}$ as $\bar B_{\rm MW}$ = 4.6 mT and $\bar E_{\rm MW}$ = 1.3 mV/$\rm \mu$m, respectively.
\section{COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS WAVE AND PUMP-AND-PROBE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS}
For a quantitative understanding of the $\nu_{\rm Rabi}$ ratio between the two dots, we estimated the $E_{\rm MW}$ distribution by measuring the inter-dot PAT. Under the P-SB condition in Fig. \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(b), there is actually another spin triplet state ($\uparrow \uparrow$,0), about 120 $\rm \mu$ eV above the ($\uparrow$,$\uparrow$) state. P-SB is not effective if the electrostatic potential of the left dot is reduced to achieve alignment between the two triplet states.
We measured this triplet resonance current induced by PAT (Ref. \onlinecite{Nowack}) in Fig. \ref{fig:PP}(e).
A fit to the theory provides a good estimation of the inter-dot voltage drop of 180 $\rm \mu$ V.
The estimated distance from the MW gate edge to the center of the two QDs was 330 nm and the inter-dot distance was approximately 100 nm,\cite{Michel} with reference to the lithographic design in Fig. \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(a). The distances from the edge of the MW gate to the left and right dots were 280 and 380 nm, respectively. The MW gate width is much larger than the dot size, so we can assume that the MW electric field is uniform in the vertical direction in Fig. \ref{fig:sampleSEM}(a). We calculated the two-dimensional Coulomb potential using the above parameters to evaluate the spatial distribution of the MW electric field across the double dot. This calculation approach is valid because any surrounding metallic materials are thinner than the shielding length of a high frequency signal, which is called the skin depth. The electric fields evaluated at the left and right dots are 1.4 and 1.0 mV/$\rm \mu m$, respectively, for MW power of -27 dBm, and the average electric field matches the $\bar \nu _{\rm Rabi}$ value described above. The electric field at the left dot is 1.4 times larger than that at the right dot. This ratio is also comparable to the value of 1.58 calculated from the EDSR peak height in the CW measurement.
\section{CONCLUSION}
We performed a continuous wave and pump-and-probe microwave experiment for a double quantum dot integrated with a micro-magnet for the selective observation of both the continuous wave electric dipole spin resonance current and the Rabi oscillation for a single electron in each dot.
Both the ratios of the Rabi frequencies and the continuous wave electric dipole spin resonance currents between the two dots are consistently reproduced by the spatial distribution of the microwave electric field across the two dots. These results indicate that a double dot device with a micro-magnet will be useful for forming two or more spin qubits for quantum computing.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We thank L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. Loss, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and R. Brunner for fruitful discussions. M.P.-L. acknowledges financial support from the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research. S.T. acknowledges financial support from the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research S (Grant No. 19104007) and B (Grant No. 18340081).
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and the Virgo Collaboration
operate a network of interferometric gravitational-wave (GW) detectors
with the goal of detecting
gravitational waves from astrophysical sources.
Some of these sources may produce transient ``bursts'' of GW radiation
with relatively short duration ($\lesssim$1 s).
Plausible burst sources~\cite{cutler02} include merging compact binary
systems consisting of black holes and/or neutron stars~\cite{bbh, bhns},
core-collapse supernovae~\cite{ott2008}, neutron star
collapse~\cite{SNwave}, starquakes associated with magnetar
flares~\cite{SGR} or pulsar glitches~\cite{glitches}, cosmic string
cusps~\cite{cusp}, and other violent events in the Universe.
During the most recent data-taking run five GW detectors were
operational. The three LIGO detectors~\cite{S5} started their
Science Run 5 (S5) in November 2005, and the GEO\,600 detector~\cite{Grote}
joined the S5 run in January 2006. The Virgo detector~\cite{acernese2006}
began its Virgo Science Run 1 (VSR1) in May 2007. All five instruments took
data together until the beginning of October 2007.
An all-sky search for GW burst signals has already been conducted on
the first calendar year of the LIGO S5 data (referred to as ``S5y1'')
in a wide frequency band of $64-6000$ Hz \cite{S5y1Burst, S5y1BurstHF}.
In this paper, we report on a search for GW burst signals in the frequency band
$50-6000$~Hz for the rest of the S5/VSR1 run, referred to as ``S5y2/VSR1''.
It includes data collected by the LIGO and Virgo detectors,
which had comparable sensitivities, and uses three different search algorithms.
In comparison with the S5y1~analysis, the network of LIGO and Virgo detectors,
spread over three sites, provides better sky
coverage as well as improved capabilities to reject spurious signals.
S5y2/VSR1 is also the first long-term observation with
the world-wide network of interferometric detectors.
This is a major step forward with respect to previous
observations led by the network of resonant detectors~\cite{astone2003, IGEC2-2007},
since, as we will show in this paper, the performance is improved
by more than one order of magnitude both in the analyzed frequency
bandwidth and the level of instrumental noise.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:s5detectors} we describe the LSC and Virgo instruments.
In Section~\ref{sec:overview} we give a brief overview of the search procedure.
In Section~\ref{sec:pipeline} we present the search algorithms.
Simulations are described in
Section~\ref{sec:simulations}, and the error analysis in
Section~\ref{sec:systematics}. The results of the search are
presented in Section~\ref{sec:results}, and astrophysical implications are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:summaries}. The appendices provide additional details
on data characterization and the analysis pipelines.
\section{Detectors}\label{sec:s5detectors}
\subsection{LIGO}
LIGO consists of three detectors at two observatories in the
United States. Each detector is a large Michelson-type
interferometer with additional mirrors forming Fabry-Perot cavities in
the arms and a power-recycling mirror in the input beam path.
Interferometric sensing and feedback is used to ``lock'' the
mirror positions and orientations to keep all of the optical
cavities on resonance.
A gravitational wave is sensed as a quadrupolar strain, measured
interferometrically as an effective difference between the lengths of
the two arms.
The LIGO Hanford Observatory, in Washington, houses
independent detectors with the arm lengths of 4 km and 2 km, called H1 and
H2 respectively. The LIGO Livingston Observatory, in Louisiana, has
a single detector with 4-km arms, called L1. The detector
instrumentation and operation are described in detail
elsewhere~\cite{S5}, and the improvements leading up to the S5 run
which are most relevant for GW burst searches have been described in
the first-year search~\cite{S5y1Burst}.
The best achieved sensitivities of the LIGO detectors during the second year of
S5, as a function of signal frequency, are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Shh}. The detectors are most sensitive over a band
extending from about 40\,Hz to a few kHz. Seismic noise dominates at
lower frequencies since the effectiveness of the seismic isolation
system is a very strong function of frequency. Above $\sim$200\,Hz,
laser shot noise corrected for the Fabry-Perot cavity response yields
an effective strain noise that rises linearly with frequency. The sensitivity at
intermediate frequencies is determined mainly by thermal noise, with
contributions from other sources. The peaks at $\sim$350\,Hz and
harmonics are the thermally-excited vibrational modes of the wires
from which the large mirrors are suspended. Smaller peaks are due to
other mechanical resonances, power line harmonics, and calibration
signals.
Commissioning periods during the
second year of S5 led to incremental improvements in the detector
sensitivities. The most significant of these were in January 2007,
when the seismic isolation systems at both sites were improved to
reduce the coupling of microseismic noise to the mirror suspensions,
thereby mitigating noise from the nonlinear Barkhausen
effect~\cite{BarkhausenExpts} in the magnets used to control the
mirror positions; and in August 2007, when the L1 frequency
stabilization servo was re-tuned.
Overall,
the average sensitivities of the H1 and L1 detectors during the second
year were about 20\% better than the first-year averages, while the
H2 detector (less sensitive to begin with by a factor of $\sim$2) had
about the same average sensitivity in both years.
The operational duty cycles for all three detectors also improved
as the run progressed, from (72.8\%, 76.7\%, 61.0\%) averaged over
the first year to (84.0\%, 80.6\%, 73.6\%) averaged over the second
year for H1, H2, and L1, respectively.
\subsection{GEO\,600}
The GEO\,600 detector, located near Hannover, Germany, also operated
during S5, though with a lower sensitivity than the LIGO and Virgo
detectors. The GEO\,600 data are not used in the initial search stage of
the current study as the modest gains in the sensitivity to GW signals
would not offset the increased complexity of the analysis. The GEO\,600 data
are held in reserve, and used to follow up any detection candidates from
the LIGO-Virgo analysis.
GEO\,600 began its participation in S5 on January~21 2006, acquiring
data during nights and weekends. Commissioning work was performed
during the daytime, focussing on gaining a better
understanding of the detector and improving data quality.
GEO switched to full-time data taking from May~1 to October~6, 2006,
then returned to night-and-weekend mode through the end of the S5 run.
Overall GEO\,600 collected about 415 days of science data during S5,
for a duty cycle of 59.7\% over the full S5 run.
\subsection{Virgo}
The Virgo detector~\cite{acernese2006}, also called V1, is an
interferometer with 3 km arms located near Pisa in Italy.
One of the main instrumental differences with respect to LIGO is
the seismic isolation system based on super-attenuators~\cite{superattenuators},
chains of passive attenuators capable of filtering seismic disturbances in 6
degrees of freedom with sub-Hertz corner frequencies.
For VSR1,
the Virgo duty cycle was 81\% and the longest
continuous period with the mirror positions interferometrically controlled
was more than $94$ hours.
Another benefit from super-attenuators is a significant reduction of the detector noise
at very low frequency ($< 40$~Hz) where Virgo surpasses the LIGO sensitivity.
Above $300$~Hz, the spectral sensitivity achieved by Virgo during VSR1
is comparable to that of LIGO (see Figure~\ref{fig:Shh}). Above $500$~Hz
the Virgo sensitivity is dominated by shot noise.
Below $500$~Hz there is excess noise
due to environmental and instrumental noise sources, and below
300~Hz these produce burst-like transients.
Due to the different orientation of its arms, the antenna pattern
(angular sensitivity) of Virgo is complementary to that of the LIGO
detectors, with highest response in directions of low LIGO sensitivity.
Virgo therefore significantly increases
the sky coverage of the network. In addition, simultaneous observations
with the three LIGO-Virgo
sites improve rejection of spurious signals and allow reconstruction of the sky position
and waveforms of detected GW sources.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{S5VSR1_spectra_G1H1H2L1V1.png}}
\caption{Best noise amplitude spectral densities of the five
LSC/Virgo detectors during S5/VSR1.}
\label{fig:Shh}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Search Overview}\label{sec:overview}
The analysis described in this paper uses data from the
LIGO detectors collected from 14 November 2006
through 1 October 2007 (S5y2),
and Virgo data from VSR1,
which started on 18 May 18 2007
and ended at the same time as S5 \footnote{This search includes several
hours of data collected on 1 October 2007, after the official end of the S5
and VSR1 runs at 0:00 UTC on that day.}.
The procedure used for this S5y2/VSR1 search is the same as that used
for S5y1~\cite{S5y1Burst}. In this section we briefly review the main
stages of the analysis.
\subsection{Data quality flags}
\label{sec:dq}
The detectors are occasionally affected by
instrumental or data acquisition artifacts as well as by periods of
degraded sensitivity or an excessive rate of transient noise due
to environmental conditions such as bad weather.
Low-quality data segments are tagged with
Data Quality Flags (DQFs).
These DQFs are divided into three categories depending on
their seriousness. Category 1 DQFs are used to define the data segments processed
by the analysis algorithms. Category 2 DQFs are unconditional data cuts
applied to any events generated by the algorithms. Category 3 DQFs define the
clean data set used to calculate upper limits on the GW rates.
We define DQFs for S5y2/VSR1 following the approach used for S5y1~\cite{S5y1Burst}.
More details are given in Appendix~\ref{sec:dataquality}.
After category 2 DQFs have been applied,
the total available time during this period
is 261.6 days for H1, 253.4 days for H2, 233.7 days for L1 and
106.2 days for V1~\footnote{For reference, a list of all time intervals
included in the search may be found at https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=T1000099\&version=1 .}.
\subsection{Candidate Event Generation}
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:pipeline}, three independent
search algorithms are used to identify possible GW bursts: Exponential Gaussian
Correlator (EGC), $\Omega$-pipeline ($\Omega$), and coherent WaveBurst (cWB).
We analyze data from time intervals when at least two detectors were operating
in coincidence. Altogether, eight networks, or sets of detectors, operating
during mutually exclusive time periods are analyzed by at least one algorithm.
Table~\ref{tab:data} shows the time available for analysis (``live time'')
for the different
network configurations after application of category 1 and 2 DQFs.
The actual times searched by each algorithm for each network
(``observation times'') reflect
details of the algorithms, such as the smallest analyzable data block,
as well as choices about which networks are most suitable for each algorithm.
The three- and two-detector
network configurations not shown in Table~\ref{tab:data} have negligible
live time and are not considered in this search.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
network & live time & cWB & $\Omega$ & EGC \\
\hline
H1H2L1V1 & 68.9 & 68.2 & 68.7 & 66.6 \\
\hline
H1H2L1 & 124.6 & 123.2 & 123.4 & 16.5 \\
H1H2V1 & 15.8 & 15.7 & 15.1 & 15.3 \\
H1L1V1 & 4.5 & 4.2 & - & 4.4 \\
\hline
H1H2 & 35.4 & 35.2 & 34.8 & - \\
H1L1 & 7.2 & 5.9 & - & - \\
L1V1 & 6.4 & - & 6.3 & - \\
H2L1 & 3.8 & 3.5 & - & - \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:data} Exclusive live time in days for each detector network
configuration after category 2 DQFs (second column) and the observation time
analyzed by each of the search algorithms (last three columns).
The cWB algorithm did not process the L1V1 network because the
coherent likelihood regulator used in this analysis was suboptimal
for two detectors with very different orientations.
Omega used a coherent combination of H1 and H2 as an effective detector
and thus analyzed networks either with both or with neither.
EGC analyzed only data with three or more interferometers during the
part of the run when Virgo was operational.
}
\end{table}
LIGO and GEO\,600 data are sampled at 16384~Hz, yielding a maximum
bandwidth of 8192~Hz, while Virgo data are sampled at 20000~Hz.
Because of the large calibration uncertainties at high frequency,
only data below 6000~Hz are used in the search. Also, because of
high seismic noise, the frequency band below 50~Hz is excluded from
the analysis. Furthermore, the EGC search was limited to the
300--5000~Hz band over which Virgo's sensitivity was comparable to
LIGO's.
In Section~\ref{sec:systematics} we describe the influence of
the calibration uncertainties on the results of the search.
\subsection{Vetoes}
After gravitational-wave candidate events are identified by the search
algorithms, they are subject to additional ``veto'' conditions to exclude
events occurring within certain time intervals. These vetoes are based on
statistical correlations between transients in the GW channel (data stream)
and the environmental and interferometric auxiliary channels.
We define vetoes for S5y2/VSR1 following the
approach used for S5y1~\cite{S5y1Burst}.
More details are given in Appendix~\ref{sec:vetoes}.
\subsection{Background Estimation and Tuning}
To estimate the significance of candidate GW events, and to optimize
event selection cuts, we need to measure the distribution of events
due to background noise. With a multi-detector analysis one can create a
sample of background noise events and study its statistical properties.
These samples are created by time-shifting data of one or more detectors
with respect to the others by ``un-physical'' time delays ({\it i.e.\/} much
larger than the maximum time-of-flight of a GW signal between the detectors).
Shifts are typically in the range from $\sim$1 s to a few minutes.
Any triggers that are coincident in the time-shifted data cannot be due to a
true gravitational-wave signal; these coincidences therefore sample the noise
background.
Background estimation is done separately for each algorithm and network
combination, using hundreds to thousands of shifts.
To take into account possible correlated noise transients in the H1 and H2
detectors, which share a common environment and vacuum system, no time-shifts
are introduced between these detectors for any network combination including
another detector.
The shifted and unshifted data are analyzed identically.
A portion of the background events are used together with
simulations (see below) to tune the search thresholds and
selection cuts; the remainder is used to estimate the
significance of any candidate events in the unshifted data
after the final application of the selection thresholds.
All tuning is done purely on the time shifted data and
simulations prior to examining the unshifted data-set.
This ``blind'' tuning avoid any biases in our candidate selection.
The final event thresholds are determined by optimizing
the detection efficiency of the algorithms at a fixed false alarm rate.
\subsection{Hardware and software injections}
At pseudo-random times during the run,
simulated burst signals were injected (added) into the interferometers
by sending pre-calculated waveforms to the mirror position control
system. These ``hardware injections'' provided an
end-to-end verification of the detector
instrumentation, the data acquisition system and the data analysis software.
The injection times were clearly marked in the
data with a DQF.
Most of hardware injections were incoherent, {\it i.e.}, performed into a single detector
with no coincident injection into the other detectors. Some injections
were performed coherently by taking into account a simulated source location in the sky
and the angle-dependent sensitivity of the detectors to the two wave
polarization states.
In addition to the flagged injections, a ``blind injection challenge''
was undertaken in which a small number (possibly zero) of coherent
hardware injections were performed {\em without} being marked by a DQF.
Information about these blind injections (including whether the number
was nonzero) was hidden from the data analysis teams during the search,
and revealed only afterward. This challenge was
intended to test our data analysis procedures and decision
processes for evaluating any candidate events that might be found by the search algorithms.
To determine the sensitivity of our search to gravitational waves,
and to guide the tuning of selection cuts, we repeatedly re-analyze the
data with simulated signals injected in software.
The same injections are analyzed by all three analysis pipelines.
See Section~\ref{sec:simulations} for more details.
\section{Search algorithms}
\label{sec:pipeline}
Anticipated sources of gravitational wave bursts are usually not understood
well enough to generate waveforms accurate and precise enough for matched
filtering of generic signals.
While some sources of GW bursts are being modeled with increasing success,
the results tend to be highly dependent on physical parameters which
may span a large parameter space.
Indeed, some burst signals, such the white-noise burst from turbulent
convection in a core-collapse supernova, are stochastic in nature and
so are inherently not templatable.
Therefore usually more robust
excess-power algorithms~\cite{anderson01,chatterjiThesis,finn04,waveburst04}
are employed in burst searches. By measuring power in the
data as a function of time and frequency,
one may identify regions where the power is not consistent
with the anticipated fluctuations of detector noise.
To distinguish environmental and instrumental transients from true
GW signals, a multi-detector analysis approach is normally used,
in which the event must be seen in more than one detector to be
considered a candidate GW.
The simplest multi-detector analysis strategy is to require that the
events identified in the individual detectors are coincident in time.
The time coincidence window which should be chosen to take into account
the possible time delays of a GW signal arriving at different sites,
calibration and algorithmic timing biases, and possible signal model
dependencies. Time coincidence can be augmented by requiring also
an overlap in frequency. One such time-frequency coincidence method
used in this search is the EGC algorithm~\cite{beauville07} (see also
Appendix~\ref{sec:EGC}). It estimates the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
$\rho_k$ in each detector $k$ and uses the combined SNR
$\rho_{\text{comb}}=\sqrt{\sum_k{\rho^2_k}}$ to rank candidate events.
A modification of the time-frequency coincidence approach is used in
the $\Omega$ search algorithm~\cite{multiresolution} (also see
Appendix~\ref{sec:omega}). In $\Omega$, the identification of the H1H2
network events is improved by coherently combining the H1 and H2 data
to form a single pseudo-detector data stream H$_+$. This algorithm
takes an advantage of the fact that the co-located and co-aligned H1
and H2 detectors have identical responses to a GW signal. The
performance of the $\Omega$ algorithm is further enhanced by requiring
that no significant power is left in the H1$-$H2 null stream, H$_{-}$,
where GW signals cancel. This veto condition helps to reduce
the false alarm rate due to random coincidences of noise transients,
which typically leave significant power in the null stream. Network
events identified by $\Omega$ are characterized by the strength
$Z=\rho^2/2$ of the individual detector events, and by the correlated
H1H2 energy $Z^{corr}_{\text{H}_+}$.
A different network analysis approach is used in the cWB search
algorithm~\cite{klimenko08} (see also~\cite{S5y1Burst} and
Appendix~\ref{sec:cWB}).
The cWB algorithm performs a least-squares fit of a common GW signal to the data
from the different detectors using the constrained likelihood
method~\cite{klimenko05}. The results of the fit are estimates of
the $h_+$ and $h_{\times}$ waveforms, the most probable source location in
the sky, and various likelihood statistics used in the cWB selection cuts.
One of these is the maximum likelihood ratio $L_m$, which is an
estimator of the total SNR
detected in the network. A part of the $L_m$ statistic depending on
pairwise combinations of the detectors is used to construct the network
correlated amplitude $\eta$, which measures the degree of correlation
between the detectors.
Random coincidences of noise transients typically give low values of $\eta$,
making this statistic useful for background rejection.
The contribution of each detector to the total SNR is weighted depending on the variance of the
noise and angular sensitivity of the detectors. The algorithm automatically marginalizes a detector
with either elevated noise or unfavorable antenna patterns, so that
it does not limit the sensitivity
of the network.
\section{Simulated signals and efficiencies}\label{sec:simulations}
The detection efficiencies of the search algorithms depend on the
network configuration, the selection cuts used in the analysis, and
the GW morphologies which may span a wide range of signal durations,
frequencies and amplitudes. To evaluate the sensitivity of the search
and verify that the search algorithms do not have a strong model
dependency, we use several sets of ad-hoc waveforms. These include
\begin{description}
\item{Sine-Gaussian} waveforms:
\begin{eqnarray}
h_+(t) & = & h_0 \sin(2\pi f_0 t)\exp[-(2\pi f_0 t)^2/2Q^2], \\
h_\times(t) & = & 0 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
We use a discrete set of central frequencies $f_0$ from 70 Hz to 6000 Hz
and quality factors $Q$ of 3, 9, and 100;
see Table~\ref{table:SGQ9} and Fig.~\ref{fig:eff-curves} (top).
The amplitude factor $h_0$ is varied to simulate GWs with different
strain amplitudes.
For definition of the polarizations, see Eq.~(\ref{hdet}) and text below it.
\item{Gaussian} waveforms:
\begin{eqnarray}
h_+(t) & = & h_0 \exp(-t^2/\tau^2 ), \\
h_\times(t) & = & 0 \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the duration parameter $\tau$ is chosen to be one of
(0.1, 1.0, 2.5, 4.0) ms; see
Fig.~\ref{fig:eff-curves} (middle).
\item{Harmonic ringdown} signals:
\begin{eqnarray}
h_+(t) & = & h_{0,+} \cos(2\pi f_0 t)\exp[-t/{\tau}], \quad t>1/(4f_0), \\
h_\times(t) & = & h_{0,\times} \sin(2\pi f_0 t)\exp[-t/{\tau}], \quad t>0 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
We use several central frequencies $f_0$ from 1590 Hz to 3067 Hz, one
long decay time, $\tau=200$~ms, and two short decay times, 1 ms and 0.65 ms;
see Table~\ref{table:RD} and Fig.~\ref{fig:eff-curves} (bottom).
Two polarization states are used: circular ($h_{0,+} = h_{0,\times}$),
and linear ($h_{0,+}=0$).
The quarter-cycle delay in $h_+$ is to avoid starting the waveform with a
large jump.
\item{Band-limited white noise} signals:
These are bursts of Gaussian noise which are white over
a frequency band $[f_{\text{low}}, f_{\text{low}}+\Delta{f}]$ and
which have a Gaussian time profile with standard deviation decay time
$\tau$; see Table~\ref{table:WNB}. These signals are unpolarized in
the sense that the two polarizations $h_+$ and $h_\times$ have equal
RMS amplitudes and are uncorrelated with each other.
\end{description}
The strengths of the ad hoc waveform injections are characterized by
the root-square-sum
amplitude $h_{\text{rss}}$,
\begin{equation}
h_{\text{rss}} = \sqrt{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \!\!\! dt \, \left( |h_+(t)|^2 + |h_{\times}(t)|^2 \right)}.
\end{equation}
The parameters of these waveforms are selected to coarsely cover the
frequency range of the search from $\sim$50 Hz to $\sim$6 kHz, and duration of
signals up to a few hundreds of milliseconds. The Gaussian,
sine-Gaussian and ringdown waveforms explore the space of GW signals
with small time-frequency volume, while the white noise bursts explore
the space of GW signals with relatively large time-frequency volume.
Although the simulated waveforms are not physical, they may be similar
to some waveforms produced by astrophysical sources. For example, the
sine-Gaussian waveforms with few cycles are qualitatively similar to
signals produced by the mergers of two black holes~\cite{bbh}. The
long-timescale ringdowns are similar to signals predicted for
excitation of neutron-star fundamental modes~\cite{benhar04}. Some
stellar collapse and core-collapse supernova models predict signals
that resemble short ringdown waveforms (in the case of a
rapidly rotating progenitor star) or band-limited white-noise
waveforms with random polarizations. In the context of the recently
proposed acoustic mechanism for core-collapse supernova explosions,
quasi-periodic signals of $\gtrsim$500 ms duration have been proposed
\cite{ott2008}.
To test the range for detection of gravitational waves from neutron
star collapse, two waveforms were taken from simulations by Baiotti
{\it et al.}~\cite{SNwave}, who modeled neutron star gravitational
collapse to a black hole and the subsequent ringdown of the black hole
using collapsing polytropes deformed by rotation. The models whose
waveform we chose were D1, a nearly spherical 1.67 $M_\odot$ neutron
star, and D4, a 1.86 $M_\odot$ neutron star that is maximally deformed
at the time of its collapse into a black hole. These two specific
waveforms represent the extremes of the parameter space in mass and
spin considered in ~\cite{SNwave}. They are linearly polarized
($h_\times=0$), with the waveform amplitude varying with the
inclination angle $\iota$ (between the wave propagation vector and symmetry
axis of the source) as $\sin^2\iota$.
The simulated detector responses $h_{\text{det}}$ are constructed as
\begin{equation}
\label{hdet}
h_{\text{det}} = F_+(\theta, \phi, \psi) h_+ + F_{\times}(\theta, \phi, \psi) h_{\times} \, .
\end{equation}
Here $F_+$ and $F_{\times}$ are the detector antenna patterns, which
depend on the direction to the source ($\theta,\phi$) and the polarization
angle $\psi$.
(The latter is defined as in Appendix~B of~\cite{anderson01}.)
These parameters are chosen randomly for each injection.
The sky direction is isotropically distributed, and the random polarization
angle is uniformly distributed on $[0,\pi)$. The injections are distributed
uniformly in time across the S5y2/VSR1 run, with an average separation of 100 s.
Note that for the ad-hoc waveforms no $\iota$ is used.
The detection efficiency after application of all selection cuts was
determined for each waveform type. All waveforms were evaluated using
cWB, while subsets were evaluated using $\Omega$ and EGC, due mainly
to the limited frequency bands covered by those algorithms as they
were used in this search (48--2048~Hz and 300--5000~Hz, respectively).
Figure~\ref{fig:eff-curves} shows the combined efficiency curves
for selected sine-Gaussian, Gaussian and ringdown simulated signals
as a function of the $h_{\text{rss}}$ amplitude.
Figure~\ref{fig:D1D4range} shows the detection efficiency for the
astrophysical signals D1 and D4 as a function of the distance to the source.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{Efficiency-S5all-SGQ9.png}}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{Efficiency-S5all-GA.png}}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{effRDL.png}}
\caption{Efficiency for selected waveforms as a function of signal
amplitude $h_{\text{rss}}$ for the logical OR of the H1H2L1V1,
H1H2L1, and H1H2 networks. Top: sine-Gaussians with $Q=9$ and
central frequency spanning between $70$ and $5000$ Hz. Middle:
Gaussians with $\tau$ between $0.1$ and $4.0$ ms. Bottom: linearly
(L) and circularly (C) polarized ringdowns with $\tau=200$ ms and
frequencies between $1590$ and $2590$ Hz.
}
\label{fig:eff-curves}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{D1D4range.png}}
\caption{Efficiency of the H1H2L1V1 network as a function of distance
for the D1 and D4 waveforms of Baiotti {\it et al.}~\cite{SNwave}
predicted by polytropic general-relativistic
models of neutron star collapse. These efficiencies assume random sky
location, polarization and inclination angle.}
\label{fig:D1D4range}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Each efficiency curve is fitted with an empirical function and
the injection amplitude for which that function equals 50\% is determined.
This quantity, $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$, is a convenient characterization of
the sensitivity of the search to that waveform morphology.
Tables~\ref{table:SGQ9}, \ref{table:RD}, and \ref{table:WNB}
summarize the sensitivity of the search to the sine-Gaussian, ringdown, and
band-limited white noise burst signals.
Where possible, we also calculate the sensitivity of the logical OR
of the cWB and $\Omega$ algorithms (since those two are used for the
upper limit calculation as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}), and
for the appropriately weighted combination of all networks (some of
which are less sensitive) contributing to the total observation time.
In general, the efficiency of the combination of the search algorithms
is slightly more sensitive than the individual algorithms.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccc|c|cc}\hline\hline
$f_0$ & $Q$ & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{H1H2L1V1, $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all networks }\\
$[Hz]$ & & cWB & $\Omega$ & EGC & cWB or $\Omega$ & $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ & $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$\\ \hline
70 & 3 & 17.9 & 26.7 & - & 17.6 & 20.4 & 96.6\\
70 & 9 & 20.6 & 34.4 & - & 20.6 & 25.0 & 120\\
70 & 100 & 20.5 & 35.0 & - & 20.0 & 25.1 & 121\\
100 & 9 & 9.2 & 14.1 & - & 9.1 & 10.6 & 49.7\\
153 & 9 & 6.0 & 9.1 & - & 6.0 & 6.5 & 29.3\\
235 & 3 & 6.5 & 6.6 & - & 5.9 & 6.1 & 28.8\\
235 & 9 & 6.4 & 5.8 & - & 5.6 & 5.6 & 26.8\\
235 & 100 & 6.5 & 6.7 & - & 6.2 & 6.0 & 26.1\\
361 & 9 & 10.5 & 10.2 & 60.1 & 9.5 & 10.0 & 42.0\\
554 & 9 & 11.1 & 10.5 & 18.8 & 9.9 & 10.9 & 47.1\\
849 & 3 & 19.2 & 15.8 & 30.0 & 15.3 & 15.8 & 73.8\\
849 & 9 & 17.7 & 15.3 & 28.5 & 14.6 & 15.8 & 71.5\\
849 & 100 & 16.0 & 16.2 & 31.3 & 14.5 & 15.3 & 66.7\\
1053 & 9 & 22.4 & 19.0 & 33.8 & 18.3 & 19.4 & 86.9\\
1304 & 9 & 28.1 & 23.6 & 41.0 & 22.6 & 24.7 & 115\\
1451 & 9 & 28.6 & - & 43.3 & 28.6 & 30.2 & 119\\
1615 & 3 & 39.6 & 32.1 & 48.4 & 31.7 & 33.8 & 146\\
1615 & 9 & 33.7 & 28.1 & 51.1 & 27.3 & 29.5 & 138\\
1615 & 100 & 29.6 & 30.6 & 53.8 & 27.6 & 28.6 & 126\\
1797 & 9 & 36.5 & - & 57.8 & 36.5 & 38.3 & 146\\
2000 & 3 & 42.6 & - & - & 42.6 & 47.1 & 191\\
2000 & 9 & 40.6 & - & 58.7 & 40.6 & 44.0 & 177\\
2000 & 100 & 34.9 & - & - & 34.9 & 38.4 & 153\\
2226 & 9 & 46.0 & - & 68.6 & 46.0 & 51.1 & 187\\
2477 & 3 & 61.9 & - & - & 61.9 & 65.6 & 262\\
2477 & 9 & 53.5 & - & 76.7 & 53.5 & 56.1 & 206\\
2477 & 100 & 44.5 & - & - & 44.5 & 48.9 & 201\\
2756 & 9 & 60.2 & - & 82.2 & 60.2 & 64.4 & 248\\
3067 & 3 & 86.9 & - & - & 86.9 & 87.0 & 343 \\
3067 & 9 & 69.0 & - & 96.6 & 69.0 & 75.0 & 286\\
3067 & 100 & 55.4 & - & - & 55.4 & 61.1 & 273 \\
3413 & 9 & 75.9 & - & 108 & 75.9 & 82.9 & 323\\
3799 & 9 & 89.0 & - & 116 & 89.0 & 97.7 & 386\\
4225 & 9 & 109 & - & 138 & 109 & 115 & 575\\
5000 & 3 & 207 & - & - & 207 & 187 & 1160 \\
5000 & 9 & 126 & - & 155 & 126 & 130 & 612\\
5000 & 100 & 84.7 & - & - & 84.7 & 100 & 480 \\
6000 & 9 & 182 & - & - & 182 & 196 & 893\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ and $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$ (for
50\% and 90\% detection efficiency),
in units of $10^{-22} \, {\rm Hz}^{-1/2}$,
for sine-Gaussian waveforms with the central frequency $f_0$ and quality factor $Q$.
Three columns in the middle are the $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ measured with the individual
search algorithms for the H1H2L1V1 network. The next column is the $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$
of the logical OR of the cWB and $\Omega$ algorithms for the H1H2L1V1 network.
The last two columns are the $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ and the $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$ of the logical OR of the algorithms
and networks (H1H2L1V1 or H1H2L1 or H1H2).
All $h_{\text{rss}}$ values take into account statistical and systematic
uncertainties as explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:systematics}.
}
\label{table:SGQ9}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc|cc}\hline\hline
$f$& $\tau$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{all networks, $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all networks, $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$} \\
$[Hz]$ & $[ms]$ & Lin. & Circ. & Lin. & Circ. \\ \hline
1590 & 200 & 34.7 & 30.0 & 131 & 60.0\\
2000 & 1.0 & 49.5 & 43.8 & 155 & 81.1\\
2090 & 200 & 43.3 & 36.5 & 155 & 72.9\\
2590 & 200 & 58.6 & 46.0 & 229 & 88.8\\
3067 & 0.65 & 88.2 & 73.3 & 369 & 142\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ and $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$
(for 50\% and 90\% detection efficiency using cWB),
in units of $10^{-22} \, {\rm Hz}^{-1/2}$,
for linearly and circularly polarized ringdowns characterized by parameters $f$ and $\tau$.
All $h_{\text{rss}}$ values
take into account statistical and systematic
uncertainties as explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:systematics}.
}
\label{table:RD}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cc|c|cc}\hline\hline
$f_{\text{low}}$& $\Delta{f}$ & $\tau$ &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{H1H2L1V1, $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{all networks } \\
$[Hz]$ & $[Hz]$ & $[ms]$ & cWB & $\Omega$ & cWB or $\Omega$ & $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ & $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$ \\ \hline
100 & 100 & 0.1 & 7.6 & 13.6 & 7.6 & 8.4 & 19.6 \\
250 & 100 & 0.1 & 9.1 & 10.2 & 8.8 & 8.6 & 18.7\\
1000 & 10 & 0.1 & 20.9 & 28.6 & 21.0 & 21.8 & 52.6 \\
1000 & 1000 & 0.01 & 36.8 & 38.2 & 35.0 & 36.3 & 74.7 \\
1000 & 1000 & 0.1 & 60.3 & 81.7 & 60.7 & 63.5 & 140 \\
2000 & 100 & 0.1 & 40.4 & - & 40.4 & 44.1 & 94.4 \\
2000 & 1000 & 0.01 & 60.7 & - & 60.7 & 62.4 & 128 \\
3500 & 100 & 0.1 & 74.3 & - & 74.3 & 84.8 & 182 \\
3500 & 1000 & 0.01 & 103 & - & 103 & 109 & 224 \\
5000 & 100 & 0.1 & 101 & - & 101 & 115 & 255 \\
5000 & 1000 & 0.01 & 152 & - & 152 & 144 & 342 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ and $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$
(for 50\% and 90\% detection efficiency), in units of
$10^{-22} \, {\rm Hz}^{-1/2}$, for band-limited noise waveforms
characterized by parameters $f_{\text{low}}$, $\Delta{f}$, and $\tau$.
Two columns in the middle are the $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ for the
individual search algorithms for the H1H2L1V1 network. The next column
is the $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ of the logical OR of the cWB and $\Omega$
algorithms for the H1H2L1V1 network. The last two columns are the
$h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ and the $h_{\text{rss}}^{90\%}$ of the logical
OR of the algorithms and networks (H1H2L1V1 or H1H2L1 or H1H2).
All $h_{\text{rss}}$ values take into account statistical and systematic
uncertainties as explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:systematics}.
}
\label{table:WNB}
\end{table}
\section{Uncertainties}\label{sec:systematics}
The amplitude sensitivities presented in this paper, {\it i.e.}\ the
$h_{\text{rss}}$ values at 50\% and 90\% efficiency, have been
adjusted upward to conservatively reflect statistical and systematic
uncertainties.
The statistical uncertainty arises from the limited number of
simulated signals used in the efficiency curve fit, and is typically a
few percent.
The dominant source of systematic uncertainty
comes from the amplitude calibration:
the single detector amplitude calibration uncertainties is typically of order 10\%.
Neglegible effects are due to phase and timing uncertainties.
The amplitude calibration of the interferometers is less accurate at high
frequencies than at low frequencies, and
therefore two different approaches to handling calibration uncertainties are used in
the S5y2/VSR1 search. In the frequency band below 2 kHz, we use
the procedure established for S5y1~\citep{S5y1BurstHF}. We combine the amplitude
uncertainties from each interferometer into a single uncertainty by calculating
a combined root-sum-square
amplitude SNR and propagating the individual uncertainties
assuming each error is independent: as a conservative result, the detection efficiencies are
rigidly shifted towards higher $h_{\text{rss}}$ by 11.1\%.
In the frequency band above 2 kHz, a new methodology, based on MonteCarlo simulations
has been adopted to marginalize over calibration uncertainties: basically, we inject signals whose amplitude has been jittered according to
the calibration uncertainties.
The effect of miscalibration resulted in the increase of the combined $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$
by 3 \% to 14\%, depending mainly on the central frequency of the injected signals.
\section{Search Results}\label{sec:results}
In Section~\ref{sec:overview} we described the main steps in our
search for gravitational-wave bursts. In the search all
analysis cuts and thresholds are set in a blind way, using
time-shifted (background) and simulation data. The blind cuts are
set to yield a false-alarm rate of approximately 0.05 events or less
over the observation time of each search algorithm,
network configuration and target frequency band.
Here we describe the results.
\subsection{Candidate events}
\label{ss:candidates}
After these cuts are fixed, the unshifted events are examined and the
various analysis cuts, DQFs, and vetoes are applied. Any surviving
events are considered as candidate gravitational-wave events and
subject to further examination.
The purpose of this additional step is to go beyond the binary
decision of the initial cuts and evaluate additional information
about the events which may reveal their origin. This ranges from
``sanity checks'' to deeper investigations on the background of
the observatory, detector performances, environmental disturbances
and candidate signal characteristics.
Examining the unshifted data, we found one foreground event among all
the different search algorithms and detector combinations that survives
the blind selection cuts. It was produced by cWB during a time when all
five detectors were operating simultaneously. As the possible first
detection of a gravitational-wave signal, this event was examined in
great detail according to our follow-up checklist. We found no evident
problem with the instruments or data, and no environmental or instrumental
disturbance detected by the auxiliary channels. The event was detected at
a frequency of 110~Hz, where all detectors are quite non-stationary,
and where both the GEO\,600 and Virgo detectors had poorer sensitivity
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:Shh}). Therefore, while the event was found in the
H1H2L1V1 analysis, we also re-analyzed the data using cWB and the H1H2L1 network.
Figure~\ref{fig:cWBrateEQ} (top) shows the event above the blind selection
cuts and the comparison with the measured H1H2L1 background of cWB in the
frequency band below 200~Hz.
No foreground event passes the blind selection
cuts in the $\Omega$ H1H2L1 analysis (see Figure~\ref{fig:cWBrateEQ}
(bottom)); moreover, there is no visible excess of foreground events
with respect to the expected background. The cWB event is well
within the tail of the $\Omega$ foreground and does not pass the
final cut placed on correlated energy of the Hanford detectors.
Furthermore, the event is outside of the frequency band (300-5000~Hz)
processed by the EGC algorithm. Figure~\ref{fig:cWBrateHF} (top) shows
the corresponding EGC foreground and background distributions for the
H1H2L1V1 network.
For comparison, Figure~\ref{fig:cWBrateHF} (bottom) shows similar
distributions from cWB, with no indication of any excess of events
in the frequency band 1200--6000~Hz.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{bckg_cWB_lf_h1h2l1_aftercat2.png}
\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{bckg_omega_h1h2_low.png}\\
\caption{Distribution of background (solid line) and foreground
(solid dots) events from the search below 200~Hz in the H1H2L1
network, after application of category 2 data quality and vetoes:
cWB (top), $\Omega$ (bottom).
The event-strength figures of merit on the horizontal axes are
defined in the appendices on the search algorithms.
The small error bars on the solid
line are the 1 $\sigma$ statistical uncertainty on the estimated
background, while the wider gray belt represents the expected
root-mean-square statistical fluctuations on the number of background
events in the foreground sample. The loudest foreground event on the
top plot is the only event that survived the blind detection cuts of
this search, shown as vertical dashed lines. This event was later
revealed to have been a blind injection.
}
\label{fig:cWBrateEQ}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{bckg_egc_hf_h1h2l1v1.png}
\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{bckg_cWB_hf_h1h2l1v1_x1-10.png}
\caption{Distribution of background (solid line) and foreground
(solid dots) H1H2L1V1 events after category 2 data quality and vetoes:
EGC events in the frequency band 300--5000~Hz (top),
cWB events in the frequency band 1200--6000~Hz (bottom).
The event-strength figures of merit on the horizontal axes are
defined in the appendices on the search algorithms.
The small error bars on the solid line are the 1 $\sigma$ statistical
uncertainty on the estimated background, while the wider gray belt
represents the expected root-mean-square statistical fluctuations on
the number of background events in the foreground sample.}
\label{fig:cWBrateHF}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To better estimate the significance of the surviving cWB event, we performed
extensive background studies with cWB for the H1H2L1 network, accumulating a
background sample with effective observation time of approximately 500 years.
These studies indicate an expected false alarm rate for similar events
of once per 43 years for the cWB algorithm and the H1H2L1 network.
The statistical significance of the event must
take into account a ``trials factor'' arising from
multiple analyses using different search algorithms, networks and
frequency bands. Neglecting a small correlation among the backgrounds,
this factor can be estimated by considering the total effective analyzed
time of all the independent searches, which is 5.1 yr. The probability
of observing one event at a background rate of once per 43 years or less
in any of our searches is then on the order of $10\%$. This probability
was considered too high to exclude a possible accidental origin of this
event, which was neither confirmed nor ruled out as a plausible GW signal.
This event was later revealed to be a hardware injection with $h_\mathrm{rss} =
1.0\times10^{-21}$~Hz$^{-1/2}$.
It was the only burst injection within the ``blind injection challenge.''
Therefore it was removed from the analysis by the
cleared injection data quality flag. We can report that cWB recovered
the injection parameters and waveforms faithfully, and the exercise of treating
the event as a real GW candidate was a valuable learning experience.
Although no other outstanding foreground events were observed in the search,
we have additionally examined events in the data set with relaxed selection cuts,
namely, before applying category 3 DQFs and vetoes. In this set we find a total of
three foreground events. One of these is produced by the EGC algorithm
(0.16 expected from the background) and
the other two are from the $\Omega$-pipeline (1.4 expected).
While an exceptionally strong event in the enlarged
data set could, in principle, be judged to be a plausible GW signal,
none of these additional events is particularly compelling.
The EGC event occurred during a time of high seismic
noise and while the H2 interferometer was re-acquiring lock (and thus
could occasionally scatter light into the H1 detector), both of which
had been flagged as category 3 data quality conditions.
The $\Omega$-pipeline events fail the category 3 vetoes due to having corresponding
glitches in H1 auxiliary channels. None of these three
events passes the cWB selection cuts.
For these reasons, we do not consider any of them
to be a plausible gravitational-wave candidate. Also, since these events
do not pass the predefined category 3 data quality and vetoes, they do not affect
the calculation of the upper limits presented below.
\subsection{Upper limits}
\label{UL}
The S5y2/VSR1 search includes the analysis of eight network
configurations with three different algorithms. We use the
method presented in \cite{sutton2009} to combine the results
of this search, together with the S5y1~search \cite{S5y1Burst},
to set frequentist upper limits on the rate of burst events.
Of the S5y2~results, we include only the networks H1H2L1V1,
H1H2L1 and H1H2, as the other networks have small observation times and their
contribution to the upper limit would be marginal. Also, we decided
{\it a priori} to use only the two algorithms which processed the
data from the full S5y2 run, namely cWB and $\Omega$. (EGC only
analyzed data during the $\sim$5 months of the run when Virgo was
operational.) We are left therefore with six analysis results
to combine with the S5y1~results to produce a single upper limit on the rate
of GW bursts for each of the signal morphologies tested.
As discussed in \cite{sutton2009}, the upper limit procedure
combines the sets of surviving triggers according to which algorithm(s)
and/or network detected any given trigger, and weights each trigger
according to the detection efficiency of that algorithm and network combination.
For the special case of no surviving events, the 90\% confidence
upper limit on the total event rate (assuming a Poisson distribution of
astrophysical events) reduces to
\begin{equation}
R_{90\%}=\frac{2.3}{\epsilon_{tot}T} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $2.3 = -\log(1-0.9)$,
$\epsilon_{tot}$ is the detection efficiency of the union of all
search algorithms and networks, and $T$ is the total observation time of the
analyzed data sets.
In the limit of strong signals in the frequency band below 2 kHz,
the product $\epsilon_{tot}T$ is 224.0 days for S5y1~and 205.3 days
for S5y2/VSR1. The combined rate limit for strong GW signals
is thus $2.0\,\text{yr}^{-1}$.
For the search above 2 kHz, the rate limit for strong GW signals
is $2.2\,\text{yr}^{-1}$. This slightly weaker limit is due to the
fact that less data was analyzed in the S5y1~high-frequency search
than in the S5y1 low-frequency search (only 161.3 days of H1H2L1 data~\cite{S5y1BurstHF}).
Figure~\ref{fig:S5upperlimits} shows the combined rate limit as a function of amplitude
for selected Gaussian and sine-Gaussian waveforms.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.55\textwidth]{UL-SG1allfreq-BW.png}}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.55\textwidth]{UL-GA2-BW.png}}
\caption{Selected exclusion diagrams showing the 90\% confidence rate limit as a function
of signal amplitude for Q=9 sine-Gaussian (top) and Gaussian (bottom) waveforms
for the results of the entire S5 and VSR1 runs (S5/VSR1) compared to the results
reported previously (S1, S2, and S4).}
\label{fig:S5upperlimits}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The results can also be interpreted as limits on the rate
density (number per time per volume) of GWBs assuming a standard-candle
source. For example, given an isotropic distribution of sources with
amplitude $h_\mathrm{rss}$ at a fiducial distance $r_0$, and with rate density
${\cal R}$, the rate of GWBs at the Earth with amplitudes in
the interval $[h,h+dh]$ is
\begin{equation}
dN = \frac{4\pi {\cal R} (h_\mathrm{rss} r_0)^3}{h^4} \, dh \, .
\end{equation}
(Here we have neglected the inclination angle $\iota$; equivalently we can
take $h^2$ to be averaged over $\cos\iota$.)
The expected number of detections given the network efficiency $\epsilon(h)$
(for injections without any $\iota$ dependence) and the observation time $T$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
N_\mathrm{det} & = & T \int_0^\infty \!\! dh \, \left(\frac{dN}{dh}\right) \, \epsilon(h)
\nonumber \\
& = & 4\pi {\cal R} T (h_\mathrm{rss} r_0)^3 \int_0^\infty \!\! dh \, h^{-4} \epsilon(h) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
For linearly polarized signals distributed uniformly in $\cos\iota$, the
efficiency is the same with $h$ rescaled by a factor $\sin^2\iota$ divided by
that factor's appropriately averaged value $\sqrt{8/15}$.
Thus the above expression is multiplied by $\int_0^1 d\cos\iota (15/8)^{3/2}
\sin^6\iota \approx 1.17$.
The lack of detection candidates in the S5/VSR1 data set implies a 90\%
confidence upper limit on rate density ${\cal R}$ of
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal R}_\mathrm{90\%} = \frac{2.0}{4\pi T (h_\mathrm{rss} r_0)^3 \int_0^\infty \!\! dh \, h^{-4}
\epsilon(h)} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Assuming that a
standard-candle source emits waves with energy $E_{\text{GW}}=M_\odot{c^2}$,
where $M_\odot$ is the solar mass, the product $h_\mathrm{rss} r_0$ is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:hrVmass}
h_\mathrm{rss} r_0 = \sqrt{\frac{G M_\odot}{c}} (\pi f_0)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Figure~\ref{fig:isotropicUL} shows the rate density upper limits as a function of
frequency. This result can be interpreted in the following way: given a source
with a characteristic frequency $f$ and energy $E_{\text{GW}}=M{c^2}$,
the corresponding rate limit is
${\cal R}_\mathrm{90\%}(f) (M_\odot / M)^{3/2}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$.
For example, for sources emitting at 150~Hz with $E_{\text{GW}}=0.01 M_\odot {c^2}$,
the rate limit is approximately
$6\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{yr}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\mbox{\includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{R90ULenergy5.pdf}}
\caption{Rate limit per unit volume at the 90\% confidence level for a
linearly polarized
sine-Gaussian standard-candle with $E_{\text{GW}}=M_\odot{c^2}$.
}
\label{fig:isotropicUL}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The bump at $361$ Hz reflects the effect of the ``violin modes'' (resonant frequencies of the wires suspending the mirrors) on the sensitivity of the
detector.
\section{Summary and Discussion}\label{sec:summaries}
In this paper we present results of new all-sky untriggered searches for
gravitational wave bursts in data from the first Virgo science run (VSR1 in
2007) and the second year of the fifth LIGO science run (S5y2 in 2006--2007).
This data set represented the first long-term operation of a worldwide network
of interferometers of similar performance at three different sites.
Data quality and analysis algorithms have improved since similar searches of
the previous LIGO run (S4 in 2004)~\cite{S4burstAllSky} and even since the
first year of S5 (S5y1 in 2005--2006)~\cite{S5y1Burst, S5y1BurstHF}.
This is reflected in an improved strain sensitivity with
$h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$ as low (good) as $5.6\times10^{-22}$~Hz$^{-1/2}$ for
certain waveforms (see Table~\ref{table:SGQ9}), compared to best values of
$1.3\times10^{-21}$~Hz$^{-1/2}$ and $6.0\times10^{-22}$~Hz$^{-1/2}$ for S4 and
S5y1 respectively.
The new searches also cover an extended frequency band of 50--6000~Hz.
No plausible gravitational wave candidates have been identified in the
S5y2/VSR1 searches.
Combined with the S5y1 results, which had comparable observation time, this
yields an improved upper limit on the rate of bursts (with amplitudes a few
times larger than $h_{\text{rss}}^{50\%}$) of 2.0 events per year at 90\%
confidence for the 64--2048~Hz band,
and 2.2 events per year for higher-frequency bursts up to 6~kHz.
Thus the full S5/VSR1 upper limit is better than the S5y1 upper limits of 3.75
per year (64--2000~Hz) and 5.4 per year (1--6~kHz), and is more than an order
of magnitude better than the upper limit from S4 of 55 events per year.
We note that the IGEC network of resonant bar detectors set a slightly
more stringent rate limit, $1.5$ events per year at 95\% confidence
level~\cite{astone2003}. However, those detectors were sensitive only
around their resonant frequencies, near 900 Hz, and achieved that rate
limit only for signal amplitudes (in $h_{\text{rss}}$ units) of a few
times $10^{-19}\,\text{Hz}^{-1/2}$ or greater, depending on the signal
waveform. (See Sec.~X of~\cite{s2burst} for a discussion of this
comparison.) Further IGEC observations during 6 months of
2005~\cite{IGEC2-2007} improved the rate limit to $\simeq$8.4 per year
for bursts as weak as a few times $10^{-20}\,\text{Hz}^{-1/2}$ but did
not change the more stringent rate limit for stronger bursts. The
current LIGO-Virgo burst search is sensitive to bursts with $h_\mathrm{rss}$ one to two
orders of magnitude weaker than those which were accessible to the
IGEC detectors.
To characterize the astrophysical sensitivity achieved by the S5y2/VSR1 search,
we calculate the amount of mass, converted into GW burst energy at a
given distance $r_0$, that would be sufficient to be detected by the search
with 50\% efficiency ($M_{\text{GW}}$).
Inverting Eq.~(\ref{eq:hrVmass}), we obtain a rough estimate assuming an
average source inclination angle (i.e.\ $h_\mathrm{rss}^2$ is averaged
over $\cos\iota$):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SGenergy}
M_{\text{GW}}= \frac{\pi^2 c}{G} \, r_0^2 \, f_0^2 \, h_{\text{rss}}^2 \, .
\end{equation}
For example, consider a sine-Gaussian signal with $f_0=153$~Hz and $Q=9$,
which (from Table~\ref{table:SGQ9}) has
$h^{50\%}_{\text{rss}} = 6.0 \times 10^{-22} \,\text{Hz}^{-1/2}$
for the four-detector network.
Assuming a typical Galactic distance of 10\,kpc,
that $h_{\text{rss}}$ corresponds
to $M_{\text{GW}}=1.8 \times 10^{-8}\,M_\odot$.
For a source in the Virgo galaxy cluster, approximately 16\,Mpc away, the
same $h^{50\%}_{\text{rss}}$ would be produced by a mass conversion of roughly
$0.046\,M_\odot$. These figures are slightly better than for the S5y1
search and a factor of $\sim$5 better than the S4 search.
We also estimate in a similar manner a detection range for GW signals from core-collapse
supernovae and from neutron star collapse to a black hole. Such
signals are expected to be produced at a much higher frequency (up to
a few kHz) and also with a relatively small GW energy output
($10^{-9}-10^{-5}\,M_\odot{c^2}$). For a possible supernova scenario,
we consider a numerical simulation of core collapse by Ott et
al.~\cite{ott06}. For the model s25WW, which undergoes an
acoustically driven explosion, as much as $8 \times 10^{-5}\,M_\odot$
may be converted to gravitational waves. The frequency content
produced by this particular model peaks around $\sim 940$\,Hz and the
duration is of order one second. Taking this to be similar to a high-$Q$
sine-Gaussian or a long-duration white noise burst, from our detection
efficiency studies we estimate $h_\mathrm{rss}^\mathrm{50\%}$ of 17--22$\times10^{-22}$~Hz$^{-1/2}$, i.e.\ that such a signal could be detected out
to a distance of around $30$~kpc.
The axisymmetric neutron star collapse signals D1 and D4 of Baiotti {\it
et al.}~\cite{SNwave} have detection ranges (at 50\% confidence) of only
about 25~pc and 150~pc (see Fig.~\ref{fig:D1D4range}, due mainly to their lower
energy ($M_\mathrm{GW} < 10^{-8}~M_\odot$) and also to emitting most of that
energy at 2--6~kHz, where the detector noise is greater.
The Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, currently under
construction, will increase the detection range of the searches by an order of
magnitude, therefore increasing by $\sim$1000 the monitored volume of the universe.
With that sensitivity, GW signals from binary mergers are expected to
be detected regularly, and other plausible sources may also be
explored.
Searches for GW burst signals, capable of detecting unknown signal
waveforms as well as known ones, will continue to play a central role
as we increase our understanding of the universe using gravitational
waves.
\begin{acknowledgments}\label{sec:acknowledgements}
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National
Science Foundation for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory,
the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the
Max-Planck-Society and the State of Niedersachsen/Germany for support of the
construction and operation of the GEO\,600 detector,
and the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and the French Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique for the construction and operation of
the Virgo detector. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the support of
the research by these agencies and by the Australian Research Council, the
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India, the Istituto
Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy, the Spanish Ministerio de Educaci\'on
y Ciencia, the Conselleria d'Economia Hisenda i Innovaci\'o of the Govern de
les Illes Balears, the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter supported
by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research,
the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the FOCUS Programme
of Foundation for Polish Science, the Royal Society,
the Scottish Funding Council, the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Carnegie Trust,
the Leverhulme Trust, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Research
Corporation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
This document has been assigned LIGO Laboratory document number \ligodoc.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation was first derived as a model
for the propagation of small amplitude long water waves along a channel
\cite{bouss,jager,korteweg}. It has been intensively studied from
various aspects for both mathematics and physics since the 1960s when
solitons were discovered through solving the KdV equation, and the
inverse scattering method, a so-called nonlinear Fourier transform,
was invented to seek solitons \cite{gardner,miura}. It is now
well known that the KdV equation is not only a good model for water
waves but also a very useful approximation model in nonlinear
studies whenever one wishes to include and balance weak nonlinear
and dispersive effects.
The initial boundary value problems (IBVP) arise
naturally in modeling small-amplitude long waves in a channel with a
wavemaker mounted at one end \cite{bona1,bona2,bona3,R04}. Such
mathematical formulations have received considerable attention in
the past, and a satisfactory theory of global well-posedness is available for initial and boundary conditions satisfying physically
relevant smoothness and consistency assumptions (see e.g.
\cite{bona1,bona4,bona6,bona7,colliander,faminskii,faminskii2}
and the references therein).
The analysis of the long-time behavior of IBVP on the
quarter-plane for KdV has also received considerable attention over recent years,
and a review of some of the results related to the issues we address
here can be found in \cite{bona5,bona7,leach}. For stabilization
and controllability issues on the half line, we refer the reader to \cite{linares-pazoto} and \cite{R00,R02}, respectively.
In this work, we are concerned with the asymptotic behavior of the
solutions of the IBVP for the KdV
equation posed on the positive half line under the presence of a
localized damping represented by the function $a$; that is,
\begin{equation} \label{1}
\begin{cases}
u_t + u_x + u_{xxx} + uu_x + a(x)u = 0, \quad x,\, t \in \mathbb{R}^+,\\
u(0,t)=0, \quad t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x), \quad x > 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Assuming $a(x)\ge 0$ a.e. and that $u(.,t)\in H^3(\mathbb R ^+ )$, it follows from a simple computation that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3}
\frac{dE}{dt} = - \int_0^\infty a(x)|u(x,t)|^2 dx - \frac{1}{2}
|u_x(0,t)|^2
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4}
E(t) = \frac{1}{2}\,\int_0^\infty |u(x,t)|^2 dx
\end{eqnarray}
is the total energy associated with (\ref{1}). Then, we see that the term $a(x)u$ plays the role of a feedback damping mechanism and, consequently, it is
natural to wonder whether the solutions of (\ref{1}) tend to zero as
$t\rightarrow \infty$ and under what rate they decay. When
$a(x)>a_0>0$ almost everywhere in $\mathbb{R}^+$, it is very simple
to prove that $E(t)$ converges to zero as $t$ tends to infinity. The
problem of stabilization when the damping is effective only in a
subset of the domain is much more subtle. The following result was
obtained in \cite{linares-pazoto}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm0}
Assume that the function $a=a(x)$ satisfies the following property
\begin{equation}
\label{2}
a\in L^\infty(\mathbb R ^+),\ a\ge 0\mbox{ a.e. in }\ \mathbb R ^+ \mbox{ and }
a(x)\ge a_0>0 \mbox{ a.e. in } \ (x_0,+\infty)
\end{equation}
for some numbers $a_0,x_0>0$. Then for all $R>0$ there exist two numbers
$C>0$ and $\nu >0$ such that for all $u_0\in L^2(\mathbb R ^+)$ with
$||u_0||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+ )}\le R$, the solution $u$ of \eqref{1} satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{L2}
||u(t)||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \le C e^{-\nu t}
||u_0||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}\cdot
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Actually, Theorem \ref{thm0} was proved in \cite{linares-pazoto} under the
additional hypothesis that
\begin{equation}
\label{L3}
a(x)\ge a_0 \ \mbox{ a.e. in }\ (0,\delta )
\end{equation}
for some $\delta >0$, but \eqref{L3} may be dropped by replacing the unique continuation property
\cite[Lemma 2.4]{linares-pazoto} by \cite[Theorem 1.6]{rosier-zhang}.
The exponential decay of $E(t)$ is obtained following the methods in \cite{pazoto,PMVZ,R97} which
combine multiplier techniques and compactness arguments to reduce
the problem to some unique continuation property for weak
solutions of KdV.
Along this work we assume that the real-valued function $a=a(x)$
satisfies the condition \eqref{2} for some given positive numbers $a_0,x_0$.
In this paper we investigate the stability properties
of \eqref{1} in the weighted spaces introduced by Kato in \cite{kato}.
More precisely, for $b> 0$ and $m\in \mathbb{N}$, we prove
that the solution $u$ exponentially decays to $0$ in $L^2_b$ and
$L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$ (if $u(0)$ belongs to one of these spaces), where
$$L^2_b = \{u:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R} ; \int_0^\infty |u(x)|^2 e^{2bx} dx <
\infty \},$$
$$L^2_{(x+1)^m dx} = \{u:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}; \int_0^\infty |u(x)|^2 (x + 1)^m dx < \infty \} .$$
The following weighted Sobolev spaces
$$H^s_b = \{u:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R};\ \partial _x
^i u\in L^2_b \ \mbox{ for } 0 \le i\le s;\
u(0)=0 \hbox{ if } s\ge 1 \}$$
and
$$H^s_{(x+1)^mdx} = \{u:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R} ;
\,\partial^i_x u \in L^2_{(x+1)^{m-i} dx}\,\hbox{ for }\, 0\leq i \leq s ;\
u(0)=0 \hbox{ if } s\ge 1\},$$
endowed with their usual inner products, will be used thereafter.
Note that $H^0_b=L^2_b$ and that $H^0_{(x+1)^mdx}=L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}$.
The exponential decay in $L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$ is obtained by
constructing a convenient Lyapunov function (which actually decreases
strictly on the sequence of times $\{ kT \}_{k\ge 0}$) by induction on $m$.
For $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$, we also prove the following estimate
\begin{equation}
||u(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}}
\le C\frac{e^{-\mu t}}{\sqrt{t}} ||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}
\label{globalkato}
\end{equation}
in two situations:
(i) $m=1$ and $||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}}$ is arbitrarily large;
(ii) $m\ge 2$ and $||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}}$ is small enough.
In the situation (ii), we first establish a similar estimate for the linearized
system and next apply the contraction mapping principle in a space of functions
fulfilling the exponential decay.
Note that \eqref{globalkato} combines the (global) Kato smoothing effect
to the exponential decay.
The exponential decay in $L^2_b$ is established for any initial data
$u_0\in L^2_b$ under the additional assumption that $4 b^3 + b < a_0$.
Next, we can derive estimates of the form
$$
||u(t)||_{H^s_b} \le C \frac{e^{-\mu t}}{t^{s/2}} ||u_0||_{L^2_b}
$$
for any $s\ge 1$, revealing that $u(t)$ decays exponentially to 0 in
strong norms.
It would be interesting to see if such results are still true when the
function $a$ has a smaller support. It seems reasonable to conjecture that
similar positive results can be derived when the support of $a$ contains
a set of the form $\cup_{k\ge 1}[ka_0,ka_0+b_0]$ where $0<b_0<a_0$, while
a negative result probably holds when the support of $a$ is a finite interval,
as the $L^2$ norm of a soliton-like initial data may not be sufficiently dissipated over time. Such issues will be discussed elsewhere.
The plan of this paper is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to
global well-posedness results in the weighted spaces $L^2_b$ and
$L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$. In section 3,
we prove the exponential decay in $L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}$ and $L^2_b$, and establish
the exponential decay of the derivatives as well.
\section{Global well-posedness}
\subsection{Global well-posedness in $\bf L^2_b$}
Fix any $b>0$.
To begin with, we apply the classical semigroup theory to the
linearized system
\begin{equation} \label{linear}
\begin{cases}
u_t + u_x + u_{xxx} + a(x)u = 0, \quad x,\, t \in \mathbb{R}^+,\\
u(0,t)=0, \quad t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x), \quad x > 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Let us consider the operator
$$A: D(A)\subset L^2_b \rightarrow L^2_b$$
with domain
$$D(A) = \{ u\in L^2_b;\ \partial_x^i u\in L^2_b \mbox{ for } 1\leq i \leq 3\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,u(0)=0\}$$
defined by
$$Au = - u_{xxx} - u_x - a(x)u.$$
Then, the following result holds.
\begin{lemma}\label{semigroup} The operator $A$ defined above generates a continuous
semigroup of operators $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ in $L^2_b$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} We first introduce the new variable $v=e^{bx}u$ and
consider the following (IBVP)
\begin{equation} \label{1.1}
\begin{cases}
v_t + (\partial_x -b)v + (\partial_x - b)^3v + a(x)v = 0, \quad x,\, t \in \mathbb{R}^+,\\
v(0,t)=0, \quad t>0,\\
v(x,0)=v_0(x)=e^{bx}u_0(x), \quad x > 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Clearly, the operator $B: D(B)\subset L^2(\mathbb{R}
^+) \rightarrow
L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)$ with domain
$$D(B) = \{u\in H^3(\mathbb{R}^+);\ u(0)=0\}$$
defined by
$$Bv = - (\partial_x -b)v - (\partial_x - b)^3v - a(x)v$$
is densely defined and closed. So, we are done if we prove that
for some real number $\lambda$ the operator $B-\lambda $
and its adjoint $B^\ast -\lambda $ are both dissipative in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)$.
It is readily seen that $B^\ast : D(B^\ast)\subset
L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)\rightarrow L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)$ is given by $B^\ast v= (\partial_x
+b)v + (\partial_x + b)^3v - a(x)v$ with domain
$$D(B^\ast) = \{v\in H^3(\mathbb{R}^+);\ v(0)=v'(0)=0\}.$$
Pick any $v\in D(B)$. After some integration by parts, we obtain
that
$$(Bv,v)_{L^2} = -\frac{1}{2}v_x^2(0) - 3b\int_0^\infty v^2_x dx + (b+b^3)\int_0^\infty v^2dx
- \int_0^\infty a(x)v^2 dx,$$ that is,
$$([B - (b^3 + b) ]v,v)_{L^2} \leq 0.$$
Analogously, we deduce that for any $v\in D(B^\ast)$
$$(v,[B^\ast - (b^3 + b) ]v)_{L^2} \leq 0$$
which completes the proof.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
The following linear estimates will be needed.
\begin{lemma} \label{lin} Let $u_0 \in L^2_b$ and $u = S(\cdot)u_0$. Then, for any
$T>0$
\begin{equation}\label{en-id1}
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u(x,T)|^2 dx - \frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty
|u_0(x)|^2 dx +\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 dxdt
+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt = 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{en-id2}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u(x,T)|^2 e^{2bx}dx -
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2 e^{2bx}dx
+\,3b\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt\\
- \displaystyle(4b^3 + b)\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt
+\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 e^{2bx}dxdt
+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt = 0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
As a consequence,
\begin{equation}\label{lin-est}
\begin{array}{l}
||u||_{L^\infty (0,T;L^2_b)} + ||u_x||_{L^2(0,T;L^2_b)}\leq
C\,||u_0||_{L^2_b},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $C=C(T)$ is a positive constant.
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Pick any $u_0\in D(A)$. Multiplying the equation in
(\ref{1}) by $u$ and integrating over $(0,+\infty )\times(0,T)$, we obtain
(\ref{en-id1}). Then, the identity may be extended to any initial
state $u_0\in L^2_b$ by a density argument. To derive (\ref{en-id2})
we first multiply the equation by $(e^{2bx} - 1)u$ and integrate by
parts over $(0,+\infty )\times (0,T)$ to deduce that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u(x,T)|^2(e^{2bx}-1)dx -
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2 (e^{2bx}-1)dx \,+\\
\vspace{1mm}+3b\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt
- \displaystyle(4b^3 + b)\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt \, + \\
+\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 (e^{2bx}- 1) dxdt = 0.
\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Adding the above equality and (\ref{en-id1}) hand to hand, we
obtain (\ref{en-id2}) using the same density argument.
Then, Gronwall inequality, (\ref{2}) and (\ref{en-id2}) imply that
$$||u||_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2_b)} \leq \, C\,||u_0||_{L^2_b},$$
with $C=C(T) > 0$. This estimate together with (\ref{en-id2})
gives us
$$||u_x||_{L^2(0,T;L^2_b)}\leq C\,||u_0||_{L^2_b},$$
where $C=C(T)$ is a positive constant.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
The global well-posedness result reads as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{global-exp} For any $u_0 \in L^2_b$ and any $T>0$, there exists a unique solution
$u\in C([0,T];L^2_b)\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_b)$ of \eqref{1}.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
By computations similar to those performed in the proof of Lemma
\ref{lin}, we obtain that for any $f\in C^1([0,T];L^2_b)$ and any
$u_0\in D(A)$, the
solution $u$ of the system
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u _t + u_x + u_{xxx} + a(x)u =f, \quad & x\in \mathbb{R}^+,\ t\in (0,T), \\
u(0,t)=0, & t\in (0,T),\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x),& x\in \mathbb{R}^+,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
fulfills
\begin{equation}\label{est-ex}
\sup_{0\le t\le T} ||u(t)||_{L^2_b} +(\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty
|u_x|^2 e^{2bx}dxdt)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq C\left( ||u_0||_{L^2_b} +\int_0^T
||f||_{L^2_b} dt \right)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C(T)$ nondecreasing in $T$. A density argument
yields that $u\in C([0,T]; L^2_b)$ when $f\in L^1(0,T;L^2_b)$
and $u_0\in L^2_b$.
Let $u_0\in L^2_b$ be given. To prove the existence of a solution of
\eqref{1} we introduce the map $\Gamma$ defined by
$$
(\Gamma u)(t)=S(t)u_0+\int_0^tS(t-s)N(u(s))\, ds
$$
where $N(u)= -uu_x$, and the space
$$F = C([0,T];L^2_b)\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_b)$$
endowed with its natural norm.
We shall prove that $\Gamma$ has a fixed-point in some ball $B_R(0)$
of $F$. We need the following \\
{\sc Claim 1.} If $u\in H^1_b$ then
$$||u^2e^{2bx}||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)} \leq (2 + 2b)\,
||u||_{L^2_b} ||u||_{H^1_b}.$$
From Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we get for any $\overline{x}\in
\mathbb{R}^+$
$$
\begin{array}{l}
u^2(\overline{x})e^{2b\overline{x}}
= \displaystyle\int_0^{\overline{x}} [u^2e^{2bx}]_x dx
= \int_0^{\overline{x}}
[2uu_xe^{2bx} + 2bu^2e^{2bx}]dx \\
\leq 2(\displaystyle\int_0^\infty u^2
e^{2bx}dx)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\int_0^\infty u_x^2
e^{2bx}dx)^{\frac{1}{2}} + 2b\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx \leq (2 +
2b) ||u||_{L^2_b} ||u||_{H^1_b}
\end{array}
$$
which guarantees that Claim 1 holds.
{\sc Claim 2.} There exists a constant $K>0$ such that for $0<T\le 1$
\begin{equation}
||\Gamma(u) - \Gamma(v) ||_F \leq KT^{\frac{1}{4}} (||u||_F +
||v||_F) ||u - v||_F, \quad \forall\,u, v\, \in F.\nonumber
\end{equation}
According to the previous analysis,
\begin{equation}\label{fp-0}
||\Gamma(u) - \Gamma(v) ||_F \leq C ||uu_x -
vv_x||_{L^1(0,T;L^2_b)}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
So, applying triangular inequality and H\"older inequality, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&||\Gamma(u) - \Gamma(v) ||_F \leq C \{||u -
v||_{L^2(0,T;L^\infty(0,\infty))}||u||_{L^2(0,T;H^1_b)} +
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad + ||v||_{L^2(0,T;L^\infty(0,\infty))}||u - v||_{L^2(0,T;H^1_b)} \}. \label{fp-1}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, by Claim 1, we have
\begin{equation}\label{fp-2}
\begin{array}{l}
||u||_{L^2(0,T;L^\infty(0,\infty))}\leq C\, T^{\frac{1}{4}}
||u||_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2_b)}^{\frac{1}{2}}||u||_{L^2(0,T;H^1_b)}^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then, combining (\ref{fp-1}) and (\ref{fp-2}), we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\label{fp-3}
\begin{array}{l}
||\Gamma(u) - \Gamma(v) ||_F \leq C\, T^{\frac{1}{4}} \{\,||u||_F +
||v||_F\,\}||u - v||_F.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Let $T>0$, $R>0$ be numbers whose values will be specified later,
and let $u\in B_R(0)\subset F$ be given. Then, by Claim 2 and Lemma
\ref{lin}, $\Gamma u \in F$ and
$$
||\Gamma u||_F \leq C\,(\,||u_0||_{L^2_b} +
T^{\frac{1}{4}}||u||^2_F\,).
$$
Consequently, for $R=2C||u_0||_{L^2_b}$ and $T>0$ small enough, $\Gamma$ maps
$B_R(0)$ into itself. Moreover, we infer from \eqref{fp-3} that this mapping
contracts if $T$ is small enough. Then, by the contraction mapping
theorem, there exists a unique solution $u\in B_R(0)\subset F$ to the
problem \eqref{1} for $T$ small enough.
In order to prove that this solution is global, we need some a
priori estimates. So, we proceed as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lin}
to obtain for the solution $u$ of \eqref{1}
\begin{equation}\label{fp30}
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u(x,T)|^2 dx - \frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty
|u_0(x)|^2 dx +\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 dxdt
+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt = 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u(x,T)|^2 e^{2bx}dx -
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2 e^{2bx}dx + \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt
\nonumber\\
\vspace{1mm}+\,3b\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt - \displaystyle(4b^3 + b)\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt\nonumber\\
+\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 e^{2bx}dxdt
-\frac{2b}{3}\int_0^T \int_0^\infty u^3 e^{2bx}dx dt= 0.\label{fp-4}
\end{eqnarray}
First, observe that
$$|\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx| = |-\frac{1}{b}\int_0^\infty uu_x e^{2bx}dx|
\leq \frac{1}{b} (\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx}
dx)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
therefore,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l
\displaystyle\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx \leq
\frac{1}{b^2}\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx.\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Combined to Claim 1, this yields
$$
||u(x)e^{bx}||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)}
\le C ||u_x ||_{L^2_b}.
$$
On the other hand, it follows from \eqref{fp30}
that
$$
|| u(t) ||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \le ||u_0||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)},
$$
hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^T \!\!\! \int_0^\infty |u|^3 e^{2bx} dx dt
&\leq& \int_0^T ||ue^{bx}||_{L^\infty(\mathbb R ^+)}
(\int_0^\infty |u|^2e^{bx}dx)dt \\
&\le& C \int_0^T ||u_x||_{L^2_b} ||u||_{L^2_b}||u||_{L^2}dt \\
&\le& \delta ||u_x||^2_{L^2(0,T;L^2_b)} +
C_\delta ||u||^2_{L^2(0,T;L^2_b)},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\delta > 0 $ is arbitrarily chosen
and $C=C(b,\delta, ||u_0||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} )$ is a positive constant.
Combining this inequality (with $\delta <9/2$) to (\ref{fp-4}) results in
$$
||u(T)||^2_{L^2_b}
\le ||u_0||^2_{L^2_b} + C\int_0^T||u||^2_{L^2_b}dt
$$
where $C=C(b,||u_0||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)})$ does not depend on $T$. It follows from
Gronwall lemma that
$$
||u(T)||^2_{L^2_b} \le ||u_0||^2_{L^2_b} e^{CT}
$$
for all $T>0$, which gives the global well-posedness.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
\subsection{Global well-posedness in $L^2_{(x+1)^2dx} $}
\begin{definition}
For $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$ and $T>0$, we denote by a {\em mild solution}
of \eqref{1} any function $u\in C([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)^2 dx})\cap
L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)^2dx})$ which solves \eqref{1}, and such that for some
$b>0$ and some sequence $\{ u_{n,0}\}\subset L^2_b$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&u_{n,0}\to u_0 \,\, \mbox{ strongly in }\,\, L^2_{(x+1)^2dx},\\
&&u_n \to u\,\,\mbox{weakly}\ast\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^\infty (0,T; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}),\\
&&u_n \to u\,\,\mbox{weakly}\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^2(0,T; H^1_{(x+1)^2dx}),
\end{eqnarray*}
$u_n$ denoting the solution of \eqref{1} emanating from $u_{n,0}$ at $t=0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{global-pol}
For any $u_0 \in L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$ and any $T>0$, there exists a
unique mild solution $u\in C([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})\cap
L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)^2dx} )$ of \eqref{1}.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} We prove the existence and the uniqueness in two steps.\\
{\sc Step 1. Existence}\\
Since the embedding $L^2_b\subset L^2_{(x+1)^2 dx}$ is dense, for any given
$u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$ we may construct
a sequence $\{u_{n,0}\}\subset L^2_b$ such that $u_{n,0}\rightarrow
u_0$ in $L^2_{(x+1)^2 dx}$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. For each $n$, let
$u_n$ denote the solution of \eqref{1}
emanating from $u_{n,0}$ at $t=0$, which is given by Theorem
\ref{global-exp}. Then $u_n\in C([0,T];L^2_b)\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_b)$ and it
solves
\begin{eqnarray}
&& u_{n,t} + u_{n,x} + u_{n,xxx} + u_n u_{n,x} + a(x)u_{n} =0, \label{C1}\\
&& u_n(0,t) =0 \label{C2}\\
&& u_n(x,0)=u_{n,0}(x). \label{C3}
\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying \eqref{C1} by $(x+1)^2 u_n$ and integrating by parts, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u_n (x,T)|^2 dx
+3\int _0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2dxdt
+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T |u_{n,x}(0,t)|^2dt \nonumber\\
&&-\int_0^T\!\!\! \int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_n|^2 dxdt
-\frac{2}{3}
\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)u_n^3 \, dxdt +
\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2u_n^2a(x)dx \nonumber \\
&&\qquad = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u_{n,0}(x)|^2 dx. \label{C4}
\end{eqnarray}
Scaling in \eqref{C1} by $u_n$ gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_n(x,T)|^2 dx +
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T |u_{n,x}(0,t)|^2 dt +
\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty a(x)|u_n(x,t)|^2dxdt \\
&&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_{n,0}(x)|^2dx,
\end{eqnarray*}
hence
\begin{equation}
||u_n||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \le ||u_{n,0}||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \le C
\label{C5}
\end{equation}
where $C=C( ||u_0||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} )$.
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2}{3}\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_n|^3dx
&\le& \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} ||u_{n,x}||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}^{\frac{1}{2}}
||u_n||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}^{\frac{3}{2}} ||(x+1)u_n||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \nonumber \\
&\le& \int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2 dx + C \int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u_n|^2 dx
\label{C6}
\end{eqnarray}
which, combined to \eqref{C4}, gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u_n(x,T)|^2 dx
+ 2 \int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2 dxdt
+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T |u_{n,x}(0,t)|^2 dt \\
&&\qquad \le \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u_{n,0}(x)|^2dx +
C\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u_n (x,t)|^2 dxdt.
\end{eqnarray*}
An application of Gronwall's lemma yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
||u_n||_{L^\infty (0,T;L^2_{(x+1)^2dx} )}
&\leq& C(T,||u_{n,0}||_{L^2_{ (x+1)^2dx}}),\\
||u_{n,x}||_{L^2(0,T;H^1_{ (x+1)^2 dx} )}&\leq&
C(T,||u_{n,0}||_{L^2_{(x+1)^2 dx}}),\\
||u_{n,x}(0,.)||_{L^2(0,T)} &\leq& C(T,||u_{n,0}||_{L^2_{ (x+1)^2dx}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, there exists a subsequence
of $\{u_n\}$, still denoted by $\{ u_n \}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
u_n \rightharpoonup
u\,\,\mbox{weakly}\,\,\ast\,\,\mbox{in}\,\, L^\infty (0,T; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}),\\
u_n \rightharpoonup
u\,\,\mbox{weakly}\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^2(0,T; H^1_{(x+1)^2dx}),\\
u_{n,x}(0,.) \rightharpoonup
u_x(0,.) \,\,\mbox{weakly}\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^2(0,T).
\nonumber
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that, for all $L>0$, $\{ u_n\}$ is bounded in
$L^2(0,T;H^1(0,L))\cap H^1(0,T;H^{-2}(0,L))$, hence by Aubin's lemma, we have
(after extracting a subsequence if needed)
$$u_n\to u\ \ \mbox{\rm strongly in } \ L^2(0,T;L^2(0,L)) \mbox{ for all } L>0.$$
This gives that $u_n u_{n,x} \to u u_x$ in the sense of distributions, hence the limit $u\in L^\infty (0,T;L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}) \cap L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)^2dx})$
is a solution of \eqref{1}.
Let us check that $u\in C([0,T]; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})$. Since
$u\in C([0,T]; H^{-2}(\mathbb R ^+))\cap L^\infty (0,T; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})$, we have that
$u\in C_w ([0,T]; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})$ (see e.g. \cite{lions-magenes}), where
$C_w ([0,T]; L^2_{(x+1)^2 dx})$ denotes the space of sequentially weakly
continuous functions from $[0,T]$ into $L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$.
We claim that $u\in L^3(0,T;L^3(\mathbb R ^+))$. Indeed, from Moser estimate (see \cite{Taylor3})
\begin{equation}
\label{Moser}
||u||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)}\le \sqrt{2}||u_x||^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}
||u||^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}
\end{equation}
and Young inequality we get
\begin{equation}
\label{exp-5bis}
\int_0^\infty |u|^3 dx
\le ||u||_{L^\infty} ||u||^2_{L^2}
\le \sqrt{2} ||u_x||^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^2} ||u||^{\frac{5}{2}}_{L^2}
\le \varepsilon ||u_x||_{L^2}^2 + c_{\varepsilon}
||u||_{L^2}^{\frac{10}{3}}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon >0$ is arbitrarily chosen and $c_\varepsilon$
denotes some positive constant.
Since
$u\in C_w([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}) \cap L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)^2 dx})$, it follows that
$u\in L^3(0,T;L^3(\mathbb R ^+))$. On the other hand, $u(0,t)=0$ for $t\in (0,T)$ and
$u_x(0,.) \in L^2(0,T)$.
Scaling in \eqref{1} by $(x+1)^2 u$ yields for all $t_1,t_2\in (0,T)$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u(x,t_2)|^2 dx -
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 |u(x,t_1)|^2 dx \nonumber \\
&&=-3 \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_x|^2 dxdt
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}|u_x(0,t)|^2 dt +
\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u|^2 dxdt \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{2}{3}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)u^3 dxdt
-\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2 a(x) |u|^2 dxdt.
\label{LL28}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore $\lim_{t_1\to t_2}
\left\vert ||u(t_2)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}}-||u(t_1)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}}
\right\vert =0$.
Combined to the fact that $u\in C_w([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})$, this yields
$u\in C([0,T],L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})$. \\
{\sc Step 2. Uniqueness}\\
Here, $C$ will denote a universal constant which may vary from line to line.
Pick $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$, and let $u,v\in C([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)^2dx})
\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)^2dx})$ be two mild solutions of \eqref{1}. Pick two
sequences $\{u_{n,0}\}$, $ \{v_{n,0} \}$ in $L^2_b$ for some $b>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&u_{n,0}\to u_0 \,\, \mbox{ strongly in }\,\, L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}, \label{X1}\\
&&u_n \to u\,\,\mbox{weakly}\ast\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^\infty (0,T; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}),\label{X2}\\
&&u_n \to u\,\,\mbox{weakly}\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^2(0,T; H^1_{(x+1)^2dx})\label{X3}
\end{eqnarray}
and also
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_{n,0}\to u_0 \,\, \mbox{ strongly in }\,\, L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}, \label{X4}\\
&&v_n \to v\,\,\mbox{weakly}\ast\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^\infty (0,T; L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}),\label{X5}\\
&&v_n \to v\,\,\mbox{weakly}\,\,\mbox{in}\,\,
L^2(0,T; H^1_{(x+1)^2dx}).\label{X6}
\end{eqnarray}
We shall prove that $w=u-v$ vanishes on $\mathbb R ^+\times [0,T]$ by providing some
estimate for $w_n=u_n-v_n$. Note first that $w_n$ solves the system
\begin{eqnarray}
&&w_{n,t} + w_{n,x}+ w_{n,xxx} + aw_n = f_n
= v_n v_{n,x} - u_n u_{n,x}, \label{X7}\\
&&w_n(0,t)=0, \label{X8}\\
&&w_n(x,0)=w_{n,0}(x)=u_{n,0}(x)-v_{n,0}(x). \label{X9}
\end{eqnarray}
Scaling in \eqref{X7} by $(x+1)w_n$ yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)|w_n(x,t)|^2dx +
\frac{3}{2}\int_0^t \!\!\! \int_0^\infty |w_{n,x}|^2 dxd\tau
-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\!\!\!\int_0^\infty |w_n|^2dxd\tau \nonumber\\
&&\le
\frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty (x+1)|w_{n,0}|^2 dx
+ \int_0^t (\int _0^\infty (x+1)|w_n|^2dx)^{\frac{1}{2}}
(\int _0^\infty (x+1)|f_n|^2dx)^{\frac{1}{2}}d\tau \\
&&\le \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty (x+1)|w_{n,0}|^2 dx
+ \frac{1}{4} \sup_{0 < \tau < t}\int _0^\infty (x+1)|w_n(x,\tau )|^2dx \\
&&\qquad + [\int_0^T(\int _0^\infty (x+1)|f_n|^2dx)^{\frac{1}{2}} d\tau ]^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $||w_n(t)||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}\le ||w_n(t)||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}$, this yields for $T<1/10$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup_{0<t<T}\int_0^\infty (x+1)|w_n(x,t)|^2dx + \int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty
|w_{n,x}|^2dxdt \nonumber\\
&&\qquad \le C[ \int_0^\infty (x+1)|w_{n,0}(x)|^2dx +
\left( \int_0^T (\int_0^\infty (x+1) |f_n|^2 dx) ^{\frac{1}{2}}
d\tau \right)^2 ].
\label{X10}
\end{eqnarray}
It remains to estimate $\int_0^T(\int_0^\infty (x+1)|f_n|^2dx)^{\frac{1}{2}}dt$.
We split $f_n$ into
$$
f_n = (v_n-u_n) v_{n,x} + u_n ( v_{n,x} - u_{n,x} ) = f_n^1 + f_n^2.
$$
We have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^T (\int_0^\infty (x+1)|f_n^1|^2dx )^\frac{1}{2}dt
&=& \int_0^T (\int_0^\infty (x+1) |w_n|^2 |v_{n,x}|^2dx )^{\frac{1}{2}} dt \\
&\le & \int_0^T ||w_n||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)}
(\int_0^\infty (x+1) |v_{n,x}|^2 dx)^{\frac{1}{2}} dt \\
&\le& (\int_0^T ||w_n||^2_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)}dt )^\frac{1}{2} (\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty
(x+1) |v_{n,x}|^2dxdt )^\frac{1}{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Sobolev embedding, we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\int_0^T ||w_n||^2_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)} dt )^\frac{1}{2}
&\le&
(\int_0^T ||w_n||^2_{H^1 (\mathbb R ^+)} dt )^\frac{1}{2} \\
&\le& \sqrt{T} \sup_{0<t<T} ||w_n||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} +
||w_{n,x}||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\mathbb R ^+))}\cdot
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int_0^T (\int_0^\infty (x+1)|f_n^1|^2dx)^{\frac{1}{2}} dt
\le ||v_{n,x}||_{L^2(0,T;L^2_{(x+1)dx})}
\big( \sqrt{T} \sup_{0<t<T}||w_n||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \nonumber\\
&&\qquad+ ||w_{n,x}||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\mathbb R ^+))}\big)
\label{X11}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int_0^T ( \int_0^\infty (x+1)|f_n^2|^2 dx)^\frac{1}{2}dt \nonumber\\
&&\qquad = \int_0^T (\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_n|^2 |w_{n,x}|^2 dx )^{\frac{1}{2}} dt\nonumber \\
&&\qquad \le \int_0^T ||(x+1)^{\frac{1}{2}} u_n||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)}
||w_{n,x}||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} dt \nonumber \\
&&\qquad \le C\int_0^T \big(||(x+1)^\frac{1}{2}u_n||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}
+ ||(x+1)^\frac{1}{2} u_{n,x}||_{L^2( \mathbb R ^+)}
\big)||w_{n,x}||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+ )} dt \nonumber \\
&&\qquad \le C \bigg(\sqrt{T} ||(x+1)u_n||_{L^\infty (0,T;L^2(\mathbb R ^+))}
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad +
||(x+1)^\frac{1}{2}u_{n,x}||_{L^2(0,T,L^2(\mathbb R ^+))}
\bigg) ||w_{n,x}||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\mathbb R ^+))}. \label{X12}
\end{eqnarray}
Gathering together \eqref{X10}, \eqref{X11} and \eqref{X12}, we conclude that
for $T<1/10$
$$
h_n(T) \le K_n(T) h_n(T) + C||w_{n,0}||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}
$$
where
\begin{eqnarray}
h_n(t)&:=&\sup_{0<\tau <T}
\int_0^\infty (x+1)|w_n(x,\tau )|^2 dx
+\int_0^T \!\!\!\int_0^\infty |w_{n,x}|^2 dxdt\\
K_n(T)&\le& C \left(
\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|v_{n,x}|^2dxdt
+T ||(x+1)u_n||^2_{L^\infty (0,T;L^2(\mathbb R ^+))} \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\int_0^T\!\!\! \int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2 dxdt \right)
\end{eqnarray}
and $C$ denotes a universal constant. The following claim is needed.\\
{\sc Claim 3.}
$$\lim_{T\to 0}\limsup _{n\to \infty}\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty
(x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2dxdt=0,\quad \lim_{T\to 0}\limsup _{n\to \infty}
\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|v_{n,x}|^2dxdt=0.$$
Clearly, it is sufficient to prove the claim for the sequence
$\{ u_n \}$ only.
From \eqref{LL28} applied with $u=u_n$ on $[0,T]$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2|u_n(x,T)|^2dx +
3\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2 dxdt \nonumber \\
&&\le \frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x+1)^2|u_{n,0}|^2dx
+\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_n|^2 dxdt
+\frac{2}{3} \int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)|u_n|^3 dxdt.\label{P1}
\end{eqnarray*}
Combined to \eqref{C5}-\eqref{C6}, this gives
\begin{eqnarray}
&&||u_n(T)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}} +\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty
(x+1)|u_{n,x}|^2dxdt \nonumber\\
&&\qquad \le ||u_{n,0}||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2 dx}}
+C\int_0^T ||u_n||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}}dt.
\label{P2}
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from Gronwall lemma that
\begin{equation}
\label{gron}
||u_n(t)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}}\le ||u_{n,0}||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}} e^{Ct}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{gron} in \eqref{P2}
and taking the limit sup as $n\to \infty$ gives for a.e. $T$
$$
||u(T)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}} +
\limsup_{n\to \infty} \int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty |u_{n,x}|^2dxdt
\le e^{CT}||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}}
$$
As $u$ is continuous from $\mathbb R^+$ to $L^2_{(x+1)^2dx}$, we infer that
$$
\lim_{T\to 0} \limsup_{n\to \infty}\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty
|u_{n,x}|^2dxdt=0.
$$
The claim is proved. Therefore, we have that
for $T>0$ small enough and $n$ large enough, $K_n(T)<\frac{1}{2}$, and hence
$$
h_n(T)\le 2C ||w_n(0)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}.
$$
This yields
\begin{equation*}
||u-v||^2_{L^\infty (0,T;L^2_{(x+1)dx})}
\le \liminf _{n\to \infty}
h_n(T) \le 2C \liminf _{n\to \infty} ||w_n(0)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}} =0
\end{equation*}
and $u=v$ for $0<t<T$. This proves the uniqueness for $T$ small enough.
The general case follows by a classical argument.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If we assume only that $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)dx}$, then a proof similar to
Step 1 gives the existence of a mild solution $u\in C([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)dx})
\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)dx})$ of \eqref{1}. The uniqueness of such a solution
is open. The existence and uniqueness of a solution issuing from
$u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)dx}$ in a class of functions involving a Bourgain
norm has been given in \cite{faminskii2}.
\item If $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$ with $m\ge 3$, then
$u\in C([0,T];L^2_{(x+1)^mdx})\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_{(x+1)^mdx})$ for all $T>0$
(see below Theorem \ref{dec-pol}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section{Asymptotic Behavior}
\subsection{Decay in $L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$}
\begin{theorem}
\label{dec-pol}
Assume that the function $a=a(x)$
satisfies (\ref{2}). Then, for all $R>0$ and $m\ge 1$, there exist
numbers $C > 0$ and $\nu > 0$ such that
$$||u(t)||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}} \leq C\, e^{-\nu t}
||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}} $$
for any solution given by Theorem \ref{global-pol}, whenever
$||u_0||_{ L^2_{(x+1)^mdx} }\leq R$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
The proof will be done by induction in $m$.
We set
\begin{equation}\label{V0}
V_0(u) = E(u) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty u^2 dx
\end{equation}
and define the Lyapunov function $V_m$ for $m\ge 1 $ in an inductive way
\begin{equation}\label{pol1}
V_m(u) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^m u^2 dx +
d_{m-1}V_{m-1}(u),
\end{equation}
where $d_{m-1} > 0$ is chosen sufficiently large (see below).
Suppose first that $m=1$ and put $V = V_1$. Multiplying the first equation in (\ref{1})
by $u$ and integrating by parts over $\mathbb R^+ \times (0,T)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{exp-3}
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty |u(x,T)|^2 dx = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty
|u_0(x)|^2 dx - \int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 dxdt
- \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt.
\end{equation}
Now, multiplying the equation by $xu$, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty x |u(x,T)|^2 dx -
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty x |u_0(x)|^2 dx + \frac{3}{2}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u_x^2 dx dt \nonumber \\
&& -\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 dx dt-\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^3 dx dt+\int_0^T\int_0^\infty x a(x)|u|^2dxdt
= 0.\qquad
\label{exp-4}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining (\ref{exp-3}) and (\ref{exp-4}) it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \vspace{1mm} V(u) - V(u_0) + (d_0+1)\left( \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T
u_x^2(0,t)dt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 dxdt\right) \nonumber\\
&& \vspace{1mm} + \displaystyle \frac{3}{2}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u_x^2 dx dt-\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 dx dt -\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^3 dx dt \nonumber\\
&& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty xa(x)|u|^2 dxdt = 0.
\label{exp-5}
\end{eqnarray}
The next step is devoted to estimate the nonlinear term in the left
hand side of (\ref{exp-5}). To do that, we first assume that
$||u_0||_{L^2} \le 1$.
By \eqref{exp-5bis} we have that
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^\infty |u|^3 dx
\le \varepsilon ||u_x||_{L^2}^2 + c_{\varepsilon}
||u||_{L^2}^{\frac{10}{3}}
\end{equation*}
for any $\varepsilon >0$ and some constant $c_\varepsilon >0$.
Thus, if $||u_0||_{L^2} \le 1$, we have
$||u||_{L^2}^{\frac{10}{3}} \leq ||u||_{L^2}^2$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{exp-6}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty |u|^3 dx dt \leq \varepsilon
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u_x^2 dx dt+
c_\varepsilon\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 dx dt.
\end{equation}
Moreover, according to \cite{linares-pazoto}, there exists $c_1>0$,
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{exp-7}
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 dx dt \leq c_1\{ \frac{1}{2}
\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt+
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x) u^2 dx dt \}.
\end{equation}
Now, combining (\ref{exp-5})-(\ref{exp-7}) and taking $\varepsilon <
\frac{1}{2}$ and $d_0 := 2 c_1(\frac{1}{2} +
\frac{c_\varepsilon}{3})$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&V(u(T)) - V(u_0) +
\frac{d_0+1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 dxdt)
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad+\,(\frac{3}{2} - \frac{\varepsilon}{3})
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u_x^2 dx dt
+\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty xa(x)|u|^2 dxdt
\leq 0
\label{exp-71}
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{exp-72}
V(u(T)) - V(u_0) \leq -
\widetilde{c}\,\{\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1) a(x)|u|^2 dxdt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty
u_x^2 dx dt \}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{c}>0$. We aim to prove the existence of
a constant $c>0$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{exp-73}
V(u(T)) - V(u_0) \leq - c\,V(u_0)
\end{equation}
Indeed, such an inequality gives at once the decay $V(u(t))\le c e^{-\nu t}
V(u_0)$. To this end, we need to establish two claims.
{\sc Claim 4.} There exists $c>0$ such that
$$\displaystyle\int_0^T V(u) dt \leq c\, \{\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt
+ \int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x +1) a(x) u^2 dx dt\}.$$
Since $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)dx}\subset L^2$, from (\ref{2}) and
(\ref{exp-7}) we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^T V(u) dt
&=&
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1) u^2 dx
dt + \frac{d_0}{2} \int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 dx dt \\
&\leq& \frac{c_1 d_0}{2}
\{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T
u_x^2(0,t) dt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x) u^2 dx dt\}\\
&&\qquad + \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0} (x + 1 )u^2 dx dt
+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{x_0}^\infty (x + 1) u^2 dx dt\\
&\leq& \frac{c_1 d_0}{2}
\{\frac{1}{2} \int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x) u^2 dx dt\} \\
&&\qquad +\frac{1}{2}(x_0 +
1)\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0}u^2 dx dt +
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{x_0}^\infty (x + 1)\frac{a(x)}{a_0} u^2 dx dt\\
&\leq& c\,\{ \int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1) a(x) u^2 dx dt\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
{\sc Claim 5.}
\begin{equation}
\label{exp-74}
V(u_0) \leq C (\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt
+ \int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1) a(x) u^2 dx dt
+ \int_0^T\int_0^\infty u_x^2 dx dt )
\end{equation}
where $C > 0$.
Multiplying the first equation in (\ref{1}) by $(T-t)u$ and
integrating by parts in $(0,\infty)\times (0,T)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{exp-75}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\frac{T}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2 dx =\\
\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty |u|^2 dx dt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty
(T-t) a(x)|u|^2 dxdt +\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T (T-t) u_x^2(0,t)dt,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and therefore, using (\ref{exp-7})
\begin{equation}\label{exp-8}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2 dx
\leq C\left( \int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2 dxdt
+ \int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt\right) .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Now, multiplying by $(T-t)x u$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}-\displaystyle\frac{T}{2}\int_0^\infty x |u_0(x)|^2 dx +
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty x |u|^2 dx dt
+\,\frac{3}{2}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T-t) u^2_x dx dt\\
\vspace{1mm}- \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T- t)
u^2 dx dt +\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T - t)x a(x)|u|^2 dx
dt - \\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}\int_0^T \int_0^\infty (T - t) u^3 dx dt= 0.
\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The identity above and (\ref{exp-6}) allow us to conclude that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}\label{exp-9}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\int_0^\infty x |u_0(x)|^2 dx \\
\vspace{1mm}\leq C\,\{ \displaystyle\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x + 1)
|u|^2 dx dt +\,\displaystyle\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty u^2_x dx
dt+\displaystyle\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty x a(x)|u|^2 dx dt +\\
+\displaystyle\int_0^T\!\!\! \int_0^\infty |u|^3 dx dt\}
\leq C\,\{ \displaystyle\int_0^T V(u(t))dt
+ \int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty x a(x) u^2 dx dt
+\,\displaystyle\int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty u^2_x dx dt\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $C > 0$. Claim 5 follows
from Claim 4 and (\ref{exp-8})-(\ref{exp-9}). {\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
The previous computations give us \eqref{exp-73} (and the exponential decay)
when \\
$||u_0||_{L^2}
\leq 1$. The general case is proved as follows. Let $u_0\in
L^2_{(x+1)dx} \subset L^2$ be such that $||u_0||_{L^2} \leq R$. Since $u\in
C(\mathbb{R} ^+ ;L^2(\mathbb{R} ^+))$ and $||u(t)||_{L^2} \leq \alpha
e^{-\beta t}||u_0||_{L^2}$, where $\alpha =\alpha (R)$ and
$\beta =\beta (R)$ are
positive constants, $||u(T)||_{L^2} \leq 1$ if we pick $T$
satisfying $\alpha e^{-\beta T} R< 1$. Then, it follows from
(\ref{exp-5})-(\ref{exp-5bis}) and \eqref{exp-73} that
for some constants $\nu >0, \ c>0,\ C>0$
$$V(u(t+T)) \leq c e^{-\nu t}V(u(T)) \leq c (T||u_0||^2_{L^2} + T||u_0||_{L^2}^{\frac{10}{3}} + V(u_0)) e^{-\nu t},$$
hence
$$V(u(t)) \leq C e^{-\nu t}V(u_0),$$
where $C = C(R)$, which concludes the proof when $m=1$.
\vglue 0.2 cm
\noindent{\bf Induction Hypothesis:} There exist $c > 0$ and $\rho >0$ such that
if $V_{m-1}(u_0)\le \rho$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}V_{m}(u) - V_{m}(u_0) \hfill (*)_{m}\\
\vspace{1mm}\leq - c\{\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)
dt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}u_x^2 dx dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m} a(x) u^2dx dt \}\\
V_{m}(u_0) \hfill (**)_{m}\\
\leq c\, \{\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}u_x^2 dx dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m} a(x) u^2 dx dt \}.\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{exp-72}-\eqref{exp-74}, the induction hypothesis is true for
$m=1$. Pick now an index $m\ge 2$ and assume that $d_0, ..., d_{m-2}$ have been constructed so that
$(*)_k - (**)_k$ are fulfilled for $1\le k \le m-1$. We aim to prove that
for a convenient choice of the constant $d_{m-1}$ in \eqref{pol1}, the
properties $(*)_m-(**)_m$ hold true.
Let us investigate first $(*)_m$.
We multiply the first equation in \eqref{1} by $(x + 1)^m u$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}\label{exp-10}
\vspace{2mm}V_m(u) - V_m(u_0) - d_{m-1}(V_{m-1}(u) - V_{m-1}(u_0))\\
-\displaystyle\frac{m(m-1)(m-2)}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x +
1)^{m-3} u^2 dx dt + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)
dt\\
\vspace{2mm}+\displaystyle\frac{3m}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x +
1)^{m-1} u^2_x dx dt - \displaystyle\frac{m}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}u^2 dx dt\\ -
\displaystyle\frac{m}{3}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}u^3 dx dt
+ \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^m a(x) u^2 dx dt = 0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The next steps are devoted to estimate the terms in the above
identity. First, combining (\ref{2}) and (\ref{exp-7}) we infer the
existence of a positive constant $c > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{exp-12}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx dt \\
\vspace{1mm}= \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0} (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx dt + \int_0^T\int_{x_0}^\infty
(x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx dt \\
\vspace{1mm}\leq (x_0 + 1)^{m-1}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 dx dt +
\displaystyle\frac{1}{a_0}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x) (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2
dx dt \\
\vspace{1mm}\leq c\,\{\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2 (0,t) dt + \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} a(x)
u^2 dx dt\} \\
\leq - c\,\{V_{m-1}(u) - V_{m-1}(u_0)\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where we used $(*)_{m-1}$.
In the same way
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}\label{exp-13}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-3} u^2 dx dt \\
\leq \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx dt
\leq - c\,\{V_{m-1}(u) - V_{m-1}(u_0)\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $c > 0$ is a positive constant. Moreover, assuming
$V_{m-1}(u_0) \le \rho$ with $\rho >0$ small enough (so that by exponential
decay of $V_{m-1}(u(t))$ we have $\int_0^\infty (x+1)^{m-1}|u(x,t)|^2dx \le 1$
for all $t\ge 0$)
and proceeding as in the case $m=1$, we obtain the existence of
$\varepsilon > 0$ and $c_\varepsilon > 0$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{exp-14}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} |u|^3 dx
dt \\
\leq \varepsilon\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}
u^2_x dx dt + c_{\varepsilon}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2
dx dt.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Indeed,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\displaystyle\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} |u|^3 dx \\
&&\leq ||u||_{L^\infty}\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx
\leq \sqrt{2} ||u_x||_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}||u||_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\int_0^\infty (x+1)^{m-1}u^2 dx \nonumber \\
&&\leq \varepsilon\displaystyle\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2_x dx
+ c_\varepsilon \int_0^\infty u^2dx
+ c_{\varepsilon}\left(\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx
\right)^{2}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, if we return to (\ref{exp-10}) and take $\varepsilon <9/2$
and $d_{m-1} > 0$ large enough,
from (\ref{exp-12})-(\ref{exp-14}) if follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}\label{exp-15}
\vspace{2mm}V_m(u) - V_m(u_0) \\
\vspace{2mm}\leq
-c\,\{\displaystyle
\int_0^T u^2_x (0,t) dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2_x dx dt +
\displaystyle
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x) (x + 1)^m u^2 dx dt\}\\
+\,
\displaystyle \frac{d_{m-1}}{2} (V_{m-1}(u) - V_{m-1}(u_0)).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
This yields $(*)_m$, by $(*)_{m-1}$. Let us now check $(**)_m$.
It remains to estimate the terms in the right
hand side of (\ref{exp-15}). We multiply the first equation
in \eqref{1} by $(T-t)(x + 1)^m u$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}
\displaystyle
\frac{T}{2}\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^m u_0^2 dx = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^m
u^2 dx dt\\
\vspace{1mm}-\displaystyle\frac{m(m-1)(m-2)}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty
(T-t)(x + 1)^{m - 3}u^2 dx dt + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T
(T-t)u_x^2(0,t) dt
\\
\vspace{1mm}+\displaystyle\frac{3m}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T - t)
(x + 1)^{m-1} u^2_x dx dt - \frac{m}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T - t) (x +
1)^{m-1}u^2 dx dt\\
- \displaystyle\frac{m}{3}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T - t) (x +
1)^{m-1}u^3 dx dt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T - t)(x + 1)^m a(x) u^2 dx dt. \nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then, proceeding as above, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\int_0^T (x + 1)^m u_0^2 dx \\
\vspace{1mm}\leq c\,\{\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1} u^2 dx dt + \int_0^T
u_x^2(0,t) dt + \int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}u_x^2 dx dt\\
\vspace{1mm}+ \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^m a(x) u^2 dx dt\}\\
\leq c\{\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t) dt +
\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^{m-1}u_x ^2 dx dt +
\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (x + 1)^m a(x) u^2 dx dt
\}.\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Combined to $(**)_{m-1}$, this yields $(**)_m$. This completes the construction
of the sequence $\{ V_m\}_{m\ge 1}$ by induction.
Let us now check the exponential decay of $V_m$ for $m\ge 2$. It follows from
$(*)_m-(**)_{m}$ that
$$V_m(u) - V_m(u_0) \leq - c\,V_m(u_0)$$
where $c > 0$, which completes the proof when $V_{m-1}(u_0)\le \rho$. The global result ($V_{m-1} (u_0)\leq R$) is obtained as above for $m=1$.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
\begin{corollary}\label{c3}
Let $a=a(x)$ fulfilling (\ref{2}) and $a\in W^{2,\infty }(0,\infty)$. Then for any
$R>0$, there exist positive constants $c=c(R)$ and $\mu = \mu (R)$ such that
\begin{equation}
||u_x(t)||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \leq c \frac{e^{-\mu t}}{\sqrt{t}}
||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}
\label{L4}
\end{equation}
for all $t>0$ and all $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)dx}$ satisfying
$|| u_0 ||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}\le R$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Pick any $R>0$ and any $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)dx}$ with
$||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}\le R$. By Theorem \ref{dec-pol}
there are some constants $C=C(R)$ and $\nu =\nu (R)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{L4bis}
|| u(t) ||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}} \le C e^{-\nu t} ||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}.
\end{equation}
Using the multiplier $t(u^2 + 2 u_{xx})$ we obtain after some integrations by parts
that for all $0<t_1<t_2$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&t_2\int_0^\infty u_x^2(x,t_2) dx +
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} tu_x^2 (0,t) dt + 2\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty t
a(x)u_x^2 dx dt + \int_{t_1}^{t_2} t u_{xx}^2 (0,t) dt\nonumber\\
&&=-\frac{1}{3}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty u^3 dx
dt + \frac{t_2}{3}\int_0^\infty u^3(x,t_2) dx +
\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty t u^3
a(x)dx dt \nonumber\\
&&+\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty u_x^2 dxdt +
\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\!\!\!\int_0^\infty t a''(x) u^2 dx dt.
\label{L5}
\end{eqnarray}
1. Let us assume first that $T>1$. Applying \eqref{L5} on the time interval
$[T-1,T]$, we infer that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^\infty |u_x(x,T)|^2 dx
\leq c\left(\int_{T-1}^T\!\int_0^\infty |u|^3 dx dt +
||u(T)||^3_{L^3(\mathbb R ^+)} + \int_{T-1}^T||u||^2_{H^1(\mathbb R ^+)} dt\right) .
\label{L8}
\end{equation}
To estimate the cubic terms in \eqref{L8}, we use \eqref{exp-5bis} to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int_0^\infty |u_x(x,T)|^2dx \le \varepsilon \int_0^\infty |u_x(x,T)|^2dx
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad + c_\varepsilon\big( ||u(T)||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}^{\frac{10}{3}} + \int_{T-1}^T
(||u||^2_{H^1(\mathbb R ^+)} + ||u||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}^{\frac{10}{3}})dt\big).
\label{L9}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that by \eqref{L4bis}
$$
||u(T)||_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}^{\frac{10}{3}}
\le (C e^{-\nu T}||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}} )^{\frac{10}{3}}
\le C^{\frac{10}{3}} R^{\frac{4}{3}} e^{-\nu T}||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}} .$$
It follows from \eqref{exp-5}, \eqref{exp-5bis}, and \eqref{L4bis} that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int_{T-1}^T(||u||^2_{H^1(\mathbb R ^+)} + ||u||^{\frac{10}{3}}_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)})dt
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad \le C\left( V_1(u(T-1))+ \int_{T-1}^T
\big( ||u||^2_{L^2 (\mathbb R ^+)} +||u||^{\frac{10}{3}}_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}\big) dt \right)
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad \le C e^{-\nu T}||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}\label{L10}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C=C(R,\nu)$.
\eqref{L4} for $T\ge 1$ follows from \eqref{L9} and \eqref{L10} by choosing
$\varepsilon <1$ and $\mu < \nu$.\\
2. Assume now that $T\le 1$. Estimating again the cubic terms in \eqref{L5}
(with $[t_1,t_2]=[0,T]$) by using \eqref{exp-5bis}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
T\int_0^\infty u_x^2(x,T)dx
&\le& \frac{T}{3}
\left( \varepsilon ||u_x(T)||^2_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+ )}
+C_\varepsilon ||u(T)||^{\frac{10}{3}}_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \right) \nonumber\\
&&\quad +C_\varepsilon \int_0^T (||u||^2_{H^1(\mathbb R ^+)}
+||u||^{\frac{10}{3}}_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)}) dt.
\label{L6}
\end{eqnarray}
By \eqref{exp-5}, \eqref{exp-5bis} and \eqref{L4bis}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^\infty |u_x|^2dxdt \le C(R) ||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}
\label{L7}
\end{equation}
which, combined to \eqref{L6} with $\varepsilon =1$ and \eqref{L4bis}, gives
$$
||u_x(T)||^2_{L^2(\mathbb R ^+)} \le C(R)T^{-1}||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)dx}}
$$
for all $T<1$. This gives \eqref{L4} for $T<1$.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
Corollary \ref{c3} may be extended (locally) to the weighted space $L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}$ ($m\ge 2$) in following the method of proof
of \cite[Theorem 1.1]{pazoto-rosier}.
\begin{corollary}\label{c4}
Let $a=a(x)$ fulfilling \eqref{2} and $m\ge 2$. Then there exist some
constants $\rho >0$, $C>0$ and $\mu >0$ such that
$$||u(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}} \leq C \frac{e^{-\mu t}}{\sqrt{t}}
||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}$$
for all $t>0$ and all $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}$ satisfying
$|| u_0 ||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}\le \rho$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
We first prove estimates for the linearized problem
\begin{eqnarray}
&&u_t+u_x+u_{xxx}+au=0 \label{W1}\\
&&u(0,t)=0 \label{W2} \\
&&u(x,0)=u_0(x) \label{W3}
\end{eqnarray}
and next apply a perturbation argument to extend them to the nonlinear
problem \eqref{1}. Let us denote by $W(t)u_0=u(t)$ the solution of \eqref{W1}-\eqref{W3}.
By computations similar to those performed in the proof of Theorem \ref{dec-pol}, we have that
\begin{equation*}
||W(t)u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}} \le C_0 e^{-\nu t}||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}.
\end{equation*}
We need the\\
{\sc Claim 6.} Let $k\in \{ 0, ... , 3\}$. Then there exists a constant $C_k>0$
such that for any $u_0\in H^k_{ (x+1)^m dx}$,
\begin{equation}
||W(t)u_0||_{H^k_{(x+1)^m dx}} \le C_k e^{-\nu t}
||u_0||_{H^k_{(x+1)^m dx}}.
\label{L12}
\end{equation}
Indeed, if $u_0\in H^3_{(x+1)^mdx}$, then $u_t(.,0)\in L^2_{(x+1)^{m-3}dx}$, and
since $v=u_t$ solves \eqref{W1}-\eqref{W2}, we also have that
$$
||u_t(.,t)||_{L^2_{ (x+1)^{m-3} dx}} \le C_0 e^{-\nu t}
||u_t(.,0)||_{L^2_{(x+1)^{m-3}dx}}.
$$
Using \eqref{W1}, this gives
$$
||W(t)u_0||_{H^3_{(x+1)^m dx}} \le C_3 e^{-\nu t}
||u_0||_{H^3_{(x+1)^mdx}}.
$$
This proves \eqref{L12} for $k=3$. The fact that \eqref{L12} is valid for
$k=1,2$ follows from a standard interpolation argument, for
$H^k_{(x+1)^mdx}=[H^0_{(x+1)^m dx},H^3_{(x+1)^mdx}]_{\frac{k}{3}}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l2}
Pick any number $\mu \in (0,\nu)$. Then there exists some constant
$C=C(\mu )>0$ such that for any $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}$
\begin{equation}
||W(t)u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}} \le C \frac{e^{-\mu t}}{\sqrt{t}}
||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}\cdot
\label{W100}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
Let $u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$ and set $u(t)=W(t)u_0$ for all $t\ge 0$.
By scaling in \eqref{W1} by $(x+1)^mu$, we see that for some constant
$C_K=C_K(T)$
$$
||u||_{L^2(0,1;H^1_{(x+1)^mdx})} \le C_K
||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}}\cdot
$$
This implies that $u(t)\in H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}$ for a.e. $t\in (0,1)$ which,
combined to \eqref{L12}, gives that $u(t)\in H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}$ for all $t>0$.
Pick any $T\in (0,1]$. Note that, by \eqref{L12},
\begin{equation}\label{W4}
||u(T)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}} \leq C_1 e^{-\nu (T-t)}
||u(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}}, \quad \forall t\in (0,T).
\end{equation}
Integrating with respect to $t$ in \eqref{W4} yields
$$[C_1^{-1}||u(T)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}}]^2\int_0^T e^{2\nu (T-t)}dt
\leq \int_0^T ||u(t)||^2_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}}dt,$$
and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
||u(T)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}} &\leq&
C_K\,C_1 \sqrt{\frac{2\nu}{e^{2\nu T}-1}}
||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}\\
&\leq& \frac{C_K\,C_1}{\sqrt{T}}||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}
\end{eqnarray*}
for $0<T\le 1$. Therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{W5}
||u(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}} \le C_K\, C_1 e^\nu
\frac{e^{-\nu t}}{\sqrt{t}} ||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}
\qquad \forall t\in (0,1).
\end{equation}
\eqref{W100} follows from \eqref{W5} and \eqref{L12}, since
$\mu < \nu$.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
Let us return to the proof of Corollary \ref{c4}. Fix a number $\mu\in (0,\nu )$,
where $\nu$ is as in \eqref{L12}, and let us introduce the space
$$
F=\{u\in C(\mathbb R ^+; H^1_{ (x+1)^m dx}); \quad
||e^{\mu t} u(t)||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+; H^1_{(x+1)^mdx })} <\infty \}
$$
endowed with its natural norm. Note that \eqref{1} may be recast in the
following integral form
\begin{equation}
\label{W6}
u(t)=W(t)u_0 +\int_0^t W(t-s) N(u(s))\, ds
\end{equation}
where $N(u)=-uu_x$. We first show that \eqref{W6} has a solution in $F$
provided that
$u_0\in H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}$ with $||u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}}$ small enough.
Let $u_0\in H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}$ and $u\in F$ with
$||u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}}\le r_0$ and $||u||_F\le R$, $r_0$ and $R$
being chosen later. We introduce the map $\Gamma$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{gama}
(\Gamma u)(t)=W(t)u_0+\int_0^t W(t-s)N(u(s))\, ds\qquad \forall t\ge 0.
\end{equation}
We shall prove that $\Gamma$ has a fixed point in the closed ball
$B_R(0)\subset F$ provided that $r_0>0$ is small enough.
For the forcing problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
u_t + u_x + u_{xxx} +au = f\\
u(0,t) = 0 \\
u(x,0) = u_0(x)\nonumber
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
we have the following estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}||u(t)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}} +
\int_0^T \!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)^{m-1} u_x^2 dxdt\\
&&\qquad \leq C\,\left(||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx }} +
||f||^2_{L^1(0,T;L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}} \right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Let us take $f=N(u)=-uu_x$. Observe that for all $x>0$
\begin{eqnarray*}
(x+1) u^2(x)
& = & \left\vert \int_0^\infty \frac{d}{dx}[(x+1)u^2(x)]dx \right\vert \\
&\le& C\left(
\int_0^\infty (x+1)^m |u|^2 dx +
\int_0^\infty (x+1)^{m-1} |u_x|^2 dx \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
whenever $m\ge 2$. It follows that for some constant $K>0$
\begin{eqnarray*}
||uu_x||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}}
&\le& ||(x+1) u^2||_{L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+ )} \int_0^\infty (x+1)^{m-1}|u_x|^2dx\\
&\le& K ||u||^4_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, for any $T>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{0\le t\le T} ||(\Gamma u)(t)||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}}
+ \int_0^T\!\!\!\int_0^\infty (x+1)^{m-1}|(\Gamma u)_x|^2dxdt \nonumber\\
&&\qquad \le C\left( ||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx }} +
\big(\int_0^T||u(t)||^2_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx }}dt \big)^2 \right) <\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $\Gamma u\in C(\mathbb R ^+, L^2_{(x+1)^mdx})\cap
L^2_{loc}(\mathbb R ^+; H^1_{(x+1)^m dx})$ with $(\Gamma u)(0)=u_0$.
We claim that $\Gamma u\in F$. Indeed, by \eqref{L12},
$$
||e^{\mu t} W(t) u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}} \le C_1
||u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}}
$$
and for all $t\ge 0$
\begin{eqnarray*}
||e^{\mu t} \int_0^t W(t-s) N(u(s)) ds||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}}
&\le& C e^{\mu t} \int_0^t
\frac{e^{-\mu (t-s)}}{\sqrt{t-s}} ||N(u(s))||_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}} ds\\
&\le& C\int_0^t \frac{e^{\mu s}}{\sqrt{t-s}}
K (e^{-\mu s}||u||_F)^2 ds \\
&\le& CK||u||^2_F \int_0^t\frac{e^{-\mu (t-s)}}{\sqrt{s}}ds\\
&\le& CK (2+\mu ^{-1}) ||u||^2_F
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used Lemma \ref{l2}.
Pick $R>0$ such that $CK(2 + \mu ^{-1})R \leq\frac{1}{2}$, and $r_0$ such that $C_1r_0 = \frac{R}{2}$. Then,
for $||u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}} \leq r_0$ and $||u||_F \leq R$, we obtain that
$$||e^{\mu t}(\Gamma u)(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}} \leq C_1r_0 +
CK(2 + \mu ^{-1})R^2 \leq R, \quad t \geq 0.$$
Hence $\Gamma$ maps the ball $B_R(0)\subset F$ into itself. Similar computations show that
$\Gamma$ contracts. By the contraction mapping theorem, $\Gamma$
has a unique fixed point $u$ in $B_R(0)$. Thus
$||u(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}} \le Ce^{-\mu t}||u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}}$
provided that $||u_0||_{H^1_{(x+1)^m dx}} \le r_0$ with
$r_0$ small enough. Proceeding as in the proof
of Lemma \ref{l2}, we have that
$$
||u(t)||_{H^1_{(x+1)^mdx}}
\le C\frac{e^{-\mu t}}{\sqrt{t}} ||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}}
\qquad \mbox{ for } 0<t<1,$$
provided that $||u_0||_{L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}} \le \rho _0$ with $\rho _0<1$
small enough. The proof is complete with a decay rate $\mu' < \mu $.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
\begin{corollary}
\label{c5}
Assume that $a(x)$ satisfies \eqref{2} and that $\partial _x^ka\in L^\infty (\mathbb R ^+)$
for all $k\ge 0$. Pick any
$u_0\in L^2_{(x+1)^m dx}$. Then for all $\varepsilon >0$, all
$T>\varepsilon$, and all $k\in \{1 ,... , m\}$, there exists a constant
$C=C(\varepsilon,T, k)>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_\varepsilon^\infty (x+1)^{m-k} |\partial_x^k u(x,t)|^2dx
\le C||u_0||^2_{L^2_{(x+1)^mdx}}\qquad \forall t\in [\varepsilon ,T].
\end{eqnarray}
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\bf Proof.}
The proof is very similar to the one in \cite[Lemma 5.1]{KF} and so we
only point out the small changes.
First, it should be noticed that the presence in the KdV equation
of the extra terms $u_x$
and $a(x)u$ does not cause any serious trouble. On the other hand, choosing
a cut-off function in $x$ of the form
$\eta(x)=\psi _0 (x/\varepsilon)$ (instead of $\eta (x)=\psi _0(x-x_0+2)$
as in \cite{KF})
where $\psi _0\in C^\infty (\mathbb R , [0,1])$ satisfies $\psi_0(x)=0$ for
$x\le 1/2$ and $\psi_0(x)=1$ for $x\ge 1$, allows to overcome the fact
that $u$ is a solution of \eqref{1} on the half-line only.
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
\subsection{Decay in $L^2_b$}
This section is devoted to the exponential decay in
$L^2_b$. Our result reads as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{dec-exp}
Assume that the function $a=a(x)$
satisfies \eqref{2} with $4 b^3 + b < a_0$.
Then, for all $R>0$,
there exist $C > 0$ and $\nu > 0$, such that
$$||u(t)||_{L^2_b} \leq C e^{-\nu t}||u_0||_{L^2_b} \qquad t\ge 0$$
for any solution $u$ given by Theorem \ref{global-exp}.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} We introduce the Lyapunov function
\begin{equation}\label{exp1}
V(u) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx +
c_b\int_0^\infty u^2 dx,
\end{equation}
where $c_b$ is a positive constant that will be chosen later. Then,
adding (\ref{fp30}) and (\ref{fp-4}) hand by hand we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{exp3}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}V(u) - V(u_0) = \displaystyle(4b^3 +
b)\int_0^T\int_{x_0}^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt
+ \displaystyle(4b^3 + b)\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0} u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt\\
\vspace{1mm}\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-\,\,3b\,\displaystyle\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty
u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt +\frac{2b}{3}\int_0^T \int_0^\infty u^3
e^{2bx}dx
dt\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad- \,(c_b + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2})\int_0^T
u_x^2(0,t)dt - \,\, \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty
a(x)|u|^2 (e^{2bx} +2c_b) dxdt,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $x_0$ is the number introduced in \eqref{2}.
On the other hand, since $L^2_b \subset L^2_{(x+1)dx}$,
$||u(t)||_{L^2(0,\infty)}$ and $||u_x(t)||_{L^2(0,\infty)}$ decays
to zero exponentially. Consequently, from Moser estimate
we deduce that $||u(t)||_{L^\infty (0,\infty)}\rightarrow0$.
We may assume that $(2b/3)||u(t)||_{L^\infty} <\varepsilon =a_0-(4b^3+b)$
for all $t\ge 0$, by changing $u_0$ into $u(t_0)$ for $t_0$ large enough.
Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{exp3.1}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\frac{2b}{3}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty |u|^3 e^{2bx}dx dt\\
\leq
\displaystyle\frac{2b}{3}\int_0^T ||u(t)||_{L^\infty(0,\infty)}
\left( \int_0^\infty |u|^2 e^{2bx}dx\right) dt
\leq \varepsilon \int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx}dx dt.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
So, returning to (\ref{exp3}), the following
holds
\begin{equation}\label{exp4}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}V(u) - V(u_0)
-(4b^3+b +\varepsilon )\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0} u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt\\
+3b\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt +
(c_b + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2})\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt +2 c_b
\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x)|u|^2dxdt \leq 0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Moreover, according to \cite{linares-pazoto} there exists $C > 0$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0} u^2 e^{2bx} dx dt\\
\leq
e^{2bx_0}\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^{x_0} u^2 dx dt \leq C\,\{
\displaystyle\int_0^T u^2_x(0,t)dt +
\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^{\infty} a(x) u^2 dx dt \}\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{equation}
since $L^2_b \subset L^2(\mathbb R ^+)$. Then, choosing $c_b$ sufficiently large,
the above estimate and (\ref{exp4}) give us that
\begin{equation}\label{exp5}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}V(u) - V(u_0) \leq - C\,\{\displaystyle\int_0^T
u_x^2(0,t)dt + \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty a(x) u^2
dx dt\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + \displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt\}\leq - C\,V(u_0),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
which allows to conclude that $V(u)$ decays exponentially. The last
inequality is a consequence of the following results:
{\sc Claim 7.} There exists a positive constant $C>0$, such that
$$\int_0^T V(u(t)) dt \leq C \int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt.
$$
First, observe that
$$|\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx| = |-\frac{1}{b}\int_0^\infty uu_x e^{2bx}dx|
\leq \frac{1}{b} (\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx}
dx)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
therefore,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}\label{exp5.1}
\displaystyle\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dx \leq
\frac{1}{b^2}\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then, from (\ref{2}) and (\ref{exp5.1}) we have
\begin{equation*}
V(u(t)) \le (\frac{1}{2} + c_b) \int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx}dx
\le (\frac{1}{2} + c_b)b^{-2} \int_0^\infty u_x^2 e^{2bx}dx
\end{equation*}
which gives us Claim 7.
{\sc Claim 8.}
$$V(u_0) \leq C\,\{ \displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt +
\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u_x^2 e^{2bx} dxdt +
\displaystyle\int_0^T V(u(t)) dt\},$$ where $C$ is a positive constant.
Multiplying the first equation in (\ref{1}) by $(T-t)ue^{2bx}$ and
integrating by parts in $(0,\infty)\times (0,T)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{exp7}
\begin{array}{l}
\vspace{1mm}-\displaystyle\frac{T}{2}\int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2
e^{2bx} dx + \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty |u|^2 e^{2bx} dx dt
+\,3b\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T-t) u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt\\
\vspace{1mm}+ \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \int_0^T (T - t) u_x^2(0,t)dt
- \displaystyle(4b^3 + b)\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T- t) u^2 e^{2bx} dx
dt\\
+\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty (T - t) a(x)|u|^2 e^{2bx} dxdt
-\frac{2b}{3}\int_0^T \int_0^\infty (T - t) u^3 e^{2bx}dx dt= 0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{exp8}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \int_0^\infty |u_0(x)|^2 e^{2bx}
dx \leq C (\displaystyle\int_0^T u_x^2(0,t)dt +
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2 e^{2bx} dxdt
\\+\,\displaystyle\int_0^T\int_0^\infty u^2_x e^{2bx} dx dt
+\displaystyle\int_0^T
\int_0^\infty |u|^3 e^{2bx}dx dt).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then, combining (\ref{exp5.1}) and
(\ref{exp3.1}), we derive Claim 8. \eqref{exp5} follows at once.
This proves the exponential decay when $||u(t)||_{L^\infty}\le
3\varepsilon/(2b)$. The general case is obtained as in Theorem \ref{dec-pol}
{\hfill$\quad$\qd\\}
\begin{corollary}
\label{c6}
Assume that the function $a=a(x)$
satisfies \eqref{2} with $4 b^3 + b < a_0$.
Then for any $R>0$, there exist positive constants
$c=c(R)$ and $\mu = \mu (R)$ such that
\begin{equation}
||u_x(t)||_{L^2_b} \leq c
\frac{e^{-\mu t}}{\sqrt{t}}
||u_0||_{L^2_b}
\end{equation}
for all $t>0$ and all $u_0\in L^2_b$ satisfying
$||u_0||_{L^2_b}\le R$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{c7}
Assume that the function $a=a(x)$
satisfies \eqref{2} with $4 b^3 + b < a_0$, and let $s\ge 2$.
Then there exist some constants $\rho >0$, $C>0$ and $\mu >0$ such that
$$||u(t)||_{ H^s_b } \leq C \frac{e^{-\mu t}}{t^{\frac{s}{2}}}
||u_0||_{ L^2_b }$$
for all $t>0$ and all $u_0\in L^2_b$ satisfying
$|| u_0 ||_{L^2_b}\le \rho$.
\end{corollary}
The proof of Corollary \ref{c6} (resp. \ref{c7}) is very similar to the proof
of Corollary \ref{c3} (resp. \ref{c4}), so it is omitted.
\section*{Acknowledgments.} This work was achieved while the first author
(AP) was visiting Universit\'e Paris-Sud with the support of the
Cooperation Agreement Brazil-France and the second author (LR) was visiting
IMPA and UFRJ.
LR was partially supported by the ``Agence Nationale de la Recherche'' (ANR), Project CISIFS, Grant ANR-09-BLAN-0213-02.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The reactions $e^+e^-\rightarrow W^+W^-$ and $e^+e^-\rightarrow$~\mbox{${W e} \nu $}\ can be used to test the non-Abelian nature of the Standard Model (SM) by studying the trilinear couplings of the electroweak bosons~\cite{YELTGC}. In this paper, data from the final states \jjlv, \jjjj, \jjX{} and \lX{} (where $j$ represents a quark jet, $\ell$ an identified lepton and $X$ missing four-momentum) taken by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} at centre-of-mass energies from 189~to 209~GeV are used to determine the values of the coupling parameters which describe the trilinear $WWZ$ and $WW\gamma$ interactions.
The $WWV$ vertex ($V \equiv Z$~or~$\gamma$) can be described by an effective Lagrangian with 14 parameters~\cite{YELTGC,HAGIWARA}. The set of parameters is reduced to five by assuming electromagnetic gauge invariance and by restricting the contributions in the effective Lagrangian to operators which are $C, P$-conserving. A further reduction is then achieved by extracting from the $CP$-conserving Lagrangian those terms which satisfy $\mathrm{SU(2)\otimes U(1)}$ gauge invariance, are not constrained by existing low-energy data, and are of lowest dimension ($\mathrm{\le 6}$). This leads to a set of three independent parameters, which are studied by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}\ in the present paper: $\Delta g^Z_1$, the difference between the overall $WWZ$ coupling and its SM value, $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$, the deviation of the dipole coupling $\kappa_\gamma$ from its SM value, and the quadrupole coupling, $\lambda_\gamma$. The imposition of gauge invariance implies relations between the dipole couplings $\kappa_\gamma$ and $\kappa_Z$ and between the quadrupole couplings $\lambda_\gamma$ and $\lambda_Z$, namely:
$\Delta\kappa_Z = \Delta g^Z_1 - \frac{\sin^2\theta_W}{\cos^2\theta_W}\Delta\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_Z = \lambda_{\gamma}$,
where $\theta_W$ is the electroweak mixing angle. The terms in the effective Lagrangian which conserve $CP$, as well as $C$ and $P$ separately, correspond to the lowest order terms in a multipole expansion of $W$-$\gamma$ interactions:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn_multipole}
Q_W &=eg^{\gamma}_1 \, ,\\
\label{eqn_muw}
\mu_W &=\frac{e}{2m_W}(g^{\gamma}_1+\kappa_{\gamma}+\lambda_{\gamma}) \\
\label{eqn_qw}
{\mathrm and} \ \ q_W &=-\frac{e}{m^2_W}(\kappa_{\gamma}-\lambda_{\gamma}) \, ,
\end{align}
\noindent where $Q_W$, $\mu_W$, and $q_W$ are respectively the charge, the magnetic dipole moment, and the electric quadrupole moment of the $W^+$. It may be noted that electromagnetic gauge invariance, invoked above, implies the value $g^{\gamma}_1 = 1$ in these relations.
The diagrams which contribute to $W^+W^-${} production are shown in figures~\ref{fig_tgc}(a) and~(b). The $WWV$ vertex only occurs via the $s$-channel diagram shown in figure~\ref{fig_tgc}(a) and not in the $t$-channel diagram, shown in figure~\ref{fig_tgc}(b), which leads to the same final states. This reaction is studied in this paper in the final states where one $W$ boson decays to hadrons and the other decays into leptons, \jjlv, and when both $W$ bosons decay into hadrons, \jjjj. The $WW\gamma$ vertex alone is also accessible at \mbox{\scshape Lep2}{} through single $W$ production and is shown in figure~\ref{fig_tgc}(c). This process contributes significantly in the kinematic region where the final state electron is emitted at a small angle and is studied here in two final state topologies: \lX, where the $W$ boson decays into a lepton and a neutrino, and \jjX, where the $W$ decays into a pair of quarks.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering\epsfig{file=figures/WWV.ps,bbllx=245,bblly=618,bburx=370,bbury=725,height=0.75\textwidth,clip}
{(a)}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering\epsfig{file=figures/WWV.ps,bbllx=245,bblly=485,bburx=370,bbury=592,height=0.75\textwidth,clip}
{(b)}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering\epsfig{file=figures/WWV.ps,bbllx=245,bblly=180,bburx=380,bbury=287,height=0.75\textwidth,clip}
{(c)}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Diagrams contributing to $W^+W^-$~and $We\nu$ production at \mbox{\scshape Lep2}.
(a) and (b) are the diagrams which describe $W^+W^-${} production
and (c) describes $We\nu$ production. The trilinear gauge boson vertices are denoted by
shaded circles.}
\label{fig_tgc}
\end{figure}
\mbox{\scshape Delphi}\ has previously published results on charged trilinear gauge coupling parameters using data from $WW$ and \mbox{${W e} \nu $}\ production at energies up to 189~GeV~\cite{DELPHI_TGC172,DELPHI_TGC183,DELPHI_TGC189}, and a spin density matrix analysis of \mbox{\scshape Delphi}\ data from the \jjev\ and \jjmv\ final states at energies up to 209~GeV has been used to determine both $CP$-conserving and $CP$-violating couplings~\cite{DELPHI_SDM}. The results presented here supersede all those on $CP$-conserving couplings in these publications. Results at energies up to 209~GeV from the other \mbox{\scshape Lep}\ collaborations can be found in references~\cite{RESULTS_ALEPH,RESULTS_L3,RES_SINGLEW_L3,RESULTS_OPAL}.
The \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} detector is described in section~\ref{sec_delphi}. The data
and simulation samples are described in section~\ref{sec_data}, the event
selection is discussed in section~\ref{sec_selection} and
section~\ref{sec_analysis} describes the analysis techniques used in the
extraction of the couplings from the data. The different sources of
systematic uncertainties are discussed in section~\ref{sec_systematics}
and the results from fits to the data are given in section~\ref{sec_results}.
The conclusions are presented in section~\ref{sec_conclusions}.
\section{The DELPHI detector}
\label{sec_delphi}
The \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} detector and its performance are described in detail in~\cite{DELPHI,DELPHI_PERFORMANCE}. For \mbox{\scshape Lep2}{} operation a number of changes were made to the sub-detectors, the trigger~\cite{TRIGGER}, the run control system and the track reconstruction algorithms to improve the performance. The angular coverage of the Vertex Detector was extended~\cite{SITRACKER} to cover polar angles\footnote{The \mbox{\scshape Delphi}\ coordinate system has $z$~axis in the direction of the incoming $e^-$ beam. The polar angle $\theta$ is defined with respect to this direction, and the $\mbox{$r\phi$}$ plane is perpendicular to the $z$~axis.} in the range $11^\circ < \theta < 169^\circ$ with the inclusion of the Very Forward Tracker. Together with improved tracking algorithms, alignment and calibration procedures, this resulted in an increased track reconstruction efficiency in the forward region of \mbox{\scshape Delphi}.
During the final year of operation, one sector of the twelve that constituted the central tracking device (TPC) ceased to function. This affected around a quarter of the data collected in 2000. The tracking algorithms were modified in this sector so as to reconstruct tracks from the signals in the other tracking detectors.
\section{Data samples}
\label{sec_data}
A total integrated luminosity of around 600~pb$^{-1}$ was collected by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} between 1998 and 2000. Table~\ref{tab_lumi} shows the
integrated luminosity available at each energy and the luminosity-weighted centre-of-mass energies. The luminosity was determined from Bhabha scattering measurements~\cite{LUMI}.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Luminosity-weighted $\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) \vline & Hadronic $L$
(pb$^{-1}$) \vline & Leptonic $L$ (pb$^{-1}$) \\
\hline
\hline
188.63 & 154.4 & 153.8 \\
191.58 & \ 25.2 & \ 24.5 \\
195.51 & \ 76.1 & \ 72.0 \\
199.51 & \ 82.8 & \ 81.8 \\
201.64 & \ 40.3 & \ 39.7 \\
204.81 & \ 82.6 & \ 74.9 \\
206.55 & 135.8 & 123.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The centre-of-mass energies weighted by the integrated luminosity
($L$) for each of the \mbox{\scshape Lep2}~data taking periods. The hadronic
luminosity was used in the fully hadronic selection and the leptonic
luminosity was used in the other channels. The different luminosities
are due to tighter requirements being made on the detectors used for lepton
identification in the semi-leptonic channels.}
\label{tab_lumi}
\end{table}
All four-fermion final states were generated with the four-fermion generator WPHACT~\cite{WPHACT1,WPHACT2}, set up as described in~\cite{WPHAC_SETUP}. The most recent radiative corrections to the $W$ pair production cross-section, calculated in the so-called
Double Pole Approximation (DPA), were included via an interface to YFSWW~\cite{YFSWW}.
The background from two-fermion production was simulated using KK2f~\cite{KK2f} and KoralZ~\cite{KoralZ}. Additional background contributions from two-photon production were generated using BDK~\cite{BDK} and BDKRC~\cite{BDKRC}. All of the generators were interfaced to the PYTHIA~\cite{PYTHIA1,PYTHIA2} hadronisation model tuned to the \mbox{\scshape Delphi}\ data collected at the $Z$ resonance~\cite{TUNING}.
The large simulated samples (about 1M charged current four-fermion events, 500K neutral current four-fermion events and 1M two-fermion events at each energy) were interfaced to the full \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} simulation program DELSIM~\cite{DELPHI,DELPHI_PERFORMANCE} and passed through the same reconstruction chain as the experimental data. In order to allow analysis of data taken during the period when one part of the TPC was inoperative (as described in section~\ref{sec_delphi} above), additional samples were generated with the detector simulation modified to model this situation.
\section{Event selection}
\label{sec_selection}
In this section, the selection of events in the various final state topologies used in the determination of the coupling parameters is described.
Events selected for analysis from the $WW$ final state came from the semi-leptonic channel, \jjlv, and from the fully hadronic channel, \jjjj. The semi-leptonic final state was divided into three further channels, \jjev, \jjmv{} and \jjtv; in the case of \jjtv\ production, only events with the tau decaying into a single charged track were considered. Events in the semi-leptonic final state are therefore characterised by two or more hadronic jets, an isolated lepton -- this comes directly from the decay of the $W$ or from the cascade decay of the tau lepton -- or a low multiplicity jet due to a hadronic tau decay, and missing momentum from the neutrino(s). The main backgrounds come from $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ production and from four-fermion final states of two quarks and two leptons of the same flavour. The analysis of the fully hadronic final state from $WW$ production involved a search for four-jet events in which the di-jet invariant masses of one of the pairings into two di-jets were compatible with the $W$ mass. Here, also, $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ production represents a major source of background, with some contamination also from $ZZ$ decays into $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$\ and $q{\bar q}\tau^+\tau^-$.
Events from single $W$ production, \mbox{${W e} \nu $}, were selected in the kinematic region where the final state electron is very close to the beam direction and remains undetected. Final states with hadronic $W$ decays and with leptonic decays into electron or muon and a neutrino were considered, so that the topologies analysed were \jjX\ and \lX, with $l \equiv e, \mu$ and $X$ representing missing momentum. The main background contributing to the \jjX\ topology came from $q\bar{q}\tau\bar{\nu}$\ production. In the $eX$ channel the major source of background was from $e^+e^-\gamma (\gamma)$ production with one electron (or positron) and the final state photon(s) unobserved, while in the $\mu X$ topology the main backgrounds were from $ee\mu\mu$ production, mainly via two-photon processes, and from $\mu\mu\gamma$ production. Some of these background processes (such as $q\bar{q}\tau\bar{\nu}$\ production) themselves contain triple gauge boson vertices in their production mechanisms, and thus contribute to the precision of the results.
Full details of the event reconstruction procedure adopted, and of the selection of events in the channels considered here from $WW$ production can be found in~\cite{WWXSEC}, \mbox{\scshape Delphi}'s report on the measurement of the $WW$ production cross-section, while the selection procedure for events in the \mbox{${W e} \nu $}\ final state is very similar to that used in our previous publication of charged trilinear gauge boson couplings at 189~GeV~\cite{DELPHI_TGC189}. In the following sections, a summary of these procedures is given.
The total numbers of events selected at each centre-of-mass energy are given in table~\ref{tab_events}. The table also gives examples (at 200~GeV) of the event selection efficiencies and estimated background cross-sections; the errors on these cross-sections are treated as a systematic uncertainty and are discussed in section~\ref{sec_systematics}.
\subsection{Particle selection}
Reconstructed charged particles were required to have momentum greater than 0.1~GeV/$c$ and less than 1.5~times the beam momentum, a relative momentum error less than~1, an impact parameter in $\mbox{$r\phi$}$ less than 4~cm, and a $z$ impact parameter less than 4~cm/$\sin\theta$. Neutral clusters were required to have energy exceeding 300~MeV in the barrel electromagnetic calorimeter (HPC) and exceeding 400~MeV and 300~MeV in the two forward electromagnetic calorimeters (FEMC and STIC, respectively). Electron identification was based on the association of energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeters with momentum measurements in the tracking chambers (the Inner Detector and the TPC) and, in the case of lower energy candidates, with energy loss measurements in the TPC. Muon candidates were identified by extrapolating tracks through the entire detector and associating them with energy deposits recorded in the hadron calorimeter (HCAL) and hits recorded in the muon chambers.
\subsection{Selection of events in the \jjlv\ final state}
\label{sec_sel_jjlv}
The selection of events in the semi-leptonic final state involved cut-based selections, followed by the application of an Iterative Discriminant Analysis (IDA)~\cite{IDA1,IDA2}.
An initial hadronic pre-selection was applied where at least 5~charged particles were required, the energy of the charged particles had to be at least 10\% of the centre-of-mass energy, and the following condition was imposed: $\sqrt{EMF_f^2+EMF_b^2} < 0.9\times E_{beam}$, where $EMF_{f,b}$ are the total energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeters in the forward and backward directions, defined as two cones around the beam axes of half-angle~20$^{\circ}$\ .
At this point a search was made for leptons, allowing each event to have up to three lepton candidates, one of each flavour. Of the electrons found in the particle selection procedure, the one with the highest value of $E \times \theta_{iso}$ was chosen as the electron candidate. Here $E$ is the measured electron energy and $\theta_{iso}$ is the isolation angle of the electron track, defined as the angle made to the closest charged particle with momentum greater than 1~GeV/$c$. The candidate was then required to have energy greater than 15~GeV. Similarly, an identified muon track with momentum~$p$ was selected if it had the highest value of $p \times \theta_{iso}$ and if its momentum exceeded 15~GeV/$c$. The event was then clustered into jets using LUCLUS~\cite{PYTHIA1,PYTHIA2} with $d_{join}$ = 6.5~GeV/$c$. Particles were removed from the jets if they were at an angle greater than~20$^{\circ}$\ to the highest energy particle and the remaining jet with the lowest momentum-weighted spread\footnote{defined as $\frac{\sum_{i} \theta_i\cdot |p_i|}{\sum_{i} |p_i|}$ where $\theta_i$ is the angle made by the momentum $p_i$ of the $i$th particle in the jet with the total jet momentum.} was considered as a tau candidate. Particles were removed from this jet if they were at angle greater than~8$^{\circ}$\ from the jet axis and the remaining jet was required to contain at least one charged particle.
For each lepton candidate, the remaining particles in the event were clustered into two jets using the DURHAM algorithm~\cite{DURHAM}. Each of these jets was required to contain at least three particles, of which at least one had to be charged. A further pre-selection was made before applying the full selection using the IDA: for \jjev\ and \jjmv\ candidates the transverse energy was required to be greater than 45~GeV; the missing momentum had to exceed 10~GeV/$c$; the visible energy divided by the centre-of-mass energy at which the IDA was trained (defined below), $E_{vis}/E_{train}$, was required to be between~40\% and~110\%; and the fitted $W$ mass from a constrained kinematic fit (imposing four-momentum conservation and equal mass for the two $W$ bosons in the event) had to be greater than 50~GeV/$c^2$. For \jjtv~candidates, the transverse energy was required to be greater than 40~GeV, the missing momentum between 10~and 80~GeV/c, the ratio $E_{vis}/E_{train}$ between 35\% and 100\%, and the fitted $W$ mass greater than 50~GeV/$c^2$.
After the pre-selection cuts an extended IDA analysis was used which treated correctly the case where the signal and background had different shapes. The input observables were transformed to make their distributions Gaussian. The IDA was trained on 50k four-fermion events for charged and neutral processes and 100k $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ events at three centre-of-mass energies: 189, 200 and 206~GeV. The following variables were used in the selection of all channels: the total multiplicity, the visible energy, the lepton isolation angle, the ratio between the reconstructed effective centre-of-mass energy, $\sqrt{s'}$,~\cite{SPRIME} and the centre-of-mass energy, $\sqrt{s}$, the magnitude and the polar angle of the missing momentum, and the fitted $W$ mass. The lepton energy was used in the selection of \jjev\ and \jjmv\ candidates. The angle between the lepton and the missing momentum was used in the \jjmv\ and \jjtv\ selections. For the \jjev\ selection, the transverse energy was also used. In addition, the aplanarity\footnote{defined as $\frac{3}{2}\lambda_3$ where $\lambda_3$ is the smallest eigenvalue of the sphericity tensor $S^{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\sum_i{p_i^\alpha p_i^\beta}}{\sum_i{|p_i|^2}}$. The $p_i$ are the three momenta of the particles in the event and $\alpha,\beta=1,2,3$ correspond to the $x$, $y$, $z$ momentum components.}, the charged multiplicity of the tau jet and its momentum-weighted spread were used in the \jjtv~selection. The cut on the output of the IDA was chosen such that it maximised the value of the efficiency times the purity for each channel.
In the application of the IDA, events with more than one lepton candidate, one of which was a muon, were first passed through the \jjmv\ selection procedure; those not selected, but containing an electron candidate, were then passed to the \jjev\ selection, and if the event failed both the muon and electron selection procedures and included a tau candidate, it was passed to the \jjtv\ selection. A final cut, requiring the charged multiplicity of the tau jet to be~1, ensured that the charge of the $W$ boson which produced it was well determined.
At centre-of-mass energy of 200~GeV, the efficiencies of the \jjev, \jjmv{} and \jjtv{} selections were found to be 71.0\%, 88.2\% and 54.6\%, respectively (see table~\ref{tab_events}). The selection efficiencies differed by no more than~2\% over the energy range considered. The respective background cross-sections for the three channels at 200~GeV were evaluated to be 0.232~pb, 0.075~pb and 0.344~pb, with the main contributions coming from $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ and from neutral current four-fermion final states. Combining the data at all centre-of-mass energies, totals of 1101, 1246 and 886~events were selected in the three leptonic channels, respectively.
\subsection{Selection of events in the fully hadronic final state}
In the selection of fully hadronic final states, the charged and neutral particles in each event
were forced into a four-jet configuration with the DURHAM algorithm.
A pre-selection was performed where the reconstructed effective centre-of-mass energy, $\sqrt{s'}$,
was required to be greater than 65\% of the nominal centre-of-mass energy, the total and
transverse energy for charged particles were each required to be greater than 20\% of the
nominal centre-of-mass energy, the total multiplicity for each jet had to exceed~3,
the condition $y_{cut}>0.0006$ was imposed for the migration of 4~jets to 3~jets
when clustering with the DURHAM algorithm, and a four-constraint kinematic fit of
the measured jet energies and directions, imposing four-momentum
conservation, was required to converge.
A feed-forward neural network, based on the JETNET package~\cite{JETNET} was
then used to improve the rejection of two- and four-fermion backgrounds. The
network uses the standard back-propagation algorithm and consists of three
layers with 13~input nodes, 7~hidden nodes and one output node. The choice
of input variables was optimised~\cite{NNOPTIMISATION} to give the greatest
separation between $WW$ and two-fermion events. The following jet and event
observables were used as input variables: the difference between the minimum
and maximum jet energies after the kinematic fit, the minimum angle between the jets
after the fit, the value of $y_{cut}$ from the DURHAM algorithm for the
migration of 4 jets into 3 jets, the minimum particle multiplicity of any
jet, the reconstructed effective centre-of-mass energy, the maximum
probability amongst each of the 3 possible jet pairings of a six-constraint fit (imposing the
additional constraints that the invariant mass of each jet pair should be equal to
the $W$ mass, set equal to 80.40~GeV/$c^2$), the thrust, the sphericity, the transverse energy, the sum of the cubes of the
magnitudes of the momenta of the 7~highest momentum particles,
$\sum_{i=1}^7 |\vec{p}_i|^3$, the minimum jet broadening, $B_{min}$~\cite{DURHAM},
and the Fox-Wolfram moments $H3$ and $H4$~\cite{FOX-WOLFRAM}.
The neural network was trained on separate samples of 2500 signal and
$Z/\gamma \rightarrow q\overline{q}$ events for each centre-of-mass energy.
The network output was calculated for other independent four-fermion,
two-fermion and two-photon processes.
The efficiency of the fully hadronic selection for a centre-of-mass energy of 200~GeV was estimated to be 81.9\% (see table~\ref{tab_events}); the efficiency varied by no more than~4\% over the energy range considered. The background cross-section at 200~GeV was evaluated to be 1.21~pb, with the main contribution coming from $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$. Combining the data at all centre-of-mass energies, a total of 4348 events was selected.
\subsection{Selection of events in the \jjX\ final state}
\label{sec_sel_jjX}
Events were considered as \jjX{} candidates if there were no identified leptons with momentum greater than 12~GeV/$c$, the measured transverse momentum exceeded 20~GeV/$c$, and the invariant mass of detected particles lay between 45~GeV/$c^2$ and 90~GeV/$c^2$.
In addition, events were rejected if any neutral clusters were found in the electromagnetic or hadronic calorimeters with energy exceeding 1~GeV within a cone of half-angle 30$^{\circ}$\ around the direction of the missing momentum. Particles were clustered into jets using LUCLUS with $d_{join}$ = 6.5~GeV/$c$ and events were required to have two or three jets only. Surviving events were forced into a two-jet configuration and accepted if the jet polar angles were between 20$^{\circ}$\ and 160$^{\circ}$\ and the acoplanarity angle\footnote{defined as the angle between the planes containing each jet direction and the beam direction.} between the jets was less than 160$^{\circ}$.
The efficiency of the selection is quoted with respect to a reduced phase space defined by the following generator level cuts: the acoplanarity angle between the quarks was required to be less than 170$^{\circ}$; the invariant mass of the quark pair had to be greater than 40~GeV/$c^2$; the quark directions were required to have polar angles between 20$^{\circ}$\ and 160$^{\circ}$; and the electron polar angle was required to be less than 11$^{\circ}$\ or greater than 169$^{\circ}$. The efficiency for selecting the \mbox{${W e} \nu $}\ final state with $W \mbox{$\rightarrow$}\ q{\bar q}$ was found to be between 43.7\% and 48.0\%, depending on the centre-of-mass energy, with a luminosity-weighted mean value of 45.4\%; 215 events in total were selected in the data. For Standard Model values of the couplings, a total of $219.8 \pm1.6$ events was expected, comprising 79.5 events from $q\bar{q}e\bar{\nu}$\ production with the electron or positron lost in the beam pipe, 13.0 events from $q\bar{q}e\bar{\nu}$\ production with the electron or positron elsewhere in the detector, 18.5 events from $q\bar{q}\mu\bar{\nu}$\ production, 67.0 events from $q\bar{q}\tau\bar{\nu}$, 36.0 events from $q\bar{q}\nu\bar{\nu}$, and 5.8 events from $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ production. The error in the expected total number of events arises from the statistical errors in the selection efficiencies estimated for the contributing processes.
All the processes contributing to the selected sample except $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ production include diagrams with trilinear gauge couplings, and this was taken into account in the subsequent analysis. The background cross-section of 0.048~pb shown for the \jjX\ channel in table~\ref{tab_events} represents the contribution at $\sqrt{s} = 200$~GeV from $q\bar{q}(\gamma)$\ production.
\subsection{Selection of events in the \lX~final state}
\label{sec_sel_lX}
To be considered as an \lX{} candidate, events were required to have only one charged particle, clearly identified as an electron or a muon from signals in the electromagnetic calorimeters or the muon chambers, respectively, using the same procedures as described in the selection of semi-leptonic events (section~\ref{sec_sel_jjlv}). The impact parameter for the lepton was required to be less than 0.1~cm in the $\mbox{$r\phi$}$ plane and less than 4~cm in the $z$ direction. The lepton candidate was required to have momentum less than 75~GeV/$c$, with the transverse component of this momentum greater than 20~GeV/$c$. The total energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter, but not associated with the track, was required to be less than 5~GeV. The ratio of the energy deposited by electron candidates in the electromagnetic calorimeter
to that determined from the measured value of the momentum was required to exceed 0.7.
As in the case of the \jjX\ final state described above, the efficiency of the selection was calculated in a reduced phase space region defined by cuts made at generator level; for the \lX\ final state, these were defined as follows: the lepton energy was required to be less than 75~GeV; the transverse momentum of the lepton had to be greater than 20~GeV/c; and the polar angle of the missing momentum was required to be in the range from zero to 11$^{\circ}$\ or between 169$^{\circ}$\ and 180$^{\circ}$. Totals of 37 and 39 candidates were selected in the $\mu X$ and $e X$ channels, respectively, with luminosity-weighted average efficiencies for selection of the \mbox{${W e} \nu $}\ final states of 49.4\% for $W \mbox{$\rightarrow$} \mu\nu$ and 31.3\% for $W \mbox{$\rightarrow$} e\nu$. For Standard Model values of the couplings, $34.0 \pm 1.4$ and $31.9 \pm 1.5$ events were expected in the two channels, respectively. The predicted $\mu X$ sample comprised 17.7 events from $e\mu\nu\bar{\nu}$ production with the electron or positron lost in the beam pipe, 1.6 events from $e\tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ production, also with an invisible electron or positron, 1.9 events from $\mu\mu\nu\bar{\nu}$ production, 2.0 events from $\mu\tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ production, 4.0 events from $\mu\mu e e$, and 6.8 events from $\mu\mu (\gamma)$. In the $e X$ sample, 19.2 events were expected from $e e \nu\bar{\nu}$ production with one lost electron or positron, 1.6 events and 0.7 events, respectively, from $e\mu\nu\bar{\nu}$ and $e\tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ with the electron or positron in the beam pipe, 1.5 events from $e\tau\nu\bar{\nu}$ production with the electron or positron elsewhere in the detector, and 8.8 events from Compton and Bhabha scattering with only one electron (or positron) detected in the final state. The background cross-sections in the $\mu X$ and $e X$ final states at 200~GeV quoted in table~\ref{tab_events}, 0.016~pb and 0.013~pb, respectively, represent the contributions from the processes contributing to these final states which have no dependence on the trilinear gauge couplings under consideration, namely the $\mu\mu (\gamma)$ contribution to $\mu X$ and the Compton and Bhabha contributions to $e X$. All the other contributions to these final states have a dependence on trilinear gauge couplings in their production, and this was taken into account in the subsequent analysis.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{crrrrrrr}
\hline
Energy (GeV) & \jjev & \jjmv & \jjtv & \jjjj & \jjX & $\mu X$ & $e X$ \\
\hline
\hline
189 & 269 & 336 & 236 & 1042 & 64 & 11 & 10 \\
192 & 42 & 53 & 37 & 187 & 4 & 1 & 1 \\
196 & 151 & 166 & 116 & 532 & 22 & 6 & 5 \\
200 & 162 & 190 & 145 & 614 & 24 & 6 & 6 \\
202 & 94 & 89 & 57 & 317 & 12 & 5 & 3 \\
205 & 169 & 153 & 94 & 657 & \multirow{2}{*}{89} &
\multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{14} \\
207 & 214 & 259 & 201 & 999 & & & \\
\hline
TOTAL & 1101 & 1246 & 886 & 4348 & 215 & 37 & 39 \\
\hline
\hline
$\epsilon$($\sqrt{s}$ = 200~GeV) (\%) & 71.0 & 88.2 & 54.6 & 81.9 & 48.0 & 50.8 & 31.9 \\
$\sigma_{back}$($\sqrt{s}$ = 200~GeV) (pb) & 0.232 & 0.075 & 0.344 & 1.21 & 0.048 & 0.016 & 0.013 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The numbers of events selected from the data in each channel for
each centre-of-mass energy. The selection efficiencies $\epsilon$ and background
cross-sections $\sigma_{back}$ are shown for the centre-of-mass energy of 200~GeV.}
\label{tab_events}
\end{table}
\section{Determination of the couplings}
\label{sec_analysis}
The extraction of the couplings from the data exploited the fact that the differential cross-section,
$\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec{\Omega}}$, is quadratic in the set of couplings, $\alpha_i (\equiv$~ $\Delta g^Z_1$, $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$, $\lambda_\gamma$), and can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\vec{\Omega}} = {c_{0}}(\vec{\Omega})
+\sum_{i}{c_{1}^{i}}(\vec{\Omega}){\alpha_{i}}
+\sum_{i\le j}{c_{2}^{ij}}(\vec{\Omega}){\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}} \, ,
\label{eqn_OO}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\vec{\Omega}$ represents the kinematic phase space variables and $i,j$ are summed over the
number, $N$, of parameters being determined. The coefficients $c_1^i$ and $c_2^{ij}$ were calculated using
WPHACT for the final states coming from $W^+W^-$ production and using DELTGC~\cite{DELTGC} for single $W$ final states.
This allows the fully simulated events to be re-weighted to non-SM values of the couplings.
\subsection{Semi-leptonic final state}
The analysis of the data in the semi-leptonic channel used the method of Optimal Observables~\cite{OO1,OO2,OO3}, in which an expansion of the form~(\ref{eqn_OO}) represents the first two terms in a Taylor expansion of the differential cross-section for any process in terms of a set of $N$ parameters $\alpha_i$. If it is known that the $\alpha_i$ are small, then the $N$ lowest order terms in~(\ref{eqn_OO}) contain most of the information needed for the determination of the parameters. In the present case, where the amplitude for the processes we consider is linear in the parameters, the Taylor expansion is truncated at the second order, and~(\ref{eqn_OO}) gives the value of the cross-section without approximation. This suggests an analysis in terms of the quantities
\begin{equation}
\omega_1^i(\vec{\Omega}) = \frac{c_1^i(\vec{\Omega})}{c_0(\vec{\Omega})}
\ \ {\mathrm and} \ \
\omega_2^{ij}(\vec{\Omega}) = \frac{c_2^{ij}(\vec{\Omega})}{c_0(\vec{\Omega})} \, ,
\label{eqn_OV}
\end{equation}
\noindent which are easily derived from the differential cross-section. Such an analysis is described in~\cite{OOTGC}, where the probability distribution function, $P(\vec{\Omega}, \vec{\alpha})$, for observing an event at phase space position $\vec{\Omega}$ when the parameters have values $\vec{\alpha}$ ($\equiv \alpha_1 \, ... \, \alpha_N$) is projected in the $\omega_1^i(\vec{\Omega})$ and $\omega_2^{ij}(\vec{\Omega})$ of~(\ref{eqn_OV}), the Optimal Variables.
When $\vec{\Omega}$ is known precisely, a fit to the Optimal Variables allows the couplings to be determined with a precision equal to that of an unbinned maximum likelihood fit over all of the phase space variables. In practice, the measured values of the Optimal Variables are defined by the convolution of the differential cross-section with the resolution and efficiency functions of the detector. However, it has been confirmed by Monte Carlo tests~\cite{OOOPTIMISATION} that little loss of precision occurs when this convolution is performed. In the case where one parameter, $\alpha_i$, is free to deviate from its Standard Model value, two Optimal Variables ($\omega_1^i$ and $\omega_2^{ii}$) contain the whole information, but five (or nine) Optimal Variables are required when two (or three) parameters are released from their Standard Model values. For one-parameter fits, there is an obvious advantage in simplicity in the use of the Optimal Variable method over an analysis using the five angular variables (the $W$ production angle and the $W^+$ and $W^-$ decay angles) known to contain most of the information on the coupling parameters in $WW$ production, while in the case of multi-parameter fits the number of Optimal Variables is equal to or greater than the number of angular variables. We have compared these methods using simulated event samples: in all cases - for one-, two- and three-parameter fits - the precision obtained from the Optimal Variable analysis was at least as good as that from the angular analysis, allowing us to use the same methodology throughout the analysis.
The distributions of the Optimal Variables used in fits to the parameters $\Delta g^Z_1$\ ($i = 1$), $\lambda_\gamma$\ ($i = 2$) and $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$\ ($i = 3$) are shown for the real data and for events simulated with SM and non-SM values of the couplings in figures~\ref{fig_OO_dkg} to \ref{fig_OO_xterm} for a centre-of-mass energy of 200~GeV.
The values of the coupling parameters were determined by binned extended maximum likelihood fits to the relevant Optimal Variables. A clustering technique was used to define the binning of the data, full details of which can be found in~\cite{BINNING}. The method used the data points to divide the phase space into equiprobable, multidimensional bins. For each fit, a set of $d$ variables ($d$ = 2, 5 or 9, as described above) was required to describe an event completely and for $n$ events the clustering technique divides the $d$-dimensional space into $n$ bins, each centred on one data point. The available simulated events are then assigned to the bins by calculating the scalar distance $D_{kl}$ of each simulated event $k$ to each of the data points $l$,
\begin{equation}
D_{kl} = {(\vec{R_l}-\vec{r_k})}^T~M~{(\vec{R_l}-\vec{r_k})} \, ,
\label{eqn_Dkl}
\end{equation}
\noindent and assigning the $k$th simulated event to the bin $l$ for which $D_{kl}$ is a minimum. In~(\ref{eqn_Dkl}), $\vec{R}$ and $\vec{r}$ are the $d$-dimensional vectors that describe the real data point and the simulated event, respectively, and $M$ is a $d\times d$ matrix representing the metric of the space. The metric $M$ was defined by the variances and correlations of the real data distributions of the Optimal Variables being determined in any particular fit, so as to take into account the fact (observed in figures~\ref{fig_OO_dkg} to \ref{fig_OO_xterm}) that the different variables span different numerical ranges.
The technique described above assumes that the phase space variables $\Omega$ are fully determined for each event. In fact, one ambiguity remains for every event, namely that it is not known which of the jets from the hadronic $W$ decay comes from the quark, and which from the antiquark. In the analysis, each event was therefore entered twice into the maximum likelihood function, once with each of these two assignments.
A second analysis was performed in the \jjlv\ channel as a cross-check. In this analysis a binned maximum likelihood fit was made to the differential cross-section of three angles: $\cos{\theta_{W^+}}$, the $W^+$ production angle, $\cos{\theta_l}$, the polar angle of the lepton with respect to the incoming $e^\pm$ of the opposite sign, and $\cos{\theta_{lW}}$, the cosine of the angle between the hadronic W and the lepton. The same event selection criteria were applied and the same re-weighting method was used as in the Optimal Variable analysis. The distributions of these angular variables are shown in figures~\ref{fig_qqlv_ctw} to~\ref{fig_qqlv_clw} for the data and for events simulated with different values of the couplings at 200~GeV.
\subsection{Fully hadronic final state}
\label{sec_anal_jjjj}
The analysis of events in the fully hadronic state is complicated by the fact that the four observed hadronic jets cannot immediately be assigned to a particular $W^+$ or $W^-$ decay. Two problems arise from this feature, first, that it is not clear which of the three possible pairings of the four jets corresponds to a $WW$ pair, and, second, once the pairing is decided, which of the di-jet pairs is the $W^+$ and which the $W^-$.
The first of these problems was approached by forcing the selected events into a four-jet configuration and constructing a neural network to determine the combination which was most likely to represent a $W$ pair event. A kinematic fit, imposing four-momentum conservation and equal mass for the two di-jet pairs, was performed for each of the three combinations. The $\chi^2$ of the kinematic fit and the difference between the nominal $W$ mass and the di-jet mass from the fit were used as inputs to the neural network to choose the most likely combination. The efficiency of this procedure was estimated to be about~79\%, where the uncertainty in the pairing was estimated by repeating the procedure using simulated events generated with the different parton shower and fragmentation models implemented in PYTHIA, HERWIG~\cite{HERWIG} and ARIADNE~\cite{ARIADNE}.
The second problem -- to distinguish which of the di-jet pairs came from the $W^+$ and $W^-$ -- was partly resolved by
constructing an effective jet charge $Q_{jet}$ from the charge of the particles in the jet, weighted by their momentum:
\begin{equation}
Q_{jet}=\frac{\sum_i q_i (\vec{p}_i\cdot\vec{T}_{jet})^{0.7}} {\sum_i (\vec{p}_i\cdot\vec{T}_{jet})^{0.7}} \, ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $q_i$ and $p_i$ are, respectively, the charge and momentum of the particle in the jet, $\vec{T}_{jet}$
is the unit vector in the reconstructed jet direction and the exponent 0.7 was chosen empirically. Then, following the method described in~\cite{ALEPHjjjj}, the charge difference of the two di-jet pairs,
\begin{equation}
\Delta Q = (Q_{jet_1}+Q_{jet_2})-(Q_{jet_3}+Q_{jet_4}) \, ,
\end{equation}
\noindent was used to assign the charge of the individual $W^{\pm}$ bosons. The more negative di-jet was tagged as originating from a $W^-$, and the other di-jet as the $W^+$. The efficiency of this procedure was estimated from the simulation to be about~76\% for events with correct jet pairing, using the minimal angle between the reconstructed di-jet system and the generated $W$ boson to determine the correct pairing. As in the case of the jet pairing studies described above, the systematic uncertainty of this procedure was estimated by using the different parton shower and fragmentation models implemented in PYTHIA, HERWIG and ARIADNE.
The ambiguity in the charge was taken into account by constructing a new variable:
\begin{equation}
x_q = P_{W^-}(\Delta Q)\cos\theta_{W^-} - (1-P_{W^-}(\Delta Q))\cos\theta_{W^-} \, ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\cos\theta_{W^-}$ is the polar angle of the di-jet pair assigned to the $W^-$ and $P_{W^-}(\Delta Q)$ is the probability that the di-jet pair originates from a $W^-$. The value of $P_{W^-}(\Delta Q)$ was obtained from the distribution of $\Delta Q$ in the simulated events. The couplings were then estimated from a binned extended maximum likelihood fit to the variable $x_q$.
\subsection{Single W final state}
In the \jjX~final state, the couplings were extracted via a binned maximum likelihood fit to the distribution of the angle between the jets. This is
a well-measured variable, and was found to be more sensitive to the coupling parameters than, say, the $W$ production angle (a result which follows from the dynamics of the Feynman diagram (figure~\ref{fig_tgc}c) providing the dominant contribution to the sensitivity to the couplings in the \jjX\ sample). The \lX~final state was analysed using a maximum likelihood fit to the number of events selected in the data, no further sub-division of the data being found to give a significant improvement to the experimental sensitivity. As mentioned in sections~\ref{sec_sel_jjX} and~\ref{sec_sel_lX}, the samples selected in these final states include contributions from some processes labelled as ``background", but nonetheless with trilinear gauge couplings involved in their production mechanisms; in the fits performed, the relevant parameters were varied wherever they occurred in the production processes contributing to the events expected in the selected samples.
Since only the $WW\gamma$ vertex occurs in the production of the \mbox{${W e} \nu $}\ final state via a trilinear gauge coupling (as seen in figure~\ref{fig_tgc}(c)), the sensitivity of the single~$W$ channels to $\Delta g^Z_1$\ is very poor, and fits to this parameter were not used in the results presented. The likelihood distributions from fits of the other two parameters, $\lambda_\gamma$\ and $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$, to the \jjX\ and \lX\ final states were combined, and the resulting distributions were subsequently combined with those from the \jjlv\ and \jjjj\ final states in the determination of the coupling parameters.
\section{Systematic uncertainties}
\label{sec_systematics}
Sources of systematic uncertainty were considered which contribute to the results in all the final states analysed. Those arising in the analysis of the final states from $WW$ production are described in section~\ref{sec_systematics_WW}; the contribution to the total uncertainty from each source to the results for each of the three coupling parameters determined from data in the \jjlv\ and \jjjj\ channels is given in tables~\ref{tab_systematics_jjlv} and~\ref{tab_systematics_jjjj}, respectively. A similar study was performed for the couplings $\lambda_\gamma$\ and $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$\ determined from data in the single $W$ final states. A summary is given in section~\ref{sec_systematics_singleW} and the results are reported in table~\ref{tab_systematics_singleW}.
\subsection{WW final states}
\label{sec_systematics_WW}
\subsection*{W pair production cross-section and radiative corrections:}
The calculation of the $W$ pair production cross-section was significantly improved in 2000~\cite{LEP2MCWorkshop}. The theoretical uncertainty in the relevant energy range was reduced from the level of 2\%~\cite{Gentle2} quoted in previous publications~\cite{DELPHI_TGC189} to 0.5\%~\cite{YFSWW,RacoonWW} via the inclusion of all ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections. The systematic uncertainties in the coupling parameters arising from this latest estimate of the uncertainty in the total $WW$ cross-section are shown in the tables.
The inclusion of the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections has also been shown to have a marked effect on the differential distributions~\cite{RAD_CORR}, which could substantially affect the measurement of the gauge boson coupling parameters. The determination of the resulting systematic uncertainty in the determination of the couplings required the use of re-weighted events. The weights were generated using YFSWW in the simulation and were used according to the procedure described in~\cite{WPHAC_SETUP}. The effect on the measurement of the couplings arising from the theoretical uncertainty in the calculation of the radiative corrections was then obtained in two stages. First, one million fully simulated Monte Carlo events were produced at 189~GeV using the generators WPHACT, RacoonWW~\cite{RacoonWW} and YFSWW. From a comparison of the couplings determined from analysis of these different samples, it was possible to estimate the systematic uncertainty from higher order electroweak corrections on the calculation of the Initial State Radiation. This was found to be negligible. Then, using the sample simulated with YFSWW, a comparison was made of two different Leading Pole approximation schemes, the so-called LPA-A and LPA-B schemes. The differences in the couplings determined from analysis of samples employing these two models was taken to represent the systematic error from the uncertainty of the dependence of the Double Pole Approximation on the assumed LPA scheme. It can be seen in the corresponding entries in tables~\ref{tab_systematics_jjlv} and~\ref{tab_systematics_jjjj} that this uncertainty gives rise to significant systematic errors in the measurement of the couplings.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Source} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta g^Z_1$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\lambda_\gamma$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$} \\
\hline
\hline
$WW$ cross-section & 0.0005 & 0.0006 & 0.007 \\
Radiative Corrections & $_{-0.002}^{+0.005}$ & $_{-0.002}^{+0.004}$ & $_{-0.015}^{+0.012}$ \\
Background cross-section & 0.004 & 0.003 & 0.014 \\
$W$ Mass & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 \\
LEP beam energy & 0.0005 & 0.0005 & 0.001 \\
Luminosity & 0.0005 & 0.0006 & 0.007 \\
Fragmentation & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.015 \\
\hline
Lepton tagging efficiency & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.001 \\
Lepton charge assignment & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.003 \\
Jet reconstruction & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.007 \\
Lepton reconstruction & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.003 \\
\hline
Total & $_{-0.009}^{+0.010}$ & $_{-0.009}^{+0.010}$ & $_{-0.028}^{+0.027}$ \\
\hline
\hline
Statistical errors & $_{-0.031}^{+0.033}$ & $_{-0.035}^{+0.036}$ & $_{-0.094}^{+0.103}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]
{Contributions to the systematic errors on the couplings determined from data in the semi-leptonic final state, \jjlv. Except where otherwise indicated, the errors are symmetric with respect to a change of sign of the parameters involved. The first 7 sources listed in the table are considered to be fully correlated with the other channels. For comparison, the bottom row of the table lists the statistical errors on the couplings determined in the Optimal Variables analysis (also shown in table~\ref{tab_results_1d}). }
\label{tab_systematics_jjlv}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Source} & $\Delta g^Z_1$ & $\lambda_\gamma$ & $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$ \\
\hline
\hline
$WW$ cross-section & 0.006 & 0.008 & 0.011 \\
Radiative corrections & 0.017 & 0.016 & 0.032 \\
Background cross-section & 0.003 & 0.004 & 0.009 \\
$W$ mass & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.005 \\
LEP beam energy & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 \\
Luminosity & 0.006 & 0.008 & 0.011 \\
Fragmentation & 0.009 & 0.012 & 0.027 \\
\hline
Colour Reconnection & 0.008 & 0.006 & 0.012 \\
Bose Einstein & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.005 \\
Simulation statistics & 0.008 & 0.009 & 0.012 \\
Selection efficiency & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.007 \\
Event reconstruction & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.008 \\
\hline
Total & 0.024 & 0.025 & 0.049 \\
\hline
\hline
Statistical errors & $_{-0.067}^{+0.083}$ & $_{-0.070}^{+0.093}$ & $_{-0.149}^{+0.196}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]
{Contributions to the systematic errors on the couplings determined from data in the fully hadronic final state, \jjjj. The first 7 sources listed in the table are considered to be fully correlated with the other channels. For comparison, the bottom row of the table lists the statistical errors on the couplings (also shown in table~\ref{tab_results_1d}).}
\label{tab_systematics_jjjj}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Source} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\lambda_\gamma$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$} \\
\hline
\hline
Signal cross-section & 0.005 & 0.037 \\
Background cross-section & 0.002 & 0.002 \\
Selection efficiency & 0.011 & 0.072 \\
\hline
Total & 0.011 & 0.081 \\
\hline
\hline
Statistical errors & $_{-0.288}^{+0.250}$ & $_{-0.148}^{+0.131}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]
{Contributions to the systematic errors on the couplings determined from data in the single $W$ final states. For comparison, the bottom row of the table lists the statistical errors on the couplings (also shown in table~\ref{tab_results_1d}).}
\label{tab_systematics_singleW}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Background cross-sections and modelling:}
The theoretical uncertainty on the cross-sections of two- and four-fermion
processes varies between 2\% and 5\%, depending on the process. A
conservative estimate of the systematic error on the couplings was made
by varying the predicted background cross-sections by $\pm$5\%.
\subsection*{W mass and LEP beam energy:}
The systematic error arising from the uncertainty on the $W$ mass used in the event simulation was evaluated using data samples generated with masses 1~GeV/$c^2$ above and below the nominal value. A linear interpolation was used to scale the systematic error to that which would arise from an uncertainty in the $W$ mass of $\pm$40~MeV/$c^2$.
The same method was used to estimate the systematic uncertainty due to the value of the \mbox{\scshape Lep}~beam energy used in the simulation; samples were generated with different centre-of-mass energies and the errors were rescaled to the measured beam energy uncertainties~\cite{LEP_BEAM}.
\subsection*{Determination of the luminosity:}
The luminosity was determined from a measurement of Bhabha
scattering and was affected by the experimental error on the
acceptance ($\pm$0.5\%) and the theoretical uncertainty on the cross-section
($\pm$0.12\%)~\cite{BHABHA}. The estimated uncertainty on the luminosity
was used to vary the normalisation of the simulation in the fits.
\subsection*{Modelling of fragmentation:}
In order to assess the effect of the model used for the fragmentation of hadronic jets -- JETSET final state QCD radiation and fragmentation, -- correlated samples were analysed using the modelling of HERWIG and ARIADNE, and the differences in the fitted values of the coupling parameters noted. The largest discrepancies found were between JETSET and HERWIG and these were taken as a conservative estimate in each channel.
Additional tests were performed in the fully hadronic final state using mixed Lorentz-boosted $Z$ events~\cite{MLBZ}, in which $WW$ events are emulated using two events taken at the $Z$~peak, and transforming them such that their superposition reflects that of a true fully hadronic $WW$ event. These studies are also sensitive to systematic errors in the event reconstruction technique, and are discussed further in the relevant section below.
\subsection*{Final state interactions:}
The measurement of the couplings in the fully hadronic final state is affected by final state interactions between the decay products of the two $W$ bosons. Two effects were considered: the exchange of gluons between the quarks of different $W$ bosons, known as Colour Reconnection, and Bose-Einstein correlations between pions.
\subsubsection*{Colour Reconnection:}
In the reaction $e^+ e^- \rightarrow W^+W^- \rightarrow (q_1\bar{q}_2)(q_3\bar{q}_4)$ the hadronisation models used in this analysis treat the colour singlets $q_1\bar{q}_2$ and $q_3\bar{q}_4$ coming from each $W$ boson independently. However, interconnection effects between the products of the two $W$ bosons may be expected since the mean $W$ lifetime is an order of magnitude smaller than the typical hadronisation times. This can lead to the exchange of coloured gluons between partons from the hadronic systems from different $W$ bosons - the Colour Reconnection effect - in the development of the parton showers. This, in turn, can give rise to a distortion in the angular distributions of the final hadronic systems used to estimate the primary quark directions in the determination of the triple gauge coupling parameters from \jjjj\ data. These effects can be large at hadronisation level, due to the large numbers of soft gluons sharing the space-time region, and have been studied by introducing colour reconnection effects into various hadronisation models. The most studied model is the Sj\"{o}strand-Khoze ``Type 1'' model (SKI)~\cite{SK1}, and this was used for the evaluation of the systematic uncertainty in the analysis reported here. The model is based on the Lund string fragmentation phenomenology, in which the volume of overlap between two strings, and hence the colour reconnection probability, is represented by a parameter, $\kappa$.
In this paper, the systematic uncertainty was estimated using the SKI model with full colour reconnection ({\it i.e.} $\kappa = \infty$). This is a highly conservative assumption when compared with the direct measurements of colour reconnection reported by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}~\cite{CR} and by other LEP experiments~\cite{L3CR,OPALCR,ALEPHCR}. Symmetric systematic errors were applied to the gauge coupling parameters, representing the difference observed between full colour reconnection and no effect from this source.
\subsubsection*{Bose-Einstein correlations:}
Correlations between final state hadronic particles are dominated by Bose-Einstein correlations, a quantum mechanical effect which enhances the production of identical bosons close in phase space. The net effect is that multiplets of identical bosons are produced with smaller energy-momentum differences than non-identical ones. This, again, can affect the estimation of the primary quark directions in data from hadronically decaying $W$ bosons. Bose-Einstein correlations between particles produced from the same $W$ boson affect the normal fragmentation and are treated implicitly in the fragmentation uncertainties constrained by data from $Z$ decays, while correlations between pairs of particles coming from different $W$ bosons cannot be constrained or safely predicted by the information from single hadronically decaying vector bosons, and are estimated in various models. We have used the LUBOEI~BE$_{32}$ model~\cite{LUBOEI} to estimate the systematic uncertainty in the determination of gauge coupling parameters from the present data. In this model, Bose-Einstein correlations are described using two parameters: the correlation strength, $\lambda$, and the effective source radius, $R$. Applying the model with parameters $\lambda=1.35$ and $R=0.6$~fm, symmetric systematic errors on the gauge coupling parameters were estimated by taking the difference between the values obtained assuming the presence of Bose-Einstein correlations only within each $W$ and those obtained assuming correlations both within and between $W$ bosons. Taking into account the reported results of measurements of Bose-Einstein correlations by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}~\cite{DBEC} and in other LEP~\cite{L3BEC,OPALBEC,ALEPHBEC} experiments, this again represents a conservative estimate of the effect from this source.
\subsection*{Statistics of simulated samples and selection efficiency:}
The statistical error on the number of simulated events assigned to each data bin was convoluted in the fitting method for fits to the data in the semi-leptonic channel; the fitting method ensures that this systematic error is negligible with the large statistics available. In the fully hadronic channel, the distribution of simulated events used in the binned extended maximum likelihood fit was varied according to the statistical uncertainties of the bin contents.
The uncertainty due to the event selection efficiency was used to vary the normalisation of the simulation in the fits.
\subsection*{Lepton tagging efficiency and charge assignment:}
Comparisons were made between fully simulated events and real $Z$ events to estimate the possibility of having different lepton tagging efficiencies in the data. The systematic uncertainty was estimated assuming 1\% mis-tagging for muons and for electrons in the barrel region and 5\% for electrons in the forward region of the detector. The value shown in table~\ref{tab_systematics_jjlv} represents the combined effect from both lepton types, with the dominant contribution coming from mis-tagged electrons. However, the effect is reduced as mis-tagged electrons or muons can be retrieved by the single prong tau selection.
The effect of wrongly assigned lepton charge was estimated using data simulated at the $Z$ pole by counting the numbers of di-lepton events in which the two leptons are assigned the same charge. A mis-assignment rate of 0.1\% was found for all lepton candidates except for electrons in the forward region, where the rate rose to 6\%. The systematic error was calculated by randomly changing the charge of the lepton candidate in the fits with these probabilities, and the value shown in table~\ref{tab_systematics_jjlv} shows the combined effect of these assumed uncertainties.
\subsection*{Event reconstruction:}
The effect of possible systematic errors in the event reconstruction technique was estimated using comparisons between data and simulation. This was performed in two ways: firstly, by comparing significant variables used in the analysis in data and simulation and computing the effect of the discrepancy seen; and secondly, by directly computing changes in the results using mixed Lorentz-boosted $Z$ (MLBZ) events, mentioned above in the section on systematic errors resulting from the modelling of fragmentation.
In the semi-leptonic channel, the systematic uncertainty in the couplings due to uncertainties in the lepton and jet energies and angular distributions was estimated using comparisons between data and simulated events at the $Z$ peak. The estimated uncertainties on the jet energies and angles were found to be 5\% and 7.5 mrad, respectively. The uncertainty on the muon momentum was found to be 1\%, while for electron momenta uncertainties of 1\% and 5\% were estimated in the barrel and forward regions, respectively. Appropriate smearings were applied to these resolutions in the simulation of \jjlv\ events and the resulting shifts in the values of the couplings were taken to be the systematic uncertainties. They are reported in table~\ref{tab_systematics_jjlv} as the systematic errors arising from jet and lepton reconstruction.
In the fully-hadronic channel, the uncertainties in the event reconstruction were estimated using MLBZ events from both real and simulated data at the $Z$ peak. As described above in the discussion of the modelling of quark fragmentation, the MLBZ method emulates $WW$ events using two events taken at the $Z$~peak, rotating them and Lorentz-boosting them such that their superposition reflects that of a true $WW$ event. The detector effects are thus included in as realistic a manner as possible. In order to estimate these effects on the determination of gauge coupling parameters in $WW \mbox{$\rightarrow$}$~\jjjj\ events, the ratio of selection efficiencies, $r$, of MLBZ data events to MLBZ simulated events was determined as a function of the simulated $W$ production angle. The ratio $r(\cos \theta_{W^-})$ was then applied to simulated $WW$ samples and the gauge coupling analysis described in section~\ref{sec_anal_jjjj}, which uses the $W$ production angle, was repeated. The differences between the results with and without application of the ratio were taken as systematic errors and are reported in table~\ref{tab_systematics_jjjj}. The systematic uncertainty evaluated by this method represents a conservative estimate, as it includes both the inaccuracies in the modelling of detector effects and most of the deviations induced by the applied fragmentation model.
An additional problem, not included in the effects considered above, has been encountered in the reconstruction of charged tracks in the forward region of \mbox{\scshape Delphi}~\cite{MLBZ}, leading to a small error in the reconstructed direction of forward tracks in both simulated and real data. Its effects were shown to be negligible in a previous \mbox{\scshape Delphi}\ analysis~\cite{DELPHI_SDM} involving fits to binned data of production and decay distributions in $WW$ production, and, in a study of the current data in the \jjlv\ final state at 200~GeV, have also been found to be negligible in comparison to the other correlated systematic errors considered. No systematic error has therefore been included from this source.
\subsection{Single W final states}
\label{sec_systematics_singleW}
Systematic errors arising from the uncertainty in the signal (\mbox{${W e} \nu $}) cross-section were estimated by varying the cross-section by $\pm$5\% and noting the effect on the fitted coupling parameters. Similarly, cross-sections of other contributing channels were varied by $\pm$2\%, and the fits repeated. The maximum changes to the fitted parameters in the combined \jjX\ and \lX\ final states were taken as systematic errors, and are reported in table~\ref{tab_systematics_singleW} as the contributions from signal and background cross-sections, respectively. Systematic errors arising from the uncertainty in the selection efficiency were estimated from the statistical errors in the numbers of simulated events, and are also reported in the table. No other significant source of systematic error was identified in these channels.
\section{Results}
\label{sec_results}
The procedure used to combine the results from the three channels and the results obtained are described in the following sections.
\subsection{Combination procedure}
\label{sec:gc_combination}
The combination was based on the individual likelihood functions from the samples of the three final states, \jjlv, \jjjj\ and \mbox{${W e} \nu $}, included in the analysis. Each final state sample provides the negative log likelihood, -$\ln {\mathcal L}$, at each centre-of-mass energy, as a function of the coupling parameters for inclusion in the combination.
The $\ln {\mathcal L}$ functions from each channel include statistical errors as well as those systematic uncertainties which are considered as uncorrelated between channels. For both single- and multi-parameter combinations, the individual $\ln {\mathcal L}$ functions were combined. It is necessary to use the $\ln {\mathcal L}$ functions directly in the combination, since in some cases they are not parabolic, as discussed extensively in~\cite{BORUT}, and hence it is not possible to combine the results properly by simply taking weighted averages of the measurements.
The following sources of systematic uncertainty were assumed to be correlated between the semi-leptonic and fully hadronic channels: $WW$ cross-section, radiative corrections, background cross-section, $W$ mass, beam energy, luminosity and fragmentation. The procedure used was based on the introduction of an additional free parameter to take into account each correlated source of systematic uncertainty. These parameters are treated as shifts on the fitted parameter values, and are assumed to have Gaussian distributions. A simultaneous minimisation of both sets of parameters (coupling parameters and systematic uncertainties) was performed on the log-likelihood function.
In detail, the combination proceeded in the following way: the set of measurements from the three channels \jjlv, \jjjj\ and single $W$ is given with statistical plus uncorrelated systematic uncertainties in terms of likelihood curves
$-\ln{\mathcal L}^{qql\nu}_{stat}(x)$, $-\ln{\mathcal L}^{qqqq}_{stat}(x)$ and $-\ln{\mathcal L}^{single W}_{stat}(x)$, respectively, where $x$ is the coupling parameter in question. Also given are the shifts for each of the totally correlated sources of uncertainty mentioned above, each source $S$ giving rise to systematic errors $\sigma^S_{qql\nu}$ and $\sigma^S_{qqqq}$. Additional parameters $\Delta^S$ are then included in the likelihood sum in order to take into account a Gaussian distribution for each of the systematic uncertainties. The procedure then consisted in minimising the function
\begin{eqnarray}
-\ln {\mathcal L}_{total} = -\sum_{C} \ln {\mathcal L}^C_{stat} (x-\sum_{S}(\sigma^S_C \Delta^S))
+ \sum_{S} {\displaystyle \frac{(\Delta^S)^{2}}{2}} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $x$ and the $\Delta^S$ are the free parameters, the sum over $C$ runs over the three channels and the sum over $S$ runs over the seven sources of correlated systematic uncertainty. The resulting uncertainty on $x$ takes into account all sources of uncertainty, yielding a measurement of the coupling with a precision which includes the errors from both statistical and systematic sources. The projection of the minima of the log-likelihood as a function of $x$ gives the combined log-likelihood curve including statistical and systematic uncertainties.
\subsection{Results}
The data taken by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} between 1998 and 2000 were collected at centre-of-mass energies between 189 and 209~GeV. The results for the measurement of the couplings from single parameter fits to the data in the different channels are given in table~\ref{tab_results_1d} and the likelihood curves from these fits are shown in figure~\ref{fig_results_1d}. The results of the simultaneous fits to the data for all combinations of two parameters ($\Delta g^Z_1$-$\lambda_\gamma$, $\Delta g^Z_1$-$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$~and $\lambda_\gamma$-$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$) are given in table~\ref{tab_results_2d}. The corresponding likelihood contours are shown in figure~\ref{fig_results_2d}. The result from the simultaneous fit to all three couplings is given in table~\ref{tab_results_3d} and the likelihood contours corresponding to the intersections of the three 2-parameter planes containing the minimum of the distribution with the three-dimensional 3-parameter likelihood distribution are shown in figure~\ref{fig_results_3d}.
It may be noted from the results shown in tables~\ref{tab_results_1d}~-~\ref{tab_results_3d} that the 68\% and 95\% confidence levels obtained in the 3-parameter fit are somewhat narrower than those obtained in the 1-parameter fit to the same parameter. This is not expected if the likelihood distributions are strictly Gaussian in form. However, such an effect is also observed in analysis of a significant fraction (5\%) of simulated event samples of the same size as the experimental sample. As has been pointed out in previous studies of both simulated~\cite{SEKULIN} and experimental~\cite{RESULTS_OPAL} samples, the quadratic dependence of the cross-section on the couplings we consider does indeed lead to non-Gaussian likelihood distributions, which can thus explain this behaviour. The results for the multidimensional fits, in particular those for the 3-parameter fit, should therefore be viewed with this constraint on their interpretation in mind.
The result from the simultaneous fit to $\lambda_\gamma$~and $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$~can be converted to a measurement of the magnetic dipole moment, $\mu_W$, and the electric quadrupole moment, $q_W$, of the $W^+$ boson using the relations given in equations~(\ref{eqn_muw}) and~(\ref{eqn_qw}). The resulting two-parameter fit is shown in figure~\ref{fig_results_multipole}. The fitted values of $\mu_W$ and $q_W$ are
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rrcll}
& $\mu_W \cdot 2 m_W /e$ & = & $\ \ 2.027_{-0.075}^{+0.078} $ & \\
and\ & $q_W \cdot m_W^2 /e$ & = & $ -1.025_{-0.088}^{+0.093} $ & , \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\noindent where the errors include both statistical and systematic contributions. These results may be compared with the Standard Model predictions of $2$ and $-1$ for these two quantities, respectively.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
\hline
Channel & $\Delta g^Z_1$ & $\lambda_\gamma$ & $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$ \\
\hline
\jjlv\ (Optimal Variables)
& $-0.024^{+0.033}_{-0.031}$
& \ \ $0.006^{+0.036}_{-0.035}$
& \ \ $0.014^{+0.103}_{-0.094}$ \\
\jjlv\ (Angular Variables)
& \ \ $0.006^{+0.040}_{-0.039}$
& \ \ $0.019^{+0.045}_{-0.043}$
& $-0.091^{+0.096}_{-0.085}$ \\
\jjjj & $-0.030^{+0.083}_{-0.067}$
& $-0.032^{+0.093}_{-0.070}$
& \ \ $0.031^{+0.196}_{-0.149}$ \\
single W & --
& \ \ $0.037^{+0.250}_{-0.288}$
& \ \ $0.027^{+0.131}_{-0.148}$ \\
\hline
\hline
Combined & $-0.025^{+0.033}_{-0.030} $
& \ \ $ 0.002^{+0.035}_{-0.035} $
& \ \ $ 0.024^{+0.077}_{-0.081} $ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{The results for single parameter fits to the couplings in the individual channels. In each fit, the other two couplings were held at their Standard Model values. The errors given for the individual analyses are statistical; the systematic contributions are given in tables~\ref{tab_systematics_jjlv}, \ref{tab_systematics_jjjj} and \ref{tab_systematics_singleW}. As indicated in the text, the Angular Variables analysis of the \jjlv\ final state was performed as a cross-check, the values in the combination of all three channels being obtained using the results from the \jjlv\ Optimal Variables analysis. The combined results also contain the systematic errors, included via the combination method described in the text.}
\label{tab_results_1d}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|rr|} \hline
Parameter & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{68\% C.L.} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{95\% C.L.} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Correlations} \\
\hline \hline
$\Delta g^Z_1$ & $-0.046^{+0.040}_{-0.040}$ & [$-0.123,~~+0.035$] & $1.0$ & $-0.49$ \\
$\lambda_\gamma$ & $0.037^{+0.045}_{-0.044}$ & [$-0.051,~~+0.124$] & $-0.49$ & $1.0$ \\
\hline
$\Delta g^Z_1$ & $-0.033^{+0.032}_{-0.033}$ & [$-0.097,~~+0.032$] & $1.0$ & $-0.41$ \\
$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$ & $0.059^{+0.088}_{-0.079}$ & [$-0.093,~~+0.233$] & $-0.41$ & $1.0$ \\
\hline
$\lambda_\gamma$ & $-0.002^{+0.035}_{-0.035}$ & [$-0.070,~~+0.067$] & $1.0$ & $0.10$ \\
$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$ & $0.028^{+0.083}_{-0.077}$ & [$-0.120,~~+0.198$] & $0.10$ & $1.0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The measured central values, one standard deviation errors and
limits at 95\% confidence level obtained by combining the different
channels in the 3 two-parameter fits. Since the shape of the
log-likelihood is not parabolic, there is some ambiguity in the
definition of the correlation coefficients and the values quoted here are
approximate. In each fit, the listed parameters were varied while the remaining one was
fixed to its Standard Model value. Both statistical and systematic
errors are included. Note that the 68\% and 95\% confidence limits reported here refer to single-parameter errors (in contrast to those shown in the two-parameter plots of figure~\ref{fig_results_2d})
and are defined by $\Delta\ln {\mathcal L}=+0.5$ and $\Delta\ln{\mathcal L} =+1.92$, respectively.}
\label{tab_results_2d}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|rrr|} \hline
Parameter & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{68\% C.L.} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{95\% C.L.} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Correlations} \\
& & & $\Delta g^Z_1$ & $\lambda_\gamma$ & $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$ \\
\hline \hline
$\Delta g^Z_1$ & $-0.060^{+0.031}_{-0.030}$ & [$-0.118,~~+0.002$] & $1.0$ & $-0.55$ & $-0.41$ \\
$\lambda_\gamma$ & $0.038^{+0.031}_{-0.032}$ & [$-0.027,~~+0.099$] & $-0.55$ & $1.0$ & $-0.04$ \\
$\Delta\kappa_\gamma$ & $0.077^{+0.070}_{-0.070}$ & [$-0.050,~~+0.218$] & $-0.41$ & $-0.04$ & $1.0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The measured central values, one standard deviation errors and
limits at 95\% confidence level, obtained by combining the different
channels in the three-parameter fit. Since the shape of the
log-likelihood is not parabolic, there is some ambiguity in the
definition of the correlation coefficients and the values quoted here are
approximate. Both statistical and systematic errors are included. Note that the
68\% and 95\% confidence limits reported refer to single-parameter errors and are defined by $\Delta\ln {\mathcal L}=+0.5$ and $\Delta\ln{\mathcal L} =+1.92$, respectively.}
\label{tab_results_3d}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec_conclusions}
The data taken by \mbox{\scshape Delphi}{} at centre-of-mass energies between 189~and 209~GeV have been used to probe the non-Abelian nature of the Standard Model. Limits have been placed on the trilinear gauge boson couplings which describe the $WWZ$ and $WW\gamma$ vertices; in particular, reactions leading to $W$ pair production and single $W$ production have been used to set limits on the parameters $\Delta g^Z_1$, $\lambda_\gamma$\ and $\Delta\kappa_\gamma$. The combined results for fits to a single parameter, where the other two parameters were held at their Standard Model values, are:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rlcrl}
& --0.084 $\mathrm{<}$ & $\Delta g^Z_1${} & $\mathrm{<}$ 0.039 &,\\
& --0.065 $\mathrm{<}$ & $\lambda_\gamma${} & $\mathrm{<}$ 0.071 &, \\
and\ & --0.129 $\mathrm{<}$ & $\Delta\kappa_\gamma${} & $\mathrm{<}$ 0.182 & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\noindent at 95\% confidence level. Fits were also made where two or three parameters were allowed to vary simultaneously. No deviations from the Standard Model predictions have been observed.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
\vskip 3 mm
We are greatly indebted to our technical
collaborators, to the members of the CERN-SL Division for the excellent
performance of the LEP collider, and to the funding agencies for their
support in building and operating the DELPHI detector.\\
We acknowledge in particular the support of \\
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture,
GZ 616.364/2-III/2a/98, \\
FNRS--FWO, Flanders Institute to encourage scientific and technological
research in the industry (IWT) and Belgian Federal Office for Scientific,
Technical and Cultural affairs (OSTC), Belgium, \\
FINEP, CNPq, CAPES, FUJB and FAPERJ, Brazil, \\
Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic, project LC527, \\
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, project AV0Z10100502, \\
Commission of the European Communities (DG XII), \\
Direction des Sciences de la Mati$\grave{\mbox{\rm e}}$re, CEA, France, \\
Bundesministerium f$\ddot{\mbox{\rm u}}$r Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung
und Technologie, Germany,\\
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece, \\
National Science Foundation (NWO) and Foundation for Research on Matter (FOM),
The Netherlands, \\
Norwegian Research Council, \\
State Committee for Scientific Research, Poland, SPUB-M/CERN/PO3/DZ296/2000,
SPUB-M/CERN/PO3/DZ297/2000, 2P03B 104 19 and 2P03B 69 23(2002-2004),\\
FCT - Funda\c{c}\~ao para a Ci\^encia e Tecnologia, Portugal, \\
Vedecka grantova agentura MS SR, Slovakia, Nr. 95/5195/134, \\
Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia, \\
CICYT, Spain, AEN99-0950 and AEN99-0761, \\
The Swedish Research Council, \\
The Science and Technology Facilities Council, UK, \\
Department of Energy, USA, DE-FG02-01ER41155, \\
EEC RTN contract HPRN-CT-00292-2002. \\
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The characterization of the collective flow of produced particles by
their azimuthal anisotropy has proven to be one of the more fruitful
probes of the dynamics of heavy ion collisions at the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Flow is sensitive to the early stages of
the collision and so the study of flow affords unique insights into
the properties of the hot and dense matter that is produced, including
information about the degree of thermalization and its equation of
state~\cite{Kolb:2000fha}.
Elliptic flow, quantified by the second coefficient, $v_2$, of a
Fourier decomposition of the azimuthal distribution of observed
particles relative to the event-plane angle, has been studied
extensively in collisions at RHIC as a function of pseudorapidity,
centrality, transverse momentum, center-of-mass energy and system
size~\cite{Back:2004zg, Back:2004mh, Alver:2006wh, Back:2004je, Adams:2005dq,
Adcox:2004mh}. A detailed comparison of these results to theoretical
models requires a quantitative understanding of the contributions of
other many-particle correlations, referred to as ``non-flow'' and
event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations~\cite{Song:2008hj}. In
particular, the measurement of event-by-event fluctuations can pose
new constraints on the models of the initial state of the collision
and its subsequent hydrodynamic
evolution~\cite{Osada:2001hw, Alver:2008zza}.
Comparison of the elliptic flow measurements in the Au+Au and Cu+Cu
systems at RHIC suggests the existence of large fluctuations in the
initial geometry of heavy ion collisions~\cite{Alver:2006wh}. These
initial state fluctuations are expected to lead to event-by-event
fluctuations in the measured elliptic flow signal. The measurement in
Au+Au collisions of dynamic fluctuations in $v_2$, including
contributions from event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations and
non-flow correlations, has yielded results which are consistent with
this expectation~\cite{Alver:2007qw}.
Different methods have been proposed to reduce the contribution of
non-flow correlations to the elliptic flow
measurements~\cite{Borghini:2001vi,Bilandzic:2008nx}. However, the
application of these methods to the measurement of elliptic flow
fluctuations is limited due to the complicated interplay between non-flow correlations and elliptic flow fluctuations~\cite{Borghini:2001vi,Alver:2008zza}.
Ollitrault et al.\ have suggested estimating the magnitude of non-flow
from measurements of correlations in p+p
collisions~\cite{Ollitrault:2009ie}. However, this estimation may not
be completely reliable since a richer correlation structure is
observed in Au+Au collisions at RHIC in comparison to the p+p
system~(e.g.~\cite{Adams:2004pa,Alver:2008gk, Abelev:2009qa,
Alver:2009id}). We propose a method to
separate flow and non-flow contributions to the second Fourier
coefficient of azimuthal particle pair distributions by studying the
three-dimensional two-particle correlation function in
($\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi$) space. This separation relies on the
assumption that non-flow correlations are most prominent in short
range (\mbox{$\deta \! \equiv \! |\eta_1-\eta_2| \! < \! 2$}).
The presumably small long
range ($\detagt$) non-flow correlations are estimated using p+p data,
and \hij\ and \pyth\ models.
Estimation of non-flow correlations using these assumptions
allows the subtraction of the
contribution of non-flow correlations to the measured dynamic $v_2$
fluctuations to obtain event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations.
This paper is organized as follows. The experimental data is described
in \Sect{sect:dataset}. The measurement of the non-flow correlations
and the corresponding event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations are
presented in \Sects{sect:nonflow}{sect:flow}. Discussion and
conclusions are included in \sect{sect:conclude}. The numerical
relation between dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations, elliptic flow
fluctuations and non-flow correlations is addressed in
Appendix~\ref{app:relate}.
\section{Experimental data}
\label{sect:dataset}
The data presented here for Au+Au collisions at $\snn =$ 200~GeV were
collected during RHIC Run 4 (2004) using the PHOBOS\
detector~\cite{Back:2003sr}. The primary event trigger requires a
coincidence between the Paddle Counters, which are two sets of sixteen
scintillator detectors located at $3.2 < |\eta| < 4.5$.
An online vertex is determined from the time difference between
signals in two sets of 10 Cerenkov counters located at 4.4 $<|\eta|<$
4.9, to select collisions that are close to the nominal vertex
position $z_{vtx}=0$ along the beam-axis.
Offline vertex reconstruction makes use of information from different
sub-detectors. Two sets of double-layered silicon Vertex Detectors
(VTX) are located below and above the collision point. PHOBOS\ also has
two Spectrometer arms in the horizontal plane used for tracking and
momentum measurement of charged particles. For events in the selected
vertex region, the most accurate $z$ (along the beam)
and $y$ (vertical, perpendicular to the beam) positions are
obtained from the Vertex Detector, while the position along $x$
(horizontal, perpendicular to the beam) comes primarily from the
Spectrometer.
The collision centrality is defined through bins of fractional total
inelastic cross section, determined using the energy deposited in the
Paddle Counters. In this paper, we report results for 6--45\% most
central events, for which measured dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations
values are available~\cite{Alver:2007qw}. About 4 million collision
events were selected in this centrality range by requiring that the
primary collision vertex falls within $|z_{vtx}|<$ 6~cm.
The analysis presented in this paper is performed using the
reconstructed hits in the large-acceptance PHOBOS\ Octagon silicon
array, covering pseudorapidity\ \mbox{$-3\!<\!\eta<3$} over almost the full
azimuth. The angular coordinates ($\eta,\phi$) of charged particles
are measured using the location of the energy deposited in the
single-layer silicon pads of the Octagon. After merging of signals in
neighboring pads, in cases where a particle travels through more than
a single pad, the deposited energy is corrected for the angle of
incidence, assuming that the charged particle originated from the
primary vertex. Noise and background hits are rejected by placing a
lower threshold on the corrected deposited energy. Depending on
$\eta$, merged hits with less than 50-60\% of the energy loss expected
for a minimum ionizing particle are rejected~\cite{Back:2001bq}.
Since the multiplicity array consists of single-layer silicon
detectors, there is no $p_{T}$, charge or mass information available
for the particles. All charged particles above a low-$p_{T}$ cutoff of
about 7~MeV/c at $\eta$=3, and 35~MeV/c at $\eta$=0 (which is the
threshold below which a charged pion is stopped by the beryllium
beam pipe) are included on equal footing.
\section{Measurement of non-flow correlations}
\label{sect:nonflow}
If the only correlations between particles are due to elliptic flow,
then the distribution of the azimuthal angular separation between
particles ($\dphi \! \equiv \! \phi_1-\phi_2$) is given by
$1+2V\cos(2\dphi)$, where $V=\vtwo(\eta_1)\times \vtwo(\eta_2)$. In
general, the second Fourier coefficient of the $\dphi$ distribution
has contributions from both flow and non-flow correlations.
Flow and non-flow contributions can be separated with a detailed study
of the $\eta$ and $\deta$ dependence of the $\dphi$ correlation
function. Consider the distribution of $\dphi$ between particles
selected from two $\eta$ windows centered at $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$.
We define the
quantity $\vtwosqr$ as the sum of flow and non-flow contributions to
the second Fourier coefficient of the normalized $\dphi$ distribution:
\begin{equation}
\vtwosqr \equiv \mean{\cos(2\dphi)}(\eta_1,\eta_2)
\end{equation}
The contributions to the second Fourier coefficient of the $\dphi$
distribution can be parameterized as
\begin{equation}
\mean{\cos(2\dphi)} = \mean{\vtwo^2}_{\text{flow}} + \delta,
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the contribution of non-flow correlations~\cite{Poskanzer:1998yz}.
Using the fact that elliptic flow leads to a correlation between all
particles in the event and creates a signal which only depends on
pseudorapidity\ ($\vtwo(\eta)$), we can write:
\begin{equation}
\vtwosqr = \vtwo(\eta_1)\!\times\!\vtwo(\eta_2) + \delta(\eta_1,\eta_2),
\label{eq:v2sqr}
\end{equation}
The measurement of non-flow correlations is therefore achieved in two
steps, described in the following sections.
First we measure the three dimensional ($\eta_1, \eta_2,
\dphi$) correlation function to obtain $\vtwosqr$. Then we separate
the observed $\vtwosqr$ distribution to its flow and non-flow
components.
\subsection{Two particle correlations analysis}
Two particle correlations have been studied extensively in ($\deta,
\dphi$) space using the PHOBOS\ detector for various collision
systems~\cite{Alver:2007wy,Alver:2008gk}. In this analysis, we extend
the same analysis procedure to ($\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi$) space.
The inclusive two-particle correlation function in
($\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi$) space is defined as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{2pcorr_incl}
R_n(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)=\mean{\frac{\rho_{n}^{\rm II}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)}
{\rho^{\rm mixed}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)}-1}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{n}^{\rm II}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)$ (with unit integral in
each $\eta_1,\eta_2$ bin) is the foreground pair distribution obtained
by taking two particles from the same event, then averaging over
all pairs in all events and $\rho^{\rm mixed}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)$ (with unit
integral in each $\eta_1,\eta_2$ bin) is the mixed-event background
distribution constructed by randomly selecting two particles from two
different events with similar vertex position and centrality,
representing a product of two single particle distributions. A vertex
bin size of 0.2~cm is used in the event-mixing.
The high occupancies measured in A+A collisions require us to account
for the high probability of multiple particles hitting a single pad.
Furthermore, secondary effects, such as $\delta$-electrons, $\gamma$
conversions and weak decays, cannot be all rejected directly.
Corrections for the high occupancy in the Octagon detector and the
secondary effects have been applied in the same way as in the
previous $\deta,\dphi$ correlation
analyses~\cite{Alver:2007wy,Alver:2008gk}.
To correct for the effects of occupancy, each hit is assigned a weight
while calculating the correlation function. The weight is calculated
using the centrality of the event and pseudorapidity\ of the hit (which
determine the likelihood of multiple particles passing through a pad for a given
$\der E/\der x$ value) and the $\der E/\der x$ information. The
details of the occupancy correction can be found in
Ref.~\cite{Alver:2008gk}.
To correct for the secondary detector effects in the data, correlation
functions were calculated for different Monte Carlo event generators
(\pyth, \hij\ and a modified \pyth\ in which all intrinsic
correlations have been removed) at $\snn$ = 200~GeV both at
the generator level for true primary charged hadrons and with the full
GEANT detector simulation and reconstruction procedure. The overall
correlation structure for the reconstructed Monte Carlo events
consists of both intrinsic and secondary correlations and these two
sources of correlations were found to be largely independent of each
other, i.e.\ the correlation from secondaries is mostly determined by
sensor thickness, detector geometry, known cross-sections and decay
kinematics~\cite{Alver:2007wy}.
The final correlation function,
$R_{n\text{ final}}^{\rm data}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)$ is calculated
from the raw correlation function, $R_{n\text{ raw}}^{\rm
data}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)$ by subtracting the contribution from
secondary correlations:
\begin{multline}
R_{n\text{ final}}^{\rm data}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi) = \\
R_{n\text{ raw}}^{\rm data}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)
-S(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi),
\label{eq:Rcorrection}
\end{multline}
where the correction factor $S(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)$ is calculated by
comparing the generator level correlation function excluding
particles outside the PHOBOS\ detector acceptance, $R_{n \text{
pri,acc}}^{\rm MC}(\eta_1, \eta_2, \Delta \phi)$, to the
correlation function obtained with the full GEANT detector simulation
and reconstruction procedure, $R_{n \text{ sim}}^{\rm MC}(\eta_1,
\eta_2, \Delta \phi)$:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:Scorrection}
S(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi) = \\
R_{n \text{ sim}}^{\rm MC}(\eta_1,\eta_2, \dphi)
-R_{n \text{ pri,acc}}^{\rm MC}(\eta_1, \eta_2, \dphi).
\end{multline}
The correction factor $S(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi)$ is calculated
separately for each centrality bin using a set of \hij\ events with
appropriate average multiplicity.
More details on the correction factor $S$ and its dependence on
$\deta$ and $\dphi$ can be found in~\cite{Alver:2007wy}.
The second Fourier coefficient of the normalized $\dphi$ distribution
is calculated from the correlation function by a fit in each
($\eta_1,\eta_2$) bin:
\begin{equation}
R_{n\text{ final}}^{\rm data}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi) = 2 \vtwosqr \cos(2\dphi).
\end{equation}
The value of $\vtwosqr$ can also be calculated directly as
\begin{equation}
\vtwosqr = \int R_{n\text{ final}}^{\rm data}(\eta_1,\eta_2,\dphi) \cos(2\dphi) \der \dphi.
\end{equation}
The two methods of calculating $\vtwosqr$ are found to be equivalent within the systematic uncertainties of the measurement.
The resulting $\vtwosqr$ distribution for 40-45\% centrality bin
is shown in \fig{fig:datasamplev2sqr}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/v2sqrfitdatav2sqrresults_root.pdf}
\caption{Second Fourier coefficient of the correlation function
$R_n(\Delta\phi,\eta_1,\eta_2)$ as a function of $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$
for the 40-45\% central Au+Au collisions at $\snn
=$~200~GeV. The ridge along $\eta_1=\eta_2$ represents the region
where non-flow contributions are most prominent.}
\label{fig:datasamplev2sqr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.94\textwidth]{img/v2sqrfit.pdf}
\caption{Flow (left) and non-flow (right) components of $\vtwosqr$ in \fig{fig:datasamplev2sqr} obtained by \eqs{eq:v2sqrfit}{eq:subtracttogetdelta} assuming non-flow correlations at $\detagt$ are negligible.}
\label{fig:datasamplev2sqrfit}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Separation of flow and non-flow contributions}
The measured $\vtwosqr$ signal in \fig{fig:datasamplev2sqr} shows the
features expected from \eq{eq:v2sqr}: a ridge along \mbox{$\deta=0$}
where the non-flow signal is most prominent which sits on a plateau
which can be factorized in $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$. Assuming non-flow
correlations are small at large $\deta$ separations, it is possible to
separate the $\vtwosqr$ to its flow and non-flow components.
We start by assuming that non-flow correlations at $\detagt$
($\delta_{\detagt}$) are zero. Then, we can perform a fit
\begin{equation}
\vtwosqr = \vtwoetaf{1}\times \vtwoetaf{2} \: ; \quad \abs{\eta_1-\eta_2}>2
\label{eq:v2sqrfit},
\end{equation}
where the fit function $\vtwoetaf{}$ is an eighth order even polynomial.
The fit
in the selected $\deta$ region can be used to extract the magnitude of
correlations due to flow, $\vtwoetaf{1}\times \vtwoetaf{2}$, in the
whole pseudorapidity\ acceptance. Subtracting the correlations due to flow, we
can extract the contribution of non-flow correlations:
\begin{equation}
\delta(\eta_1,\eta_2)=\vtwosqr-\vtwoetaf{1}\times \vtwoetaf{2}.
\label{eq:subtracttogetdelta}
\end{equation}
The two components of the $\vtwosqr$ distribution in
\fig{fig:datasamplev2sqr} are shown in \fig{fig:datasamplev2sqrfit}.
Different flow measurements with different methods and pseudorapidity\
acceptances are influenced differently by the non-flow correlation
signal. To calculate the effects of non-flow correlation on the
measurement of dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations
performed by PHOBOS~\cite{Alver:2007qw}, we
calculate the average of the $\delta(\eta_1,\eta_2)$ and $\vtwosqr$
distributions over all particle pairs:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mean{\delta} &=&
\frac{\int\delta(\eta_1,\eta_2)\frac{\der N}{\der \eta_1}\frac{\der N}{\der \eta_2} \der \eta_1 \der \eta_2}
{\int\frac{\der N}{\der \eta_1} \frac{\der N}{\der \eta_2} \der \eta_1 \der \eta_2} \label{eq:averagedelta}\\
\mean{v_2^2} &=&
\frac{\int\vtwosqr\frac{\der N}{\der \eta_1}\frac{\der N}{\der \eta_2} \der \eta_1 \der \eta_2}
{\int\frac{\der N}{\der \eta_1} \frac{\der N}{\der \eta_2} \der \eta_1 \der \eta_2},
\label{eq:averagev22}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\der N /\der \eta$ is the observed charged-particle
pseudorapidity\ distribution in the PHOBOS\ detector. To cancel scale
uncertainties in these quantities, we calculate the ``non-flow ratio''
given by $\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.94\textwidth]{img/deltavsetacutwidth_hij0.pdf}
\caption{Measured value of the non-flow ratio
($\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$) as a function of the $\deta$ cut
($\deta_c$) where non-flow correlations are assumed to be zero for
$\abs{\deta}>\deta_c$ for different centrality bins. The black circles (one for each panel)
show values for $\deta_c=2.1$ with the gray band denoting the 90\%
C.L.\ systematic errors on those results as described in the text.
The gray squares show values for $1.2\leq\deta_c\leq2.7$, which
are used in the systematic error estimation. Open squares show
values for $\deta_c<1$.}
\label{fig:deltavsdeletadata}
\end{figure*}
The systematic uncertainty has been evaluated for the various stages
of the non-flow ratio calculation including the calculation of the
correlation function and the fit to $\vtwosqr$ to obtain the non-flow
ratio. A ``digital'' occupancy correction with only the event-by-event
hit density distribution and no $\der E/\der x$ information has been
used. Hits on the PHOBOS\ Vertex detector, which has a different
granularity from the Octagon detector have been added to the
analysis. Monte Carlo samples with different average multiplicity from
the data have been used in the correction procedure. The $\deta$ cut
used in the fit has been varied between $1.2$ and $2.7$~\footnote{ The
Octagon detector with a pseudorapidity\ coverage of \mbox{$-3\!<\!\eta<3$}
allows particle pairs to be studied up to $\deta=6$. However, in
this study the $\deta$ cut is constrained to $\deta_c<3$ such that
particles from all $\eta$ values contribute in the fit to obtain
$v_2(\eta)$.}. Different fit functions $\vtwoetaf{}$ have been used
from second order up to eighth order polynomials. Finally the complete
analysis chain has been performed by dividing the data set into
$6\times2\cm$ wide vertex bins. Systematic errors are estimated for
different steps in the analysis using the variation in the results with
respect to the baseline due to these changes in the analysis. The
errors in the different steps are added in quadrature to obtain the
90\% confidence interval on the measurement of non-flow ratio.
So far, we have assumed that long range ($\detagt$) non-flow
correlations can be neglected. However, studies of the correlation
function in p+p collisions show that non-flow correlations do extend
out to $\detagt$ in elementary
collisions~\cite{Alver:2007wy}. Furthermore, a rich correlation
structure in high \pt-triggered correlations that extend out to
$\detagt$ has been observed in 200~\gev\ \AuAu\ collision at
RHIC~\cite{Alver:2009id} after the estimated flow signal is
subtracted. However,
due to the inherent uncertainty in the flow
subtraction, it is not possible to determine the second Fourier
coefficient of this correlation structure precisely.
The study of the non-flow ratio as a function of the $\deta$ cut
($\deta_c$) for the $\vtwoetaf{}$ fit carries important information on
the magnitude of non-flow at large $\deta$ separations. If non-flow
correlations are short ranged, we expect that the fits should yield
non-flow ratio results that saturate for large values of
$\deta_c$. The extracted value of $\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$ is
plotted as a function of the $\deta_c$, where it is assumed that
$\delta$ is zero for $\abs{\deta}>\deta_c$, for different centrality
bins in \fig{fig:deltavsdeletadata}. The saturation expected if
non-flow correlations are short-range is indeed observed. However, it
should be noted that the same saturation pattern could also be
observed with a finite magnitude of non-flow that has little $\deta$
dependence in the region $\deta>1.2$.
To quantitatively assess the effect of non-zero non-flow correlations
at large $\deta$ separations, we analyze the correlation functions
obtained from Monte Carlo event generators. In p+p collisions, the
magnitude of non-flow correlations, $\delta$, can be directly
calculated as the second Fourier coefficient of $\dphi$ correlations
since elliptic flow is not present~\cite{Alver:2007wy}. If A+A
collisions were a superposition of p+p collisions, the value of
$\delta$ would be diluted due to the presence of uncorrelated
particles. To compare the strength of non-flow correlations in \hij\
(Au+Au) and \pyth\ (p+p) models and p+p collisions, we calculate the
value of $\delta$ scaled by the average event multiplicity, shown in
\fig{fig:deltavsdeleta}\footnote{The large uncertainty in the p+p data
at $\deta=0$ is due to $\delta$-electrons and $\gamma$ conversions,
which may not be completely described by GEANT
simulations~\cite{Alver:2007wy}.}. Both models are observed to
roughly reproduce the strength of non-flow correlations in p+p
collisions at large $\deta$. Due to large systematic uncertainties in
the p+p data, \hij\ simulations are used to model the long range
non-flow correlations in Au+Au collisions by assuming non-flow
correlations in data are some multiplicative factor, $m$, times the
non-flow in \hij\ ($\delta_{\rm MC}(\eta_1,\eta_2)$) for
$\detagt$. This can be incorporated by modifying \eq{eq:v2sqrfit}:
\begin{multline}
\vtwosqr - m\delta_{\rm MC}(\eta_1,\eta_2)= \\
\vtwoetaf{1}\times \vtwoetaf{2} \: ; \: \detagt.
\label{eq:v2sqrfitmod}
\end{multline}
The resulting non-flow ratio, $\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$, found by
applying \mbox{Eqs.~\ref{eq:subtracttogetdelta}-\ref{eq:averagev22}}
with the modified $\vtwoetaf{}$ results, is plotted as a function of
centrality in \fig{fig:deltaovervsnparta} for different assumptions on
the magnitude of non-flow at $\detagt$.
If non-flow correlations are assumed to be present only in $\detalt$
($m=0$), it is found that they account for approximately 10\% of the
observed $v_2^2$ signal averaged over $|\eta|<3$.
The results do not change significantly if the long range non-flow
correlations ($\delta_{\detagt}$) are taken to be the same as the
correlations in \hij\ ($m=1$ instead of $m=0$).
The upper limit on the non-flow ratio, also shown in
\fig{fig:deltaovervsnparta}, is drawn from the measurement of dynamic
$v_2$ fluctuations~\cite{Alver:2007qw} assuming that the observed
fluctuations are all due to non-flow correlations. The calculation of
this limit is described in Appendix~\ref{app:relate}. This limit
corresponds to non-flow correlations in Au+Au collisions that are more
than an order of magnitude higher than the expected correlations from
p+p collisions for $\detagt$ ($m>10$).
\section{Elliptic flow fluctuations}
\label{sect:flow}
An event-by-event measurement of the anisotropy in heavy ion collisions
yields fluctuations from three sources: statistical fluctuations due
to the finite number of particles observed, elliptic flow fluctuations
and non-flow correlations. We have previously measured the dynamic
fluctuations in $v_2$ by taking out the statistical fluctuations with
a study of the measurement response to the input $v_2$
signal~\cite{Alver:2007qw}. The new results on the magnitude of
non-flow correlations presented in the previous section can be used to
decouple the contributions of genuine elliptic flow fluctuations and
non-flow correlations to the measured dynamic fluctuations.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/deltavsdeletaMC.pdf}
\caption{The magnitude of non-flow correlations ($\delta$) scaled by
the charged particle multiplicity ($n$) in the pseudorapidity\ range
$\abs{\eta}<3$ as a function of particle pair pseudorapidity\ separations
($\deta$) for p+p data and different Monte Carlo generators with
no flow correlations at $\snn =$~200~GeV. The results for p+p data
(squares) with 90\% C.L.\ systematic errors are obtained from two
particle $\deta,\dphi$
correlations~\cite{Alver:2007wy}. Statistical errors are not
shown.}
\label{fig:deltavsdeleta}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/finalrom_deltaOver.pdf}
\caption{The non-flow ratio ($\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$) in the PHOBOS\
Octagon detector acceptance as a function of number of
participating nucleons (\Npart) in Au+Au collisions at $\snn
=$~200~GeV. The black squares show the results with the assumption
that non-flow correlations are negligible at $\detagt$. The shaded
band shows the 90\% confidence systematic errors. The lines
show different assumptions about non-flow at $\detagt$. The open
circles with 90\% C.L. systematic errors, show the upper limit on
$\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$ obtained by assuming that the measured
dynamic fluctuations in $\vtwo$ are due to non-flow alone.}
\label{fig:deltaovervsnparta}
\end{figure}
Let us denote the observed distribution of the event-by-event
anisotropy as $g(\vtwoobspaper)$, the distribution of the intrinsic elliptic
flow value as $f(\vtwo)$ and the expected distribution of $\vtwoobspaper$
for a fixed value of $\vtwo$ as $K(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$. We assume
$f(\vtwo)$ to be a Gaussian in the range $\vtwo>0$ with two
parameters, mean~($\mean{\vtwo}$) and standard
deviation~($\sigma$). The dynamic fluctuations in $\vtwo$, can be
calculated by unfolding the experimental measurement
$g^\expt(\vtwoobspaper)$ with a response function $K_n^\expt(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$
which accounts for detector effects and statistical fluctuations:
\begin{equation}
g^\expt(\vtwoobspaper) = \int_{0}^{1} K_n^\expt(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)
f_{\text{dyn}}(\vtwo) \der \vtwo.
\end{equation}
The calculation of intrinsic flow fluctuations
($f_{\text{flow}}(\vtwo)$) from measured dynamic fluctuations
($f_{\text{dyn}}(\vtwo)$) can be summarized by the following equation:
\begin{multline}
\int_{0}^{1} K_{n}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo) f_{\text{dyn}}(\vtwo) \der \vtwo \\
= \int_{0}^{1} K_{n,\delta}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo) f_{\text{flow}}(\vtwo)
\der \vtwo,
\label{eq:addinquadsum}
\end{multline}
where $K_{n}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$ and
$K_{n,\delta}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$ are the response functions for an
ideal detector with and without non-flow correlations respectively.
\Eq{eq:addinquadsum} gives the distribution of observed anisotropy for
an ideal detector $g(\vtwoobspaper)$, such that on the left hand side
the non-flow correlations are encoded in the dynamic $\vtwo$
fluctuations, and on the right hand side, they are accounted for in
the response function $K_{n,\delta}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$.
The response functions $K_{n}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$ and
$K_{n,\delta}(\vtwoobspaper,\vtwo)$ are given by a
Bessel-Gaussian distribution~\cite{Ollitrault:1992bk} defined as
\begin{multline}
\BesselGaus{\vtwoobspaper}{\vtwo}{\sigma_s} \equiv \frac{\vtwoobspaper}{\sigma_s^2} \\
\times \exp\left(-\frac{(\vtwoobspaper)^2+\vtwo^2}{2\sigma_s^2}\right)
I_{0} \left(\frac{\vtwoobspaper \vtwo}{\sigma_s^2}\right),
\label{eq:besselgaus}
\end{multline}
where $I_{0}$ is the modified Bessel function. The fluctuation term
$\sigma_s$ in the response function is a quadratic sum of statistical
fluctuations ($\sigmastat = 1/\sqrt{2n}$) due to finite number of
particles ($n$) observed in the detector and a contribution from
non-flow correlations ($\sigmadelta = \sqrt{\delta/2}$).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/finalrom_sigmainErrAll.pdf}
\caption{Relative elliptic flow fluctuations
($\sigmaflow/\meanvtwoflow$) as a function of number of
participating nucleons (\Npart) in Au+Au collisions at $\snn
=$~200~GeV. The black circles show the results with the assumption
that non-flow correlations are negligible at $\detagt$. The shaded
band shows the 90\% confidence systematic errors. The thin lines
show results for different assumptions on the magnitude of
non-flow at $\detagt$. The continuous and dashed thick lines show
$\sigma(\epsilon_{part})/\langle\epsilon_{par t}\rangle$ values
calculated in Glauber MC~\cite{Alver:2007qw} and
CGC~\cite{Drescher:2007ax} models, respectively.}
\label{fig:flowecc}
\end{figure}
\Eq{eq:addinquadsum} cannot be simplified analytically. However, it
can be solved numerically to calculate relative elliptic
flow fluctuations ($\sigmaflow/\meanvtwoflow$) that correspond to the
measured dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations ($\sigmatot/\mean{\vtwo}$) and the
non-flow ratio ($\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$) for different assumptions on non-flow
at $\detagt$. The details of the numerical calculation are given in
Appendix~\ref{app:relate}. It has been suggested that the relation
between these quantities can be approximated as
$\sigmatot^2=\sigmadelta^2+\sigmaflow^2$~\cite{Ollitrault:2009ie}. We
have found that this approximation does not hold in the range of our
experimental results ($\sigmatot/\mean{\vtwo}>0.3$).
The systematic error in the magnitude of relative elliptic flow
fluctuations is obtained by propagating the errors in the measured
quantities $\sigmatot/\mean{\vtwo}$ and $\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$ and by varying
the procedure to calculate $\sigmaflow/\meanvtwoflow$ from these
quantities. The errors from different sources are added in quadrature
to obtain the 90\% confidence interval. The error propagated from the
uncertainty in $\sigmatot/\mean{\vtwo}$ is the dominant contribution
to the uncertainty in $\sigmaflow/\meanvtwoflow$.
The relative fluctuations in the event-by-event elliptic flow,
corrected for contribution of non-flow correlations are presented in
\fig{fig:flowecc} as a function of the number of participating
nucleons, in Au+Au collisions at $\snn =$ 200~GeV for 6--45\% most
central events. The elliptic flow fluctuations are found to be
roughly 30--40\% if the magnitude of non-flow correlations are assumed
to be small for $\detagt$. The observed values of relative elliptic
flow fluctuations correspond to 87-97\% (79-95\%) of the previously
measured dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations~\cite{Alver:2007qw} if non-flow
correlations at $\detagt$ are assumed to be zero (three times the
magnitude in \hij).
Also shown in \fig{fig:flowecc} are relative fluctuations in the
participant eccentricity obtained from MC Glauber~\cite{Alver:2007qw}
and color glass condensate(CGC)~\cite{Drescher:2007ax} calculations.
The measured values of elliptic flow fluctuations are observed to be
consistent with both models over the centrality range under study if
the long range non-flow correlations are neglected. The same
conclusion holds if the long range correlations are assumed to be
three times stronger than in p+p collisions, as modeled by \hij.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{sect:conclude}
We have presented new data on the magnitude of non-flow
correlations and the event-by-event elliptic flow
fluctuations corrected for non-flow correlations in Au+Au collisions at
$\snn =$~200~GeV. The measurement of non-flow
correlations is achieved by utilizing a new correlation analysis with
the assumption that non-flow correlations are of the order that is
observed in p+p collisions for long range correlations
($\detagt$). The non-flow correlations averaged over the PHOBOS\
Octagon acceptance ($-3 \! < \! \eta \! < \! 3$) are found to be
large, constituting approximately 10\% of the measured
$v_2^2$ signal.
Studying the dependence of expected azimuthal anisotropy fluctuations
due to non-flow correlations, it is found that the long range non-flow
correlations in Au+Au collisions would have to be more than an order of
magnitude stronger compared to the p+p data for non-flow correlations
to lead to the observed azimuthal anisotropy fluctuations with no
intrinsic elliptic flow fluctuations.
The method presented in this paper can be generally
applied in large acceptance detectors to study the contribution of
non-flow correlations to the flow signal measured with different
approaches.
The magnitude of event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations were
calculated by subtracting the contribution of non-flow correlations to
the measured values of dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations. If the inclusive
long range non-flow
correlations in A+A collisions are assumed to be of the order of
magnitude that is observed in p+p collisions, the magnitude of
event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations are found to be in agreement
with predicted fluctuations of the initial shape of the collision
region in both Glauber and Color Glass Condensate models. Therefore
these results support conclusions from previous studies on the
importance of geometric fluctuations of the initial collision region
postulated to relate elliptic flow measurements in the Cu+Cu and Au+Au
systems~\cite{Alver:2006wh}.
This work was partially supported by U.S. DOE grants
DE-AC02-98CH10886,
DE-FG02-93ER40802,
DE-FG02-94ER40818,
DE-FG02-94ER40865,
DE-FG02-99ER41099, and
DE-AC02-06CH11357, by U.S.
NSF grants 9603486,
0072204,
and 0245011,
by Polish MNiSW grant N N202 282234 (2008-2010),
by NSC of Taiwan Contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024, and
by Hungarian OTKA grant (F 049823).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{img/addinquad.pdf}
\caption{Dynamic $v_2$ fluctuations ($\sigmatot/\mean{\vtwo}$) as a
function of elliptic flow fluctuations
($\sigmaflow/\meanvtwoflow$) and the non-flow ratio
($\mean{\delta}/\mean{v_2^2}$) for
$\sigmastat/\meanvtwoflow=0.6$. The observed values of dynamic
$v_2$ fluctuations are roughly given by
$\sigmatot/\mean{\vtwo}\approx$40\%~\cite{Alver:2007qw}.}
\label{fig:relations}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this talk, I will discuss the concept of having a ``right-handed'' singlet
neutrino. I will consider its role in the Standard Model of particle
interactions, and in its left-right gauge extension. I will show how its
true identity may be misread in the usual treatment of left-right models,
and expose it as a ``scotino'', i.e. a dark-matter fermion. Interesting
phenomenological and theoretical consequences of this hypothesis are
presented.
\section{SM $\nu_R$ is not compulsory}
The Standard Model (SM) does not need a singlet fermion $\nu_R$ because it
transforms as $(1,1,0)$, i.e. trivially under the gauge group
$SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$. If $\nu_R$ is added anyway,
then the Yukawa interaction $\bar{\nu}_R (\nu_L \phi^0 - l_L \phi^+)$
induces a Dirac mass term $m_D \bar{\nu}_R \nu_L$, as $\phi^0$ acquires a
nonzero vacuum expectation value. Thus $\nu_R$ is usually referred to as the
``right-handed neutrino''. However, since $\nu_R$ is a gauge singlet,
it can have an arbitrary Majorana mass $m_R$. The resulting $2 \times 2$
mass matrix is of the famous seesaw form
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}_\nu = \pmatrix{ 0 & m_D \cr m_D & m_R},
\end{equation}
which has the eigenvalues $m_R/2 \pm \sqrt{(m_R^2/4) + m_D^2}$. Assuming
$m_R >> m_D$ then implies $\nu_L$ is almost a mass eigenstate with mass
eigenvalue $-m_D^2/m_R$. This idea (1979) has tyrannized the thinking of
neutrino mass for some 20 years. On the other hand, it was certainly known
already in the beginning that $\nu_R$ was not compulsory for neutrino mass
in the SM, but it was not until about 10 years ago (1999) that other equally
``natural'' mechanisms were also widely discussed.
In particular, a Higgs triplet $(\xi^{++},\xi^+,\xi^0)$ with a very small
vacuum expectation value $\langle \xi^0 \rangle$ works just as well for
$\nu_L$ to acquire a Majorana mass without any $\nu_R$. However, it was
incorrectly thought by the community at large for many years that this is
somehow ``unnatural''. To understand why this is also a seesaw mechanism
(Type II) and just as natural as that (Type I) using $\nu_R$ with a large
$m_R$, see for example the 1998 paper of Ma and Sarkar,\cite{ms98} where
it is shown simply and explicitly that
\begin{equation}
V = m_\xi^2 \xi^\dagger \xi + \mu \xi^\dagger \Phi \Phi + ... ~\Rightarrow~
\langle \xi^0 \rangle \simeq {-\mu \langle \phi^0 \rangle^2 \over m_\xi^2},
\end{equation}
if $m_\xi^2$ is positive and large.
\section{Left-right $\nu_R$ is compulsory}
If the SM is extended to accommodate $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R
\times U(1)_X$, then the conventional assignment of
\begin{eqnarray}
(\nu,l)_L \sim (1,2,1,-1/2), &~& (\nu,l)_R \sim (1,1,2,-1/2), \\
(u,d)_L \sim (3,2,1,1/6), &~& (u,d)_R \sim (3,1,2,1/6),
\end{eqnarray}
implies the well-known result that $X = (B-L)/2$ and $Y = T_{3R} + (B-L)/2$.
There must then be Higgs bidoublets
\begin{equation}
\phi = \pmatrix{\phi_1^0 & \phi_2^+ \cr \phi_1^- & \phi_2^0}, ~~~
\tilde{\Phi} = \pmatrix{\bar{\phi}_2^0 & -\phi_1^+ \cr -\phi_2^- &
\bar{\phi}_1^0},
\end{equation}
both transforming as $(1,2,2,0)$, yielding lepton Dirac mass terms
\begin{equation}
m_l = f_l \langle \phi_2^0 \rangle + f'_l \langle \bar{\phi}_1^0 \rangle, ~~~
m_\nu = f_l \langle \phi_1^0 \rangle + f'_l \langle \bar{\phi}_2^0 \rangle,
\end{equation}
and similarly in the quark sector. This results in the appearance of
phenomenologically undesirable tree-level flavor-changing neutral currents
from Higgs exchange, as well as inevitable $W_L - W_R$ mixing. If
supersymmetry is imposed, then $\tilde{\Phi}$ can be eliminated, but then
$({\cal M}_\nu)_{ij} \propto ({\cal M}_l)_{ij}$ as well as
$({\cal M}_u)_{ij} \propto ({\cal M}_d)_{ij}$, contrary to what is observed.
Hence the prevalent thinking is that $SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ is actually
broken down to $U(1)_Y$ at a very high scale from an $SU(2)_R$ Higgs triplet
$(\Delta_R^{++},\Delta_R^+,\Delta_R^0) \sim (1,1,3,1)$ which provides $\nu_R$ at
the same time with a large Majorana mass from $\langle \Delta_R^0 \rangle$.
The Type I seesaw mechanism is thus implemented and everyone should be happy.
But wait, no remnant of the $SU(2)_R$ gauge symmetry is detectable at the
TeV scale and we will not know if $\nu_R$ really exists. Is there a natural
way to lower the $SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ breaking scale?
The answer was already provided 22 years ago\cite{m87} in the context of
the superstring-inspired supersymmetric $E_6$ model. The fundamental
\underline{27} fermion representation here is decomposed under
$[(SO(10),SU(5)]$ as
\begin{equation}
\underline{27} = (16,10) + (16,5^*) + (16,1) + (10,5) + (10,5^*) + (1,1).
\end{equation}
Under its maximum subgroup $SU(3)_C \times SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R$, the
\underline{27} is organized instead as $(3,3^*,1)+(1,3,3^*)+(3^*,1,3)$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\pmatrix{d & u & h \cr d & u & h \cr d & u & h} + \pmatrix{N & E^c & \nu \cr
E & N^c & e \cr \nu^c & e^c & n^c} + \pmatrix{d^c & d^c & d^c \cr u^c & u^c
& u^c \cr h^c & h^c & h^c}.
\end{equation}
It was realized\cite{m87} in 1987 that there are actually two left-right
options: (A) Let $E_6$ break down to the fermion content of the conventional
$SO(10)$, given by $(16,10)+(16,5^*)+(16,1)$, which is the usual
left-right model which everybody knows. (B) Let $E_6$ break down to the
fermion content given by $(16,10)+(10,5^*)+(1,1)$ instead, thereby switching
the first and third rows of $(3^*,1,3)$ and the first and third columns of
$(1,3,3^*)$. Thus $(\nu,e)_R$ becomes $(n,e)_R$ and $n_R$ is not the mass
partner of $\nu_L$. This is referred to by the Particle Data Group as the
Alternative Left-Right Model (ALRM). Here the usual left-handed lepton
doublet is part of a bidoublet:
\begin{equation}
\pmatrix{\nu & E^c \cr e & N^c}_L \sim (1,2,2,0).
\end{equation}
In this supersymmetric model, $\nu_L$ is still the Dirac mass partner of
$\nu_R$ and gets a seesaw mass, whereas\cite{m00} $n_R$ (which couples to
$e_R$ through $W_R$) mixes with the usual neutralinos, the lightest of which
is a dark-matter candidate.
\section{Dark left-right model}
Earlier in 2009, a simpler nonsupersymmetric variant of the ALRM was
proposed\cite{klm09} which has the same basic fermion structure as a
model discussed already 31 years ago\cite{rr78}. We call it the Dark
Left-Right Model (DLRM). We impose a global U(1) symmetry $S$, so that
under $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1) \times S$, the
``leptons'' transform as
\begin{equation}
\psi_L = (\nu,e)_L \sim (1,2,1,-1/2;1), ~~~
\psi_R = (n,e)_R \sim (1,1,2,-1/2;1/2),
\end{equation}
and the Higgs bidoublet as
\begin{equation}
\Phi = \pmatrix{\phi_1^0 & \phi_2^+ \cr \phi_1^- & \phi_2^0} \sim (1,2,2,0;1/2).
\end{equation}
Hence $\tilde{\Phi}$ has $S=-1/2$ and the Yukawa term $\bar{\psi}_L
\tilde{\Phi} \psi_R$ is forbidden, whereas $\bar{\psi}_L \Phi \psi_R$
is allowed. The breaking of $SU(2)_R \times U(1) \to U(1)_Y$ leaves $L = S -
T_{3R}$ unbroken, so that $\langle \phi_2^0 \rangle \neq 0$, but $\langle
\phi_1^0 \rangle = 0$. The former allows a Dirac mass term $m_e \bar{e}_L
e_R$, whereas the latter means that $\nu_L$ and $n_R$ are not Dirac mass
partners and can be completely different particles with independent masses
of their own. Since $n_R$ has $L = 1/2 - 1/2 = 0$, it also has odd $R$
parity, i.e. $R = (-)^{3B+L+2j} = -1$, even though the model is
nonsupersymmetric. It may thus be a dark-matter fermion, i.e. a scotino.
Let $n_R$ and $\nu_L$ become massive in parallel, the former {\it via}
$(\Delta_R^{++},\Delta_R^+,\Delta_R^0) \sim (1,1,3,1;-1)$, and the latter
{\it via} $(\Delta_L^{++},\Delta_L^+,\Delta_L^0) \sim
(1,3,1,1;-2)$. Since $\Delta_L^0$ has $L=-2$, the soft term
$\tilde{\Phi}_L^\dagger \Delta_L \Phi_L$ is needed to break $L$ to $(-)^L$.
The Higgs doublet $\Phi_L \sim (1,2,1,1/2;0)$ is needed as well as
$\Phi_R \sim (1,1,2,1/2;-1/2)$ because the quark sector is now given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& Q_L = (u,d)_L \sim (3,2,1,1/6;0), ~~~ d_R \sim (3,1,1,-1/3;0), \\
&& Q_R = (u,h)_R \sim (3,1,2,1/6;1/2), ~~~ h_L \sim (3,1,1,-1/3;1).
\end{eqnarray}
The allowed Yukawa terms are then $\bar{Q}_L \tilde{\Phi} Q_R$, $\bar{Q}_L
\Phi_L d_R$, and $\bar{Q}_R \Phi_R h_L$. Hence $m_u$ comes from $v_2 =
\langle \phi_2^0 \rangle$, $m_d$ from $v_3 = \langle \phi_L^0 \rangle$, and
$m_h$ from $v_4 = \langle \phi_R^0 \rangle$. Tree-level flavor-changing
neutral currents are thus guaranteed to be absent. Since the scotino $n$ has
$L=0$ and $e$ has $L=1$, this implies that $W_R^+$ has $L=-1$ and $h$ has
$L=1$. Thus $W_R$ does not mix with $W_L$, and $h$ does not mix with $d$.
The new neutral gauge boson $Z'$ of this model couples to the current
$J_{Z'} = x J_{3L} + (1-x) J_{3R} - x J_{em}$ where $x \equiv \sin^2 \theta_W$,
with coupling $e/\sqrt{x(1-x)(1-2x)}$. Neglecting $M_{W_L}^2$, we then have
\begin{equation}
{(1-2x) \over 2(1-x)} M_{Z'}^2 < M_{W_R}^2 < {(1-2x) \over (1-x)} M_{Z'}^2.
\end{equation}
The lower (upper) bound applies to $\langle \phi_R^0 \rangle << (>>)
\langle \Delta_R^0 \rangle$. Present Tevatron data imply that
$M_{Z'} > 850$ GeV ($M_{W_R} > 500$ GeV). At the LHC (with $E_{cm}=14$ TeV),
the discovery reach\cite{klm09} of this $Z'$ by the observation of 10
dilepton events of one type is $M_{Z'} = 1.5$ (2.4) TeV for an integrated
luminosity of 1 (10) fb$^{-1}$. Once $Z'$ is observed, this model predicts
$W_R$ as shown, in contrast to all purely $U(1)'$ gauge models.
\section{Scotino = $n_R$ ($\nu_R$)}
The particles $n,h,W_R^\pm,\phi_R^\pm,\Delta_R^\pm,\phi_1^\pm,Re(\phi_1^0),
Im(\phi_1^0)$ are odd under $R$ parity. The lightest $n$ can be stable and
be a good candidate for the dark matter of the Universe. Assuming that
$\Delta_R^\pm$ is much lighter than $W_R^\pm$ and $Z'$, the dominant
annihilation of $n$ is then $n n \to e^+ e^-$ {\it via} $\Delta_R^\pm$
exchange. The measured $\Omega h^2$ values for dark matter by WMAP are
obtained\cite{klm09} for a wide range of $n$ and $\Delta_R^\pm$ masses
in the neighborhood of 200 GeV. Since $n$ always interacts with a lepton
in this model, recent observations by the PAMELA and ATIC collaborations
may also be relevant.\cite{cms09}
\section{Scotogenic neutrino masses}
The mass of $\nu_L$ may also be derived from $n_R$ as a radiative
effect, i.e. scotogenic. To accomplish this, $\Delta_L$ is removed in
favor of of a scalar singlet $\chi \sim (1,1,1,0;-1)$, then the trilinear
scalar term Tr$(\Phi \tilde{\Phi}^\dagger)\chi$ is allowed. Using the
soft term $\chi^2$ to break $L$ to $(-)^L$, a scotogenic neutrino mass
is obtained in one loop, as pointed out first\cite{m06} in 2006.
\section{Conclusion}
The presence of $\nu_R$ is unavoidable in a left-right gauge extension of the
Standard Model. However, it does not have to be the Dirac mass partner of
$\nu_L$. In that case, it should be renamed $n_R$ and could function as a
scotino, i.e. a dark-matter fermion. The $SU(2)_R$ gauge bosons of this
dark left-right model (DLRM), i.e. $W_R^\pm$ and $Z'$, are observable at the
LHC. The recent PAMELA and ATIC observations may also be relevant.
Scotogenic neutrino masses are also possible.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by the
U.~S.~Department of Energy under Grant No.~DE-FG03-94ER40837. I thank
S. Khalil and the other organizers of the BUE-CTP International Conference
on Neutrino Physics in the LHC Era (November 2009) for their great
hospitality and a stimulating meeting in Luxor.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The observed baryon asymmetry of the universe, or the excess of matter over anti matter,
is a challenging problem for any theoretical model to be phenomenologically realistic.
Several decades ago, Sakharov pointed out that theoretical models can generate the baryon asymmetry
dynamically if they satisfy three essential conditions:
the violation of baryon number conservation, the violation of both C and CP,
and the deviation from thermal equilibrium [1].
It is well known that, in order to ensure sufficient deviation from thermal equilibrium, the electroweak
phase transition (EWPT) should be first order, and its strength should be strong,
since otherwise the baryon asymmetry generated during the phase transition subsequently would disappear [2-10].
As the universe cools down, the shape of the potential of the scalar field that is responsible for the electroweak
symmetry breaking has two degenerate minima, where one of them is the (false) vacuum of the symmetric state
and the other is the (true) vacuum of the broken state, at the critical temperature.
The first-order electroweak phase transition takes place from the false vacuum to the true vacuum.
In general, the first-order electroweak phase transition
is regarded as strong if the vacuum expectation value (VEV)
of the scalar field at the true vacuum is larger than the critical temperature.
The Standard Model (SM) is certainly the most successful theory so far for electroweak interactions,
yet it is found, however, that the SM faces severe difficulty to satisfy the Sakharov conditions.
First, the complex phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix cannot produce large enough
CP violation to generate the baryon asymmetry.
Further, for the present experimental lower bound on the mass of the SM Higgs boson,
the strength of the first-order EWPT in the SM is too weak.
Consequently, the possibility of a strongly first-order EWPT may be studied in the
models modified or extended the SM in order to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe.
In the literature, a number of models alternative to the SM have been investigated in this context.
These models are phenomenologically well motivated, if not necessarily motivated by
the baryon asymmetry.
We are interested in studying the possibility of a strongly first-order EWPT in these models.
Among them is an extension of the SM with an additional scalar color octet.
Popov, Povarov, and Smirnov have studied it within the context of Pati-Salam unification [11].
Manohar and Wise have studied the general structure of this model,
and examined new impact on the Higgs phenomenology and flavor physics [12].
Recently, other authors have also investigated the implications of the scalar color octet
at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [13-19].
It is also noticed that the presence of the scalar color octet causes additional sources of CP violation
beyond the CKM matrix in the SM [12].
Since a sufficient CP violation is required by one of the Sakharov conditions for generating
the baryon asymmetry, this model is in a better position than the SM in this respect.
We are thus interested in whether this model also allows a strongly first-order EWPT.
By studying the finite temperature effective Higgs potential at the one-loop level,
we find that there are parameter regions in this model where the EWPT is
strongly first order to generate the desired baryon asymmetry.
In the parameter regions, the Higgs boson mass can be as large as 197 GeV
and the masses of the scalar color octet are as large as about 250 GeV.
Thus, these parameter regions may be explored at the LHC.
\section{The Model}
In Ref. [12], Manohar and Wise have considered the generalization of the SM with
the most general scalar sector, with a natural suppression of flavor changing neutral currents.
Explicitly, they have considered the case of an additional scalar color octet, from the point of
view of the LHC phenomenology.
Let us briefly describe the model.
The scalar sector of this model consists of $H$, the usual SM Higgs doublet,
and $S^\alpha$ ($\alpha = 1, \cdot, 8$), the scalar color octet.
The SM Higgs doublet is defined as $H^T = (H^+, H^0)$,
where $H^+$ and $H^0$ are the charged and neutral Higgs fields, respectively.
The scalar color octet are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
S^\alpha= \bigg(
\begin{array}{c}
S^{+\alpha} \\
S^{0\alpha}
\end{array} \bigg)
= \bigg (
\begin{array}{c}
S^{\alpha}_C \\
{\displaystyle S_R^{\alpha} + i S_I^{\alpha} \over \displaystyle \sqrt{2} }
\end{array}
\bigg ) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_C^\alpha$ is the charged scalar color octet and
$S_R^{\alpha}$ and $S_I^{\alpha}$ are respectively the real and the complex components of the
neutral scalar color octet.
Under $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$, the SM Higgs field transforms as
$({\bf 1}, {\bf 2})_{1/2}$ and the scalar color octet as $({\bf 8}, {\bf 2})_{1/2}$.
The Yukawa coupling of the SM Higgs boson to the SM quarks is given as
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = - g_{ij}^U {\bar u}_{R i} Q_{L j} H
- g_{ij}^D {\bar d}_{R i} Q_{L j} H^{\dagger} + {\rm H.c.} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $i$ and $j$ are flavor indices ($i,j = 1,2,3$),
$g_{ij}^U$ and $g_{ij}^D$ are the Yukawa coupling coefficients,
$Q_{Lj}$ are the quark doublets,
and $u_{Ri}$ and $d_{Ri}$ are the quark singlets.
The Yukawa couplings of the scalar color octet to the SM quarks are given as
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = - \eta_U g_{ij}^U {\bar u}_{R i} T^\alpha Q_{L j} S^\alpha
- \eta_D g_{ij}^D {\bar d}_{R i} T^\alpha Q_{L j} S^{\alpha \dagger} + {\rm H.c.} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_U$ and $\eta_D$ are generally complex constants,
$\alpha$ is the color index ($\alpha = 1, \cdot, 8$),
$T^\alpha$ are the $SU(3)$ generators with the normalization condition of
${\rm Tr} (T^\alpha T^\beta) = \delta^{\alpha\beta}/2$.
In terms of the usual SM Higgs doublet and the scalar color octet,
the most general form of the scalar potential at the tree level at zero temperature is given as [12]
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0 &=& -\mu^2 H^{\dagger i} H_i + \lambda \left(H^{\dagger i} H_i \right)^2 \cr
&& + 2 m_S^2 {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger i} S_i
+ \lambda_1 H^{\dagger i} H_i {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger j} S_j
+ \lambda_2 H^{\dagger i} H_j {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger j} S_i \cr
&& + \Bigl[ \lambda_3 H^{\dagger i} H^{\dagger j} {\rm Tr} S_i S_j
+ \lambda_4 H^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger j} S_j S_i
+ \lambda_5 H^{\dagger i} {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger j} S_i S_j + {\rm H.c.} \Bigr] \cr
&&+ \lambda_6 {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger i} S_i S^{\dagger j} S_j
+ \lambda_7 {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger i} S_j S^{\dagger j} S_i
+ \lambda_8 {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger i} S_i {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger j} S_j \cr
&& + \lambda_9 {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger i} S_j {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger j} S_i
+\lambda_{10} {\rm Tr} S_i S_j {\rm Tr} S^{\dagger i} S^{\dagger j}
+ \lambda_{11} {\rm Tr} S_i S_j S^{\dagger j} S^{\dagger i} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $i, j$ are the $SU(2)$ indices,
traces are over the color $SU(3)$ indices.
$S = S^\alpha T^\alpha$,
$m^2_S$ is the mass parameter for the scalar color octet,
$\lambda$ is the quartic coupling coefficient of the SM Higgs field,
and ${\lambda}_i$ ($i=$ from 1 to 11) are the quartic coupling coefficients of the scalar color octet.
Note that the phases of $\eta_U$, $\eta_D$, $\lambda_4$ or $\lambda_5$ might be
additional sources of CP violation beyond the complex phase in the CKM matrix.
In this model, since the color symmetry is intact, the scalar color octet would not develop any VEV.
Thus, the electroweak symmetry breaking is triggered by the Higgs doublet alone,
and the EWPT is determined by the shape of the Higgs potential.
We assume that the real component of the neutral Higgs field, ${\rm Re}H^0 $,
develops the VEV.
Let us introduce the physical Higgs boson $\phi$ as $\phi = {\rm Re}H^0 /\sqrt{2}$.
The tree-level zero-temperature Higgs potential may then be written as
\begin{equation}
V_0 (\phi, 0) = -{1\over 2} \mu^2 \phi^2 + {1\over 4} \lambda \phi^4 \ .
\end{equation}
At the tree level at zero temperature, we would have $\langle \phi \rangle = v_0$,
where $v_0 = 246$ GeV, the tree-level VEV.
The tree-level masses of the gauge bosons $W$, $Z$, and top quark $t$, respectively, are given as
$m_W = g_2 v_0 /2$, $m_Z = \sqrt{g_1^2 + g_2^2} v_0 /2$, and $m_t = h_t v_0 /\sqrt{2}$.
The tree-level masses of the Higgs boson and Goldstone boson are given by
$m_{\phi} = \sqrt{2 \lambda} v_0$ and $m_G = \sqrt{\lambda} v_0$, respectively.
Also, the tree-level masses for $S^{\alpha}_C$, $S_R^{\alpha}$, and $S_I^{\alpha}$
are given respectively as
\begin{eqnarray}
& & m^2_{S_C} = m_S^2+\lambda_1{ v^2_0 \over 4} \ , \cr
& & m^2_{S_R} = m_S^2+\left(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+2\lambda_3\right){v^2_0 \over 4} \ , \cr
& & m^2_{S_I} = m_S^2+\left(\lambda_1+\lambda_2-2\lambda_3\right){v^2_0 \over 4} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
At the one-loop level, the zero-temperature Higgs potential is given by including the
one-loop contributions, which is calculated, by using the effective potential method [20], as
\begin{equation}
\Delta V_1(\phi, 0) = 2 B v^2_0 \phi^2 - {3 \over 2} B \phi^4 +
B \log \bigg ( { \phi^2 \over v^2_0 } \bigg ) \phi^4 \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B = {3 \over 64 \pi^2 v^4_0} \bigg ( 2 m_W^4 + m_Z^4 - 4 m_t^4
+ {16 \over 3} m_{S_C}^4 + {8 \over 3} m_{S_R}^4 + {8 \over 3} m_{S_I}^4
+ {1 \over 3} m_{\phi}^4 + m_G^4 \bigg ) \ .
\end{equation}
In the radiative corrections, we include the loops of $W$ boson, $Z$ boson, top quark, the Higgs boson,
the Goldstone boson,
the charged scalar color octet, and the neutral scalar color octet.
The full one-loop zero-temperature Higgs potential is therefore given as
\begin{equation}
V_1(\phi, 0) = V_0 (\phi, 0) + \Delta V_1 (\phi, 0) \ .
\end{equation}
Now, the finite-temperature contribution at the one-loop level to the Higgs potential is given as [21]
\begin{eqnarray}
V_1 (\phi, T) & = &
\sum_{l = B, F} {n_l T^4 \over 2 \pi^2}
\int_0^{\infty} dx \ x^2 \ \log
\bigg [1 \pm \exp{ \bigg ( - \sqrt {x^2 + {m_l^2 (\phi)/T^2 }} \bigg ) } \bigg ] ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the negative sign is for bosons ($B$) and the positive sign for fermions ($F$).
$m_l (\phi)$ is the field-dependent tree-level mass of the participating $l$-th particle,
and $n_W = 6$, $n_Z = 3$, $n_t = - 12$, $n_{\phi} = 1$, $n_G = 3$,
and $n_{S_C} = 2 n_{S_R} = 2 n_{S_I} = 16$
for the degrees of freedom for each particle, including the color factor of 8.
The full one-loop finite-temperature Higgs potential is therefore given as
\begin{equation}
V (\phi, T) = V_1 (\phi, 0) + V_1 (\phi, T) \ .
\end{equation}
We note that the one-loop corrected VEV of the Higgs field at zero temperature is given by
the minimum condition
\[
{d V_1(\phi, 0) \over d \phi} = 0 \ ,
\]
and the one-loop corrected mass of the Higgs boson is given by
\[
m^2_H = \left. {d^2 V_1(\phi, 0) \over d \phi^2} \right |_{\phi = v} \ .
\]
For qualitative discussions on the EWPT, we take the high temperature approximation of $V_1(\phi, T)$.
It is known that in the SM the high temperature approximation is consistent
with the exact numerical integration within 5 \% at temperature $T$ for $m_F/T < 1.6$
and $m_B/T < 2.2$, where $m_F$ and $m_B$ are the mass of the relevant fermion and boson, respectively.
We assume that a similar level of accuracy may be expected in our case.
Explicitly, $V_1(\phi, T)$ is given in the high temperature approximation as
\begin{equation}
V_1^H (\phi, T) \simeq (D T^2 - E) \phi^2 - F T \phi^3 + G \phi^4 ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&& D = {1 \over 24 v^2} (\sum_B n_B m_B^2 + 6 m_t^2 ) \ , \cr
&& E = {m_H^2 \over 4} - {1 \over 32 \pi^2 v^2} ( \sum_{l=B,F} n_l m_l^4) \ , \cr
&& F = {1 \over 12 \pi v^3} (\sum_B n_B m_B^3) \ , \cr
&& G = {m_H^2 \over 8 v^2}
- {1 \over 64 \pi^2 v^4} \left [\sum_{l=B,F} n_l \log {m_l^2 \over a_l T^2} \right ] \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\log (a_F) = 1.14$, $\log (a_B) = 3.91$,
and $n_W = 6$, $n_Z = 3$, $n_t = - 12$, $n_{\phi} = 1$, $n_G = 3$,
and $n_{S_C} = 2 n_{S_R} = 2 n_{S_I} = 16$
for the degrees of freedom for each particle, where the color factor of 8 is taken into account.
From this formula for $V_1(\phi, T)$ in the high-temperature approximation,
one may notice that $V_1(\phi, T) \simeq D T^2 \phi^2$ at very high temperature,
and that $V_1(\phi, T) \simeq -E\phi^2 +G \phi^4$ at very low temperature.
Therefore, the term proportional to $F$ is crucial at intermediate temperature for the EWPT.
We note that contributions from the scalar color octet loops are present in $V_1(\phi, T)$.
In particular, the strength of the first-order EWPT is enhanced by the term proportional to $F$ due to
the scalar color octet contributions.
If the contributions of the scalar color octet are neglected,
$V_1 (\phi, T)$ would contain the contributions of the weak gauge bosons and top quark alone,
thus would become exactly equivalent to the SM Higgs potential.
In this case, the EWPT in this model would also become either weakly first order or higher order.
Consequently, the contributions from the loops of the scalar color octet are important for this model
to realize the strongly first-order EWPT.
For the numerical analysis in the following section, however, we perform the exact numerical integration
of $V_1(\phi, T)$.
\section{Numerical Analysis}
Let us first examine if the relevant parameters of the Higgs potential diverge at high energy scale.
In order to do so, we consider the renormaliztion group (RG) equations for them.
We know that $V_1(\phi, 0)$ contains three parameters $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, and
$\lambda_3$, through the contributions of the scalar color octet, as well as the SM parameters:
$g_1$, $g_2$, and $g_3$, which are the $U(1)$, $SU(2)$, and $SU(3)$ gauge coupling constants,
respectively, and $h_t$, which is the Yukawa coupling coefficient of top quark.
These parameters are generally renormalizable, and thus should satisfy the RG equations.
Explicitly, the RG equation for the quartic coupling coefficient of the SM Higgs field, $\lambda$, is given as [15]
\begin{equation}
16\pi^2 \frac{d \lambda}{dt} = 24 \lambda^2 + 48 \lambda_1^2 + 16 \lambda_2^2 + 16\lambda_3^2
-(3 g_1^2+ 9 g_2^2 - 12 h_t^2)\lambda + \frac{3}{8}g_1^4 + \frac{3}{4} g_1^2 g_2^2
+ \frac{9}{8} g_2^4 - 6 h_t^4 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $t = \log{\mu}$, with $\mu$ being the running mass,
and the RG equations for the quartic coupling coefficients of the scalar color octet, $\lambda_1$,
$\lambda_2$, and $\lambda_3$, are given as [15]
\begin{eqnarray}
16\pi^2 \frac{d\lambda_1}{dt} &=& 16 \lambda_1^2 + 8 \lambda \lambda_1
- (\frac{3}{2}g_1^2+ \frac{9}{2} g_2^{2} - 6 h_t^2)\lambda_1
- (\frac{3}{2}g_1^2 + \frac{9}{2} g_2^2 + 18 g_3^{2}) \lambda_1 \cr
&&\mbox{} + \frac{3}{8} g_1^4 + \frac{3}{8} g_2^4
+ \frac{3}{4} g_1^2 g_2^2 \ , \cr
16\pi^2 \frac{d \lambda_2}{dt} & = & 8 \lambda_2^2 + 16 \lambda \lambda_2
- (\frac{3}{2}g_1^2 + \frac{9}{2} g_2^2 - 6 h_t^2) \lambda_2
- (\frac{3}{2} g_1^2 + \frac{9}{2} g_2^2 + 18 g_3^2) \lambda_2 \ , \cr
16\pi^2 \frac{d \lambda_3}{dt} & = & 8 \lambda_3^2 + 16 \lambda \lambda_3
- (\frac{3}{2}g_1^2 + \frac{9}{2} g_2^{2} - 6 h_t^2)\lambda_3
- (\frac{3}{2}g_1^2 + \frac{9}{2} g_2^2 + 18 g_3^{2}) \lambda_3 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where terms proportional to $\lambda_i$ ($i=4, \cdots,11$) are neglected,
and the contributions of $\eta_U$, $\eta_D$ and the bottom quark sector are ignored.
There are also RG equations for $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_3$, and $h_t$, which are not shown.
These RG equations exhibit the mixing terms between the SM Higgs fields and the scalar color octet.
These mixing effects may diverge at very low energies.
We calculate numerically the above RG equations, using the Runge-Kutta method.
It is found that the three SM gauge coupling coefficients, $g_1$, $g_2$, and $g_3$,
do not have any Landau poles for the whole region of the running mass up to the Planck scale.
Also, the quartic coupling coefficient $\lambda$ and the Yukawa coupling coefficient $h_t$ are seen to
increase much more slowly than the quartic coefficients of the scalar color octet, $\lambda_i$ ($i = 1,2,3$),
as the running mass increases.
Thus, we concentrate on the existence of the Landau poles of the quartic coupling coefficients
of the scalar color octet.
For the sake of simplicity, we set hereafter $\lambda_3 = 0$, thus $m_{S_R} = m_{S_I}$, and
neglect $\lambda_i$ ($i=4, \cdots,11$).
Thus, we are left with $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$,
that account for the scalar color octet contributions.
We assign an initial value for both $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ at the electroweak scale,
and then let them evolve from the electroweak scale $10^2$ GeV to the unification scale over $10^{12}$ GeV,
through their respective RG equations.
If any one of them diverges in between the two scales, we set the Landau poles for both of them.
In this way, we examine the Landau poles for $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, from 0 to $4\pi$,
where $4\pi$ is set by the perturbative boundary value of the quartic coupling coefficients.
We assume that the masses of the scalar color octet are larger than 200 GeV.
We take $h_t(m_Z) = 1$ and the SM gauge coupling coefficients at $Z$ boson mass scale.
Our result for $m_H = 120$ GeV is shown in Fig. 1,
where a curve of the Landau poles is established.
For given initial value of $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2$ at $\mu =10^2$ GeV,
the curve shows the value of $\mu$ beyond which $\lambda_1$ or $\lambda_2$ becomes
divergent.
Thus, the area of Fig. 1 is divided by a boundary of the Landau poles.
The lower region of Fig. 1 is free of divergence, whereas the upper region is nonpertabative.
One may notice that if we start with a larger initial value for $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, the Landau
pole occurs at a smaller running mass
If the initial value for $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ is smaller than 0.4, the RG equations show
no divergence for the whole range of the running mass from $10^2$ GeV to $10^{12}$ GeV.
We note that, for the initial value of $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, the Landau pole occurs when the
running mass is a few TeV.
Another result for $m_H = 200$ GeV is shown in Fig. 2, where the values of other parameters are the same
as Fig. 1.
In Fig. 2, for the same initial value of $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2$ at the electroweak scale,
it may be observed that the Landau pole occurs at a comparatively smaller running mass than Fig. 1,
if the initial value is taken between about 0.1 and 1.
Now, we study the EWPT in this model.
For a given set of parameter values, we examine the shape of $V(\phi,T)$, by varying $T$.
If the Higgs potential exhibits the typical shape for the first-order EWPT,
with two degenerate minima and a potential barrier between them, at a certain temperature,
we define the temperature as $T_c$, the critical temperature.
We then calculate the distance between the two degenerate minima, which is defined as $v_c$,
the critical VEV, and determine the strength of the first-order EWPT. $v_c/T_c$.
In this way, we examine the parameter space of this model for the possibility of the strongly first-order EWPT.
A result is shown in Fig. 3, where $m_H = 120$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and $m_S = 160$ GeV.
These parameter values yield $m_{S_C} = 201$ GeV and $m_{S_R} = m_{S_I} = 236$ GeV.
We find that the Higgs potential has the shape for the first-order EWPT at the temperature $T_c = 99.7$ GeV.
The corresponding critical VEV is calculated to be $v_c = 210$ GeV.
Hence, the strongly first-order EWPT, since $v_c/T_c = 2.1$.
In Fig. 4, we show another result for a different set of parameter values,
$m_H = 120$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and $m_S = 200$ GeV,
where the value of $m_S$ is changed.
The masses of the scalar color octet are obtained as
$m_{S_C} = 235$ GeV and $m_{S_R} = m_{S_I} = 265$ GeV.
The critical temperature for these parameter values is $T_c = 62.1$ GeV and
the corresponding critical VEV is $v_c = 241$ GeV.
Thus, for these parameter values, too, the EWPT is strongly first-order, since $v_c/T_c = 3.8$.
The difference between Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 may be attributed to the change in $m_S$.
We now change the parameter value of $m_H$.
For $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and $m_S = 160$ GeV,
we determine the critical temperature and the corresponding critical VEV for $m_H > 115$ GeV,
and calculate the strength of the first-order EWPT.
We find that for $m_H$ up to 163 GeV, the first-order EWPT is strong enough,
in other words, $v_c/T_c > 1$.
The result is shown in Fig. 5, where $v_c/T_c$ is plotted as a function of $m_H$, as a solid curve.
Also, for $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and $m_S = 200$ GeV,
we do the same calculation by changing $m_H$.
We find that the EWPT may be strongly first-order, for $115 < m_H < 193$ GeV.
The result is shown in the same Fig. 5, as a dashed curve.
Therefore, Fig. 5 tells that the EWPT in this model may be strongly first-order for $115 < m_H < 163$ GeV,
$\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and $m_S = 160$ GeV, as well as
for $ 115 < m_H < 193$ GeV, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$, and $m_S = 200$ GeV.
Note that the lower bound on $m_H$ is set by the present Higgs search result, not by numerical analysis.
We also examine other regions in the parameter space of this model.
Let us set $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 0.05$.
At this small value, $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are free of the Landau poles up to
$\mu = 10^{12}$ GeV, as the results of the RG equations show.
With this value, we repeat the numerical analysis.
The results are shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8.
Let us briefly describe them.
In Fig. 6, the shape of the Higgs potential at $T_c = 113.5$ GeV is shown,
for $m_H = 120$ GeV, and $m_S = 200$ GeV.
The critical VEV is obtained as $v_c = 183$ GeV, and the strength of the first-order EWPT is 1.6.
The masses of the scalar color octet are calculated as
$m_{S_C} = 201$ GeV and $m_{S_R} = m_{S_I} = 203$ GeV.
In Fig. 7, $m_S$ is changed to 250 GeV, while other parameter values are fixed.
The critical temperature is $T_c = 60$ GeV,
the critical VEV is $v_c = 246$ GeV,
the strength of the first-order EWPT is 4.0,
and the scalar color octet masses are $m_{S_C} = 251$ GeV and $m_{S_R} = m_{S_I} = 253$ GeV,
for $m_H = 120$ GeV, and $m_S = 250$ GeV.
In Fig. 8, the strength of the first-order EWPT is plotted as a function of $m_H$.
The solid curve is obtained for $m_S = 200$ GeV, and the dashed curve for $m_S = 250$ GeV.
These curves show that this model allows the strongly first-order EWPT for
$115 < m_H < 146$ GeV, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 0.05$, and $m_S = 200$ GeV, as well as
for $ 115 < m_H < 197$ GeV, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 0.05$, and $m_S = 250$ GeV.
Since the sizable quartic couplings to the Higgs,
$\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, are crucial for allowing for a strong first-order phase transition,
we plot in Fig. 9 the strength of the first-order EWPT versus $\lambda_1/\lambda_2$ for
some values of $\lambda_2$: $\lambda_2 = 0.05$,
$\lambda_2 = 0.1$, and $\lambda_2 = 0.5$.
The values of the other free parameters are the same as in Fig. 6.
As an illustration, we obtain that the strength of the phase transition is $v_c/T_c=1.63$ for
$\lambda_1=0.05$ and $\lambda_2=0.1$
whereas $v_c/T_c=1.66$ for $\lambda_1=0.1$ and $\lambda_2=0.05$.
One may notice in Fig. 9 that the strength of the phase transition increases
as $\lambda_1/\lambda_2$ increases.
For given $\lambda_2$, $v_c/T_c$ increases as $\lambda_1$ increases.
Also, for given $\lambda_1$, $v_c/T_c$ increases as $\lambda_2$ increases.
However, comparing the three curves in Fig. 9, one may induce that the increasing rate of $v_c/T_c$
depends much strongly on $\lambda_1$ than $\lambda_2$.
This is mainly due to the fact that, as one may see in Eq. 6, $m_{S_C}$ does not depend on $\lambda_2$.
Recently, there are some extensions of the SM, in which discussions on the electroweak phase transitions
are presented [22-24].
The model with a number of additional Higgs siglets, Ref.[24], may have similar effects on the EWPT due to
the couplings between Higgs siglets to the SM Higgs doublet.
However, we note that we have the charged scalar color octet in the present model
as well as neutral Higgs scalar boson,
whereas there is no scalar color octet in the models with additional Higgs singlets.
Thus, the search for the charged scalar color octet would be helpful to distinguish the present model
from the model with additional Higgs singlets.
Also, by examining the Higgs productions via the the scalar color octet loop through the
gluon fusion process at the LHC may provide the distinctions among various models.
\section{Conclusions}
The extension of the SM with scalar color octet is significantly different from the SM
with respect to the EWPT.
In order to activate the strongly first-order EWPT, the SM requires
a very light Higgs boson, well below the experimental lower bound 114.4 GeV.
In other words, the strongly first-order EWPT is practically not allowed in the SM.
The existence of the scalar color octet in the SM improves the situation considerably,
since the strongly first-order EWPT is possible for $m_H > 115$ GeV, as our numerical analysis shows.
The thermal loop contributions to the Higgs potential at the one-loop level, given by the scalar color octet,
may play quite remarkable role on the strength of the EWPT.
In other words, the first-order EWPT might become stronger due to the thermal contributions by the scalar
color octet.
Our numerical analysis suggests that there are wide regions in the parameter space of this model
where the strongly first-order EWPT is allowed.
The allowed parameter regions are established where the mass of the Higgs boson may be consistent with
the present experimental lower bound ($m_H >115$ GeV), the masses of the scalar color octet are
within the reach of the forthcoming LHC ($m_S \simeq 200$ GeV),
and the quartic coupling coefficients for the scalar color octet are free of Landau poles.
We would like to note that we simplify our calculations by neglecting
the quartic coupling coefficients $\lambda_i$ ($i = 3, \cdots, 11$), and
$\eta_U$ and $\eta_D$ in the RG equations.
It is known that the presence of these parameters would impose a stricter bound on the running mass
coming from the perturbative-theoretic considerations such that
the Landau poles would appear at a lower running mass.
We note these simplifications are consistent with the parameter region we consider.
On the other hand, we find that the contributions of Higgs boson loops and the Goldstone boson loops
at the one-loop level are negligibly small in the present parameter region.
This is mainly because the contributions due to the Higgs boson loops are smaller than the contributions due to
the scalar color octet, in particular when the Higgs boson mass is smaller than 200 GeV and the masses
of the scalar color octet are larger than 200 GeV.
Summarizing, we establish the possibility of a strongly first-order EWPT, for the electroweak baryogenesis,
in the extension of the SM with scalar color octet.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
S. W. Ham thanks S. Baek, P. Ko, and Chul Kim for valuable comments.
He would like to acknowledge the support from KISTI under
"The Strategic Supercomputing Support Program (No. KSC-2008-S01-0011)"
with Dr. Kihyeon Cho as the technical supporter.
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2009-0086961).
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of the properties of the heat kernel in a sub-Riemannian manifold drew an increasing attention since the pioneer work of H\"ormander \cite{hormander}. Since then, many estimates and properties of the kernel in terms of the sub-Riemannian distance have been provided (see \cite{lanconelli-book,boscain-polidoro,folland-stein,rot, varopoulos} and references therein). For some particular structures, it is moreover possible to find explicit expressions of the hypoelliptic heat kernels. In general, this computation can be performed only when the sub-Riemannian structure and the corresponding hypoelliptic heat operator present symmetry properties. For this reason, the most natural choice in this field is to consider invariant operators defined on Lie groups. Results of this kind have been first provided in \cite{gaveau,hul} in the case of the 3D Heisenberg group. Afterwards, other explicit expressions have been found first for 2-step nilpotent free Lie groups (again in \cite{gaveau}) and then for general 2-step nilpotent Lie groups (see \cite{beals-HJ,cyg}). We provide in \cite{nostro-kern} the expressions of heat kernels for 2-step groups that are not nilpotent, namely $SU(2),SO(3),SL(2)$ and the group of rototranslations of the plane $SE(2)$. For other examples, see e.g. \cite{zhu1,zhu2}.
In our paper we present the first results, to our knowledge, about the expression of the hypoelliptic heat kernel on the following 3-step Lie groups. The first one is the Engel group $\mathfrak{G}_4$, that is the nilpotent group with growth vector $(2,3,4)$. Its Lie algebra is $\L_4=\mathrm{span}\Pg{\l_1,\l_2,\l_3,\l_4}$, the generators of which satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Pq{\l_1,\l_2}=\l_3,\ \Pq{\l_1,\l_3}=\l_4,\ \Pq{\l_1,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_3}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_3,\l_4}=0.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The second example is the Cartan group $\mathfrak{G}_5$, that is the free nilpotent group with growth vector $(2,3,5)$. Its Lie algebra is $\L_5=\mathrm{span}\Pg{\l_1,\l_2,\l_3,\l_4,\l_5}$ and generators satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Pq{\l_1,\l_2}=\l_3,\ \Pq{\l_1,\l_3}=\l_4,\ \Pq{\l_2,\l_3}=\l_5,\nonumber\\
&&\Pq{\l_1,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_1,\l_5}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_5}=\Pq{\l_3,\l_4}=
\Pq{\l_3,\l_5}=\Pq{\l_4,\l_5}=0.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
In both cases, we consider the heat equation with the so-called intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian $\Delta_H$ (in the sense of \cite{nostro-kern}, see also Section \ref{sez-intr}) of the sub-Riemannian structure for which $\{g\l_1,g\l_2\}$ ($g$ element of the group) is an orthonormal frame. As it has been proved in \cite{nostro-kern}, since $\mathfrak{G}_4$ and $\mathfrak{G}_5$ are unimodular, then the intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian is the sum of the square of the Lie derivative with respect to the vector fields $g\l_1,g\l_2$.
One interesting feature of these two sub-Riemannian problems is that they present abnormal minimizers (see \cite{yuri4, yuri5}) and it is known that in both cases $\Delta_H$ is not analytic hypoelliptic \cite{christ}. Hence, for these two examples the Tr\`eves conjecture\footnote{ We recall that Tr\`eves conjectured in \cite{treves} that the existence of abnormal minimizers on a sub-Riemannian manifold is equivalent to the loss of analytic-hypoellipticity of the sub-Laplacian.} holds. Having information about the expression of the heat kernel can help for further investigations in this direction.
Any other left-invariant sub-Riemannian structure of rank 2 on these groups is indeed isometric to the ones we study in this paper, see \cite{yuri4,yuri5}. Moreover, notice that the sub-Riemannian structures we study on $\mathfrak{G}_4$ and $\mathfrak{G}_5$ are local approximations (nilpotentizations, see \cite{gromov}) of arbitrary sub-Riemannian structures at regular points with growth vector $(2,3,4)$ or $(2,3,5)$, hence, roughly speaking, the kernels on $\mathfrak{G}_4$ and $\mathfrak{G}_5$ provide approximations of the heat kernels at these points.\ffoot{un po' naive}\\
The goal of this paper is to transform the hypoelliptic heat equations on these Lie groups into a family of elliptic heat equations on $\mathbb{R}$, depending on one parameter. To this purpose, we apply the method developed in \cite{nostro-kern}, based on the Generalized Fourier Transform (GFT for short), and hence on representation theory of these groups (see \cite[p. 333--338]{dixmier}).
Applying the GFT to the original equation, we get an evolution equation on the Hilbert space where representations act. For both examples, this is the heat equation over $\mathbb{R}$ with quartic potential, the so-called quartic oscillator (see \cite{pham,skala}), for which no general explicit solution is known. Notice that the connection between the quartic oscillator and degenerate elliptic operators has been already noted by previously (see \cite{greiner-audio}).
It is clearly possible to use numerical approximations of the evolution equation with quartic potential (for which a huge amount of literature is available) to find numerical approximations of the hypoelliptic heat kernel. However, this analysis is outside the aims of this paper.\\
The organization of the paper is the following. In Section \ref{s-Dh} we recall the main definitions from sub-Riemannian geometry, in particular for invariant structures on Lie groups. We then recall the definition of the Generalized Fourier Transform and its main properties. Finally, we recall the main results of our prevuious paper \cite{nostro-kern}, where we studied hypoelliptic heat equations on Lie groups.
The main part of the paper is Section \ref{s-gruppi}. We first present the Lie groups $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$, their algebras and their Euclidian and matrix presentations. We then recall results about their representations. We finally apply the method of computation of hypoelliptic heat kernels to the two groups $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$, to find explicitly the connection between the heat kernels on these groups and the fundamental solution of the 1D heat equation with quartic potential.
\section{The hypoelliptic heat equation on a a sub-Riemannian manifold}
\llabel{s-Dh}
In this section we recall basic definitions from sub-Riemannian geometry, including the one of the intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian. Then we recall our method for computing the hypoelliptic heat kernel in the case of unimodular Lie groups, using the GFT.
\subsection{Sub-Riemannian manifolds}
We start by recalling the definition of sub-Riemannian manifold.
\begin{definition}
A $(n,m)$-sub-Riemannian manifold is a triple $(M,{\blacktriangle},{\mathbf g})$,
where
\begin{itemize}
\i $M$ is a connected smooth manifold of dimension $n$;
\i ${\blacktriangle}$ is a smooth distribution of constant rank $m< n$ satisfying the {\bf H\"ormander condition}, i.e. ${\blacktriangle}$ is a smooth map that associates to $q\in M$ a $m$-dim subspace ${\blacktriangle}(q)$ of $T_qM$ and $\forall~q\in M$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}\llabel{Hor}\span{[X_1,[\ldots[X_{k-1},X_k]\ldots]](q)~|~X_i\in\mathrm{Vec}_H(M)}=T_qM
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{Vec}_H(M)$ denotes the set of {\bf horizontal smooth vector fields} on $M$, i.e. $$\mathrm{Vec}_H(M)=\Pg{X\in\mathrm{Vec}(M)\ |\ X(p)\in{\blacktriangle}(p)~\ \forall~p\in M}.$$
\i ${\mathbf g}_q$ is a Riemannian metric on ${\blacktriangle}(q)$, that is smooth
as function of $q$.
\end{itemize}
When $M$ is an orientable manifold, we say that the sub-Riemannian manifold is orientable.
\end{definition}
A Lipschitz continuous curve $\gamma:[0,T]\to M$ is said to be \b{horizontal} if
$\dot\gamma(t)\in{\blacktriangle}(\gamma(t))$ for almost every $t\in[0,T]$. Given an horizontal curve $\gamma:[0,T]\to M$, the {\it length of $\gamma$} is
\begin{eqnarray}
l(\gamma)=\int_0^T \sqrt{ {\mathbf g}_{\gamma(t)} (\dot \gamma(t),\dot \gamma(t))}~dt.
\eqnl{e-lunghezza}
The {\it distance} induced by the sub-Riemannian structure on $M$ is the
function
\begin{eqnarray}
d(q_0,q_1)=\inf \{l(\gamma)\mid \gamma(0)=q_0,\gamma(T)=q_1, \gamma\ \mathrm{horizontal}\}.
\eqnl{e-dipoi}
The hypothesis\ of connectedness of M and the H\"ormander condition guarantee the finiteness and the continuity of $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ with respect to the topology of $M$ (Chow's Theorem, see for instance \cite{agra-book}). The function $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is called the Carnot-Charateodory distance and gives to $M$ the structure of metric space (see \cite{bellaiche,gromov}).
Locally, the pair $({\blacktriangle},{\mathbf g})$ can be given by assigning a set of $m$ smooth vector fields spanning ${\blacktriangle}$ and that are orthonormal for ${\mathbf g}$, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
{\blacktriangle}(q)=\span{X_1(q),\dots,X_m(q)}, ~~~\g_q(X_i(q),X_j(q))=\delta_{ij}.
\eqnl{trivializable}
In this case, the set $\Pg{X_1,\ldots,X_m}$ is called a local {\bf orthonormal frame} for the sub-Riemannian structure. When $({\blacktriangle},{\mathbf g})$ can be defined as in \r{trivializable} by $m$ vector fields defined globally, we say that the sub-Riemannian manifold is {\it trivializable}.
When the manifold is analytic and the orthonormal frame can be assigned through $m$ analytic vector fields, we say that the sub-Riemannian manifold is {\it analytic}.
We end this section with the definition of regular sub-Riemannian manifold.
\begin{definition}
Let ${\blacktriangle}$ be a distribution and define through the recursive formula
$${\blacktriangle}_1:={\blacktriangle},~~~~~{\blacktriangle}_{n+1}:={\blacktriangle}_n+[{\blacktriangle}_n,{\blacktriangle}].$$
The small flag of ${\blacktriangle}$ is the sequence
$${\blacktriangle}_1\subset{\blacktriangle}_2\subset\ldots\subset{\blacktriangle}_n\subset\ldots$$
A sub-Riemannian manifold is said to be {\bf regular} if for each $n=1,2,\ldots$ the dimension of ${\blacktriangle}_n(q_0)$
does not depend on the point $q_0\in M$.
\end{definition}
In this paper we always deal with sub-Riemannian manifolds that are orientable, analytic, trivializable and regular.
\subsection{Left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifolds}
\label{ss-leftmanifold}
In this section we present a natural sub-Riemannian structure that can be defined on Lie groups. All along the paper, we use the notation for Lie groups of matrices. For general Lie groups, by $gv$ with $g\in G$ and $v\in \L$, we mean $(L_g)_*(v)$ where $L_g$ is the left-translation of the group.
\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a Lie group with Lie algebra $\L$ and $\P\subseteq\L$ a subspace of $\L$ satisfying the {\bf Lie bracket generating condition} $$\mathrm{Lie}~\P:=\span{[\mathfrak{p}_1,[\mathfrak{p}_2,\ldots,[\mathfrak{p}_{n-1},\mathfrak{p}_n]]]\ |\ \mathfrak{p}_i\in\P}=\L.$$
Endow $\P$ with a positive definite quadratic form $\Pa{.,.}$. Define a sub-Riemannian structure on $G$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\i the distribution is the left-invariant distribution ${\blacktriangle}(g):=g\P$;
\i the quadratic form $\g$ on ${\blacktriangle}$ is given by $\g_g(v_1,v_2):=\Pa{g^{-1}v_1,g^{-1}v_2}$.
\end{itemize}
In this case we say that $(G, {\blacktriangle}, \g)$ is a left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold.
\llabel{d-lieg-leftinv}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\rm Observe that all left-invariant manifolds $(G, {\blacktriangle}, \g)$ are regular.
\end{remark}
In the following we define a left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold choosing a set of $m$ vectors $\Pg{\mathfrak{p}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{p}_m}$ that are an orthonormal basis for the subspace $\P\subseteq\L$ with respect to the metric defined in Definition \ref{d-lieg-leftinv}, i.e. $\P=\span{\mathfrak{p}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{p}_m}$ and $\Pa{\mathfrak{p}_i,\mathfrak{p}_j}=\delta_{ij}$. We thus have ${\blacktriangle}(g)=g\P=\span{g\mathfrak{p}_1,\ldots,g\mathfrak{p}_m}$ and ${\mathbf g}_g(g\mathfrak{p}_i,g\mathfrak{p}_j)=\delta_{ij}$. Hence, every left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold is trivializable.
\subsubsection{The intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian}
\label{sez-intr}
\newcommand{\mu_\SR}{\mu_H}
\newcommand{\mathrm{div}_\SR}{\mathrm{div}_H}
In this section, we recall the definition of intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian
given in \cite{nostro-kern} and based on the Popp volume form in sub-Riemannian geometry presented in \cite{montgomery}.
Let $(M,{\blacktriangle},{\mathbf g})$ be a $(n,m)$-sub-Riemannian manifold and $\{X_1,\ldots X_m\}$ a local orthonormal frame. The operator obtained by the sum of squares of these vector fields is not a good definition of hypoelliptic Laplacian, since it depends on the choice of the orthonormal frame (see for instance \cite{nostro-kern}).
In sub-Riemannian geometry an invariant definition of hypoelliptic Laplacian is obtained by computing the divergence of the horizontal gradient, like the Laplace-Beltrami operator in Riemannian geometry.
\begin{definition} Let $(M,{\blacktriangle},{\mathbf g})$ be an orientable regular sub-Riemannian manifold. We define the intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian as
$\Delta_H\phi:=\mathrm{div}_\SR\mathrm{grad}_\SR\phi$, where
\begin{itemize}
\i the horizontal gradient is the unique operator $\mathrm{grad}_\SR$ from $\mathcal{C}^\infty(M)$ to ${{\mathrm{Vec}}_H(M)}$
satisfying ${\mathbf g}_q(\mathrm{grad}_\SR\phi(q),v)=d\phi_q (v)~~~~\forall~q\in M,~v\in {\blacktriangle}(q)$. (In coordinates if $\{X_1,\ldots X_m \}$ is a local orthonormal frame for $(M,{\blacktriangle},\g)$, then $\mathrm{grad}_\SR \phi=\sum_{i=1}^m \Pt{L_{X_i}\phi}X_i$.)
\i the divergence of a vector field $X$ is the unique function satisfying
$\div X \mu_\SR=L_X \mu_\SR$ where $\mu_\SR$ is the Popp volume form.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The construction of the Popp volume form is not totally trivial and we address the reader to \cite{montgomery} or \cite{nostro-kern} for details. We just recall that the Popp volume form coincide with the Lebesgue measure in a special system of coordinate related to the nilpotent approximation. In sub-Riemannian geometry one can also define other intrinsic volume forms, like the Hausdorff or the spherical Hausdorff volume. However, at the moment, the Popp volume form is the only one known to be smooth in general. However for left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifolds all these measures are proportional to the left Haar measure.
The hypoellipticity of $\Delta_H$ (i.e. given $U\subset M$ and $\fz{\phi}{U}{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\Delta_H\phi\in{\cal C}^\infty$, then $\phi$ is ${\cal C}^\infty$) follows from the H\"ormander Theorem (see \cite{hormander}).
In this paper we are interested only to nilpotent Lie groups. The next proposition says that for all unimodular Lie groups, i.e. for groups such that the left and right Haar measure coincides (and in particular for real connected nilpotent groups) the intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian is the sum of squares.
\begin{proposition}
Let $(G,{\blacktriangle},\g)$ be a left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold generated by the orthonormal basis $\Pg{\mathfrak{p}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{p}_m}\subset\l$.
If $G$ is unimodular then $\Delta_H\phi=\sum_{i=1}^m \Pt{L_{X_i}^2\phi}$
where $L_{X_i}$ is the Lie derivative w.r.t. the field $X_i=g\mathfrak{p}_i$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Computation of the hypoelliptic heat kernel via the Generalized Fourier Transform}
\label{s-genfour}
\newcommand{\Repbase^\lam}{\mathfrak{X}^\lambda}
\newcommand{\dRepbase^\lam}{d\Repbase^\lambda}
\newcommand{\domRbase^\lam}{{\cal H}^\lambda}
\newcommand{\fzRbase^\lam_n}{\psi^\lambda_n}
\newcommand{\eigRbase^\lam_n}{\alpha^\lambda_n}
\newcommand{\DHLbase^\lam}{\hat{\Delta}_H^\lambda}
\renewcommand{G}{G}
In this section we describe the method, developed in \cite{nostro-kern}, for the computation of the hypoellitpic heat kernel for left-invariant sub-Riemannian structures on unimodular Lie groups.
The method is based upon the GFT, that permits to disintegrate a function from a Lie group $G$ to $\mathbb{R}$ on its components on (the class of) non-equivalent unitary irreducible representations of $G$. For proofs and more details, see \cite{nostro-kern}.
\subsubsection{The Generalized Fourier Transform}
Let $f\in L^1(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$: its Fourier transform is defined by the formula
$$
\hat f(\lambda)=\int_\mathbb{R} f(x) {e^{-i x \lambda}} dx.
$$
If $f\in L^1(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}) \cap L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ then $\hat f\in L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ and one has
$$
\int_\mathbb{R}|f(x)|^2dx=\int_\mathbb{R}|\hat f(\lambda)|^2 \frac{d\lambda}{2\pi},
$$
called Parseval or Plancherel equation. By density of $L^1(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}) \cap L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ in $L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$, this equation expresses the fact that the Fourier transform is an isometry between $L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ and itself. Moreover, the following inversion formula holds:
$$
f(x)=\int_\mathbb{R} \hat f(\lambda) e^{i x \lambda} \frac{d\lambda}{{2 \pi}},
$$
where the equality is intended in the $L^2$ sense.
It has been known from more than 50 years that the Fourier transform generalizes to a wide class of locally compact groups (see for instance \cite{chirichian,duflo,hewittI,hewittII,kirillov-el,taylor-GFT}). Next we briefly present this generalization for groups satisfying the following hypothesis:
\begin{description}
\i {\bf (H$ _0$)}\ $G$ is a unimodular Lie group of Type I.
\end{description}
For the definition of groups of Type I see \cite{dixmier1}. For our purposes it is sufficient to recall that all groups treated in this paper (i.e. $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$) are of Type I. Actually, all the real connected nilpotent Lie groups are of Type I \cite{dixmier,harish}.
In the following, the $L^p$ spaces $L^p(G,\mathbb{C})$ are intended with respect to the Haar measure $\mu:=\mu_L=\mu_R$.
Let $G$ be a Lie group satisfying {\bf (H$ _0$)}\ and $\hat G$ be the dual\footnote{\label{nota-dual} In this paper, by the dual of the group, we mean the support of the Plancherel measure on the set of non-equivalent unitary irreducible representations of $G$; we thus ignore the singular representations.} of the group $G$, i.e. the set of all equivalence classes of unitary irreducible representations of $G$. Let $\lambda\in\hat G$: in the following we indicate by $\Repbase^\lam$ a choice of an irreducible representation in the class $\lambda$. By definition, $\Repbase^\lam$ is a map that to an element of $G$ associates a unitary operator acting on a complex separable Hilbert space ${\H^\lambda}$:
\mmfunz{\Repbase^\lam}{G}{U(\domRbase^\lam)}{g}{\Repbase^\lam(g).}
The index $\lambda$ for $\H^\lambda$ indicates that in general the Hilbert space can vary with $\lambda$.
\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a Lie group satisfying {\bf (H$ _0$)}, and $f\in L^1(G,\mathbb{C})$. The generalized (or noncommutative) Fourier transform (GFT) of $f$ is the map (indicated in the following as $\hat f$ or ${\cal F}(f)$)
that to each element of $\hat G$ associates the linear operator on $\domRbase^\lam$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat f(\lambda):={\cal F}(f):=\int_G f(g)\Repbase^\lam(g^{-1})d\mu.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{definition}
\noindent
Notice that since $f$ is integrable and $\Repbase^\lam$ unitary, then $\hat f(\lambda)$ is a bounded operator.
\begin{remark}\rm
$\hat f$ can be seen as an operator from $\stackrel{\oplus}{\int_{\hat G}}
\H^\lambda$ to itself. We also use the notation $\hat f=\stackrel{\oplus}{\int_{\hat G}}\hat f(\lambda)$
\end{remark}
In general $\hat G$ is not a group and its structure can be quite complicated. In the case in which $G$ is abelian then $\hat G$ is a group; if $G$ is nilpotent (as in our cases) then $\hat G$ has the structure of $\mathbb{R}^n$ for some $n$.
Under the hypothesis\ {\bf (H$ _0$)}\ one can define on $\hat G$ a positive measure $dP(\lambda)$ (called the Plancherel measure) such that for every $f\in L^1(G,\mathbb{C})\cap L^2(G,\mathbb{C})$ one has
$$
\int_G |f(g)|^2 \mu(g)=\int_{\hat G}Tr(\hat f(\lambda)\circ \hat f (\lambda)^\ast ) dP(\lambda).
$$
By density of $L^1(G,\mathbb{C})\cap L^2(G,\mathbb{C})$ in $L^2(G,\mathbb{C})$, this formula expresses the fact that the GFT\ is an isometry between $L^2(G,\mathbb{C})$ and
$\stackrel{\oplus}{\int_{\hat G}} {\mathbf{HS}}^\lambda$, the set of Hilbert-Schmidt operators with respect to the Plancherel measure.
Moreover, it is obvious that:
\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a Lie group satisfying {\bf (H$ _0$)} and $f\in L^1(G,\mathbb{C})\cap L^2(G,\mathbb{C})$. We have, for each $g\in G$
\begin{eqnarray}
f(g)=\int_{\hat G}Tr(\hat f (\lambda)\circ \Repbase^\lam(g) ) dP(\lambda).
\end{eqnarray} where the equality is intended in the $L^2$ sense.
\end{proposition}
\noindent
{It is immediate to verify that, given two functions $f_1,f_2\in L^1(G,\mathbb{C})$ and defining their convolution as
\begin{eqnarray}
(f_1\ast f_2)(g)=\int_G f_1(h)f_2(h^{-1}g) dh,
\end{eqnarray}
then the GFT maps the convolution into non-commutative product:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}( f_1\ast f_2) (\lambda)=\hat{f}_2 (\lambda)\hat{f}_1(\lambda).
\label{conv}
\end{eqnarray}
Another important property is that if $\delta_{\mathrm{Id}}(g)$ is the Dirac function at the identity over $G$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\delta}_{\mathrm{Id}}(\lambda)=\mathrm{Id}_{H^\lambda}.
\end{eqnarray}
}
In the following, a key role is played by the infinitesimal version of the representation $\Repbase^\lam$, that is the map
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{diff-rep}
d\Repbase^\lam:X\mapsto d\Repbase^\lam(X):=\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Repbase^\lam(e^{t p}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $X=gp$, ($p\in\l$, $g\in G$) is a left-invariant vector field over $G$. By Stone theorem (see for instance \cite[p. 6]{taylor-GFT}) $d\Repbase^\lam(X)$ is a (possibly unbounded) skew-adjoint operator on
$\H^\lambda$.
We have the following:
\begin{proposition}
\label{p-uffa}
Let $G$ be a Lie group satisfying {\bf (H$ _0$)}\ and $X$ be a left-invariant vector field over $G$. The GFT of $X$, i.e. $\hat X={\cal F} L_X{\cal F}^{-1}$ splits into the Hilbert sum of operators $\hat X^\lambda$, \gr{each one of them acting} on the set ${\mathbf{HS}}^\lambda$ of Hilbert-Schmidt operators over $\H^\lambda$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat X=\stackrel{\oplus}{\int_{\hat G}}\hat X^\lambda.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat X^\lambda\Xi=d\Repbase^\lam(X)\circ\Xi,~~\mbox{ for every }\Xi\in {\mathbf{HS}}^\lambda,
\end{eqnarray}
i.e. the GFT of a left-invariant vector field acts as a left-translation over ${\mathbf{HS}}^\lambda$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent
\begin{remark}\rm
\label{r-accalambda}
From the fact that the GFT of a left-invariant vector field acts as a left-translation, it follows that $\hat X^\lambda$ can be interpreted as an operator over $\H^\lambda$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Computation of the kernel of the hypoelliptic heat equation}
\label{s:method}
\newcommand{L}{L}
In this section we provide a general method to compute the kernel of the hypoelliptic heat equation on a left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold $(G,{\blacktriangle},\g)$ such that $G$ satisfies the assumption {\bf (H$ _0$)}.
We begin by recalling some existence results (for the semigroup of evolution and for the corresponding kernel) in the case of the sum of squares. We recall that for all the examples treated in this paper the invariant hypoelliptic Laplacian is the sum of squares.
Let $G$ be a unimodular Lie group and $(G,{\blacktriangle},\g)$ a left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold generated by the orthonormal basis $\Pg{\mathfrak{p}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{p}_m}$, and consider the hypoelliptic heat equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t\phi(t,g)=\Delta_H\phi(t,g).
\llabel{eq-hypoQ}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $G$ is unimodular, then $\Delta_H=L_{X_1}^2+\ldots +L_{X_m}^2$, where $L_{X_i}$ is the Lie derivative w.r.t. the vector field $X_i:=g\mathfrak{p}_i$ $(i=1,\ldots, m)$.
Following Varopoulos \cite[pp. 20-21, 106]{varopoulos}, since $\Delta_H$ is a sum of squares, then it is a symmetric operator that we identify with its Friedrichs (self-adjoint) extension, that is the infinitesimal generator of a (Markov) semigroup $e^{t \Delta_H }$. Thanks to the left-invariance of $X_i$ (with $i=1,\ldots, m)$, $e^{t \Delta_H }$ admits a a right-convolution kernel $p_t(.)$, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{t \Delta_H } \phi_0(g)=\phi_0\ast p_t (g)=\int_G \phi_0(h)p_t(h^{-1}g) \mu(h)
\end{eqnarray}
is the solution for $t>0$ to $\r{eq-hypoQ}$ with initial condition $\phi(0,g)=\phi_0(g)\in L^1(G,\mathbb{R})$ with respect to the Haar measure.
Since the operator $\partial_t-\Delta_H$ is hypoelliptic, then the kernel is a ${\cal C}^\infty$ function of $(t,g)\in \mathbb{R}^+\times G$.
Notice that $p_t(g)=e^{t \Delta_H }\delta_\mathrm{Id}(g)$.
The main results of the paper are based on the following key fact.
\begin{Theorem}
\label{t-main}
Let $G$ be a Lie group satisfying {\bf (H$ _0$)}\ and $(G,{\blacktriangle},\g)$ a left-invariant sub-Riemannian manifold generated by the orthonormal basis $\Pg{\mathfrak{p}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{p}_m}$. Let $\Delta_H=L_{X_1}^2+\ldots +L_{X_m}^2$ be the intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian where $L_{X_i}$ is the Lie derivative w.r.t. the vector field $X_i:=g\mathfrak{p}_i$.
Let $\Pg{\Repbase^\lam}_{\lambda\in \hat G}$ be the set of all non-equivalent classes of irreducible representations of the group $G$, each acting on an Hilbert space $\domRbase^\lam$, and $dP(\lambda)$ be the Plancherel measure on the dual space $\hat G$. We have the following:
\be[{(\bf i)}]
\i the GFT of $\Delta_H$ splits into the Hilbert sum of operators $\DHLbase^\lam$, \gr{each one of which leaves} ${\H^\lambda}$ invariant:
\begin{eqnarray}
\llabel{oplus}
\hat{\Delta}_H={\cal F}\Delta_H{\cal F}^{-1}=\stackrel{\oplus}{\int_{\hat G}}\DHLbase^\lam dP(\lambda),
\mbox{~~ where ~~}
\DHLbase^\lam=\sum_{i=1}^m \left(\hat{X}_i^\lambda\right)^2.
\end{eqnarray}
\i The operator $\DHLbase^\lam$ is self-adjoint and it is the infinitesimal generator of a contraction semi-group $e^{t\DHLbase^\lam}$ over ${\mathbf{HS}}^\lambda$, i.e. $e^{t\DHLbase^\lam} \Xi_0^\lambda$ is the solution for $t>0$ to the operator equation $\partial_t \Xi^\lambda(t)=\DHLbase^\lam \Xi^\lambda(t)$ in ${\mathbf{HS}}^\lambda$, with initial condition $\Xi^\lambda(0)= \Xi^\lambda_0 $.
\i The hypoelliptic heat kernel is
\begin{eqnarray}
\llabel{formula-1}
p_t(g)=\int_{\hat G}Tr\left(e^{t\DHLbase^\lam}\Repbase^\lam(g)\right)dP(\lambda),~~t>0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\noindent
\begin{remark}\rm
As a consequence of Remark \ref{r-accalambda}, it follows that $\DHLbase^\lam$ and $e^{t\DHLbase^\lam}$ can be considered as operators on $\H^\lambda$.
\end{remark}
The following corollary gives a useful formula for the hypoelliptic heat kernel in the case in which for all $\lambda\in\hat{G}$ each operator $e^{t\DHLbase^\lam}$ admits a convolution kernel $Q_t^\lambda(.,.)$. Below by $\psi^\lambda$, we \gr{intend} an element of $\H^\lambda$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{c-2} Under the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{t-main}, if for all $\lambda\in\hat G$ we have $\H^\lambda=L^2(X^\lambda,d\th^\lambda)$ for some measure space $(X^\lambda,d\th^\lambda)$ and
$$\Pq{e^{t\DHLbase^\lam} \psi^\lambda}(\th)=\int_{X^\lambda} \psi^\lambda (\bar \th) Q_t^\lambda(\th,\bar\th)\,d\bar \th,$$ then
$$
p_t(g)=\int_{\hat G} \int_{X^\lambda}\left.\Repbase^\lam(g)Q_t^\lambda(\th,\bar\th)\right|_{\th=\bar \th} \,d\bar \th\,
d P(\lambda),
$$
where in the last formula $\Repbase^\lam(g)$ acts on $Q_t^\lambda(\th,\bar\th)$ as a function of $\th$.
\end{corollary}
\renewcommand{G}{\mathfrak{g}}
\section{Hypoelliptic heat kernels on $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$}
\label{s-gruppi}
In this section we describe the groups $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$\ and we provide their matrix and Euclidean presentations. We define left-invariant sub-Riemannian structures on them and the corresponding hypoelliptic Laplacian.
We then provide representations of the groups and compute the GFT of the hypoelliptic Laplacian. We apply the method presented in Section \ref{s:method} to compute the fundamental solution of the hypoelliptic heat equation.
\subsection{Definitions of $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$}
In our paper we deal with two 3-step Lie groups. The first one is the nilpotent group $\mathfrak{G}_4$ with growth vector $(2,3,4)$. Its Lie algebra is $\L_4=\mathrm{span}\Pg{\l_1,\l_2,\l_3,\l_4},$ whose generators satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Pq{\l_1,\l_2}=\l_3,\ \Pq{\l_1,\l_3}=\l_4,\ \Pq{\l_1,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_3}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_3,\l_4}=0.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The second one is the free nilpotent group $\mathfrak{G}_5$ with growth vector $(2,3,5)$. Its Lie algebra is $\L_5=\mathrm{span}\Pg{\l_1,\l_2,\l_3,\l_4,\l_5},$ whose generators satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Pq{\l_1,\l_2}=\l_3,\ \Pq{\l_1,\l_3}=\l_4,\ \Pq{\l_2,\l_3}=\l_5,\nonumber\\
&&\Pq{\l_1,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_1,\l_5}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_4}=\Pq{\l_2,\l_5}=\Pq{\l_3,\l_4}=
\Pq{\l_3,\l_5}=\Pq{\l_4,\l_5}=0.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\ffoot{We recall here what means that the groups defined above are 3-step nilpotent. Consider a Lie algebra $\L$ and define the {\it lower central series} recursively as follows:
$$\L^1:=\L\qquad \L^{n+1}:=\Pq{\L^n,\L}=\Pg{\Pq{l,m}\ \mid\ l\in\L^n,\,m\in\L}.$$
As a direct consequence, we have that $\L^{n}\supset\L^{n+1}$. We have the following standard definition.
\begin{definition}
A Lie algebra $\L$ is nilpotent if it satisfies $\L^n=0$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
A nilpotent Lie algebra $\L$ is $n$-step if $\L^{n+1}=0$ and $\L^n\neq 0$.
A Lie group is ($n$-step) nilpotent if its Lie algebra is ($n$-step) nilpotent.
\end{definition}}
Both $\GG_4$ and $\GG_5$\ are 3-step nilpotent, as a direct consequence of the definition.
\subsection{Hypoelliptic heat kernel on $\mathfrak{G}_4$}
In this section we first give the matrix and Euclidean presentations of the Lie group $\mathfrak{G}_4$. We then define a sub-Riemannian structure on it. We give explicitly the representations of the group, that we use at the end to compute the hypoelliptic kernel in terms of the kernel of the quartic oscillator.
We start with the Lie algebra $\L_4$, that can be presented as the follow matrix space
$$\L_4\simeq\Pg{\Mat{cccc}{
0&-a_1& 0& a_4\\
0&0 & -a_1& a_3\\
0&0 & 0& a_2\\
0&0 & 0& 0}\ \mid\ a_i\in\mathbb{R}}.$$
We present each $\l_i$ as the matrix with $a_j=\delta_{ij}$. It is straightforward to prove that these matrices satisfy the commutation rules for $\L_4$, where the bracket operation is the standard $\Pq{A,B}:=BA-AB$.
A matrix presentation of the group $\mathfrak{G}_4$ is thus the matrix exponential of $\L_4$:
\begin{eqnarray}\mathfrak{G}_4&\simeq&\Pg{\exp{\Mat{cccc}{
0&-a_1& 0& a_4\\
0&0 & -a_1& a_3\\
0&0 & 0& a_2\\
0&0 & 0& 0}}\ \mid\ a_i\in\mathbb{R}}=\Pg{\Mat{cccc}{
1&-x_1& \frac{x_1^2}{2}& x_4\\
0&1 & -x_1& x_3\\
0&0 & 1& x_2\\
0&0 & 0& 1}\ \mid\ x_i\in\mathbb{R}},
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1&=&a_1,\qquad x_2=a_2,\qquad x_3=a_3-\frac{a_1a_2}{2},\quad x_4=a_4+\frac{a_1^2a_2}{6}-\frac{a_1a_3}{2}.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
We now define the isomorphism $\Pi_4$ between $\mathfrak{G}_4$ and $\mathbb{R}_4$ given by $$\Pi_4\Pt{\Mat{cccc}{
1&-x_1& \frac{x_1^2}{2}& x_4\\
0&1 & -x_1& x_3\\
0&0 & 1& x_2\\
0&0 & 0& 1}}=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4).$$
This isomorphism is a group isomorphism when $\mathbb{R}^4$ is endowed with the following product (see \cite[p. 330]{dixmier3}): \begin{eqnarray}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\cdot(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)&:=&
\Pt{x_1 + y_1, x_2 + y_2, x_3+y_3-x_1 y_2,
x_4+y_4+\frac12 x_1^2 y_2 - x_1 y_3}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The isomorphism $\Pi_4$ induces an isomorphism of tangent spaces $T_g G \simeq T_{\Pi_4(g)} \mathbb{R}^4$, that is explicitly $g \l_i\simeq X_i$, with $X_i$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
X_1(x)&=&\der{x_1},\qquad
X_2(x)=\der{x_2} -x_1\der{x_3} + \frac{x_1^2}{2}\der{x_4},\label{e:Xi-G4}\\
X_3(x)&=&\der{x_3} -x_1\der{x_4},\qquad
X_4(x)=\der{x_4},
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
where $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)$.
\subsubsection{Left-invariant sub-Riemannian structure on $\mathfrak{G}_4$}
We endow $\mathfrak{G}_4$ with a left-invariant sub-Riemannian structure as presented in Section \ref{ss-leftmanifold}. We define the sub-Riemannian manifold $(\mathfrak{G}_4,{\blacktriangle},\g)$ where ${\blacktriangle}(g)=g\mathfrak{p}$ with $\mathfrak{p}=\span{\l_1,\l_2}$ and $\g_g(g\l_i,g\l_j)=\delta_{ij}$ with $i,j=1$ or $2$.
Since $\mathfrak{G}_4$ is nilpotent, then it is unimodular, thus the intrinsic hypoelliptic Laplacian $\Delta_H$ is the sum of squares (see \cite[Proposition 17]{nostro-kern}). In terms of the Euclidean presentation of $\mathfrak{G}_4$, the hypoelliptic Laplacian is thus $\Delta_H=X_1^2+X_2^2$, with the $X_i$ given by \r{e:Xi-G4}.
We thus want to find the fundamental solution for the following heat equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t \phi(t,x)=\Delta_H \phi(t,x).
\eqnl{e:hypo-G4}
\subsubsection{Representations of $\mathfrak{G}_4$}
\renewcommand{\Repbase^\lam}{\mathfrak{X}^{\lambda,\mu}}
\renewcommand{\dRepbase^\lam}[1]{d\Repbase_{#1}^{\lambda,\mu}}
\renewcommand{\domRbase^\lam}{{\cal H}}
\renewcommand{\fzRbase^\lam_n}{\psi}
\renewcommand{\DHLbase^\lam}{\hat{\Delta}_H^{\lambda,\mu}}
We now recall the representations of the group $\mathfrak{G}_4$, as computed by Dixmier in \cite[p. 333]{dixmier3}. As stated before, we may consider only representations on the support of the Plancherel measure.
\begin{proposition}
The dual space of $\mathfrak{G}_4$ is $\hat{G}=\Pg{\Repbase^\lam\ |\ \lambda\neq 0,\mu\in\mathbb{R}}$, where
\mmfunz{\Repbase^\lam(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)}{\domRbase^\lam}{\domRbase^\lam}{\fzRbase^\lam_n(\th)}{\exp{i\Pt{-\frac{\mu}{2\lambda}x_2+\lambda x_4 - \lambda x_3 \th + \frac{\lambda}{2} x_2 \th^2}}\fzRbase^\lam_n(\th+x_1)}
whose domain is $\domRbase^\lam=L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})$, endowed with the standard product $<\fzRbase^\lam_n_1,\fzRbase^\lam_n_2>:=\int_\mathbb{R} \fzRbase^\lam_n_1(\th)\overline{\fzRbase^\lam_n_2}(\th)\,d\th$ where $d\th$ is the Lebesgue measure.
The Plancherel measure on $\hat{G}$ is $dP(\lambda,\mu)=d\lambda d\mu$, i.e. the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\rm
Notice that in this case the domain $\domRbase^\lam$ of the representation $\Repbase^\lam$ does not depend on $\lambda,\mu$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{The kernel of the hypoelliptic heat equation}
Consider the representation $\Repbase^\lam$ of $\mathfrak{G}_4$ and let $\dRepbase^\lam{i}$ be the corresponding representations of the differential operators $L_{X_i}$ with $i=1,2$. Recall that $\dRepbase^\lam{i}$ are operators on $\domRbase^\lam$. Again from \cite[p. 333]{dixmier3}, or by explicit computation, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pq{\dRepbase^\lam{1} \psi}(\th)=\frac{d}{d\th}\psi(\th),\quad
[\dRepbase^\lam{2}\psi](\th)=
\Pt{-\frac{i}{2}\frac{\mu}{\lambda}+\frac{i}2 \lambda \th^2}\psi(\th),\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pq{\DHLbase^\lam\psi}(\th)=\Pt{\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-\frac14\Pt{\lambda\th^2-\frac{\mu}{\lambda}}^2}\psi(\th).\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The GFT of the hypoelliptic heat equation is thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t\psi= \Pt{\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-\frac14\Pt{\lambda\th^2-\frac{\mu}{\lambda}}^2}\psi(\th).\eqnl{e:GFT-G4}
We rewrite it as
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t\psi= \Pt{\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-\Pt{\alpha\th^2+\beta}^2}\psi(\th),\eqnl{e:GFT-G4-trasf}
with $\alpha=\frac\lam2$, $\beta=-\frac{\mu}{2\lambda}$.
\newcommand{\Psi}{\Psi}
The operator $\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-(\alpha\th^2+\beta)^2$ is the Laplacian with quartic potential, see e.g. \cite{skala}. As already stated, no general explicit solutions are known for this equation. We call
\begin{eqnarray}\Psi_t \Pt{\th,\bar\th;\alpha,\beta}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
the solution of
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t \psi(t,\th)=\Pt{\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-\Pt{\alpha\th^2+\beta}^2}\psi(t,\th),\\
\psi(0,\th)=\delta_{\bar\th},
\end{cases}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
i.e. the solution of \r{e:GFT-G4-trasf} evaluated in $\th$ at time $t$, with initial data $\delta_{\bar\th}$ and parameters $\alpha,\beta$.
Applying Corollary \ref{c-2} and after straightforward computations, one gets the kernel of the hypoelliptic heat equation on the group $\mathfrak{G}_4$:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_t(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=\int_{\mathbb{R}\backslash\Pg{0}} d\lambda \int_\mathbb{R} d\mu \int_\mathbb{R} d \th\,
e^{i\Pt{-\frac{\mu}{2\lambda}x_2+\lambda x_4 - \lambda x_3 \th + \frac{\lambda}{2} x_2 \th^2}}\Psi_t\Pt{\th+x_1,\th;\frac\lam2,-\frac{\mu}{2\lambda}}.
\eqnl{eq-G4-heat-exp}
\subsection{Hypoelliptic heat kernel on $\mathfrak{G}_5$}
The Lie algebra $\L_5$ of the group $\mathfrak{G}_5$ can be presented as the following matrix space
$$\L_5\simeq\Pg{\Mat{cc}{\b{M_1}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4) & \b{0}_{4\times 4}\\
\b{0}_{4\times 4} & \b{M_2}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_5)}\ |\
a_i\in\mathbb{R}},$$
where
$$
\b{M_1}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=\Mat{cccc}{
0&-a_1& 0& a_4\\
0&0 & -a_1& a_3\\
0&0 & 0& a_2\\
0&0 & 0& 0},\qquad
\b{M_2}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_5)=\Mat{cccc}{
0&a_2& 0& a_5\\
0&0 & a_2& -a_3\\
0&0 & 0& -a_1\\
0&0 & 0& 0}.$$
We present each $\l_i$ as the matrix with $a_j=\delta_{ij}$. It is straightforward to prove that these matrices satisfy the commutation rules for $\L_5$, where the bracket operation is the standard $\Pq{A,B}:=BA-AB$.
A matrix presentation of the group $\mathfrak{G}_5$ is thus the matrix exponential of $\L_5$:
\begin{eqnarray}\mathfrak{G}_5&\simeq&\Pg{\exp{\Mat{cc}{\b{M_1}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4) & \b{0}_{4\times 4}\\
\b{0}_{4\times 4} & \b{M_2}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_5)}}\ |\ a_i\in\mathbb{R}}=\nonumber\\
&=&\Pg{\Mat{cc}{\exp{\b{M_1}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)} & \b{0}_{4\times 4}\\
\b{0}_{4\times 4} & \exp{\b{M_2}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_5)}}\ |\ a_i\in\mathbb{R}}=\nonumber\\
&=&\Pg{
\Mat{cc}{\b{N_1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) & \b{0}_{4\times 4}\\
\b{0}_{4\times 4} & \b{N_2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5)}\ |\ x_i\in\mathbb{R}}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\b{N_1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=\Mat{cccc}{
1&-x_1& \frac{x_1^2}{2}& x_4\\
0&1 & -x_1& x_3\\
0&0 & 1& x_2\\
0&0 & 0& 1},\quad
\b{N_2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5)=\Mat{cccc}{
1&x_2& \frac{x_2^2}{2}& x_5-\frac{x_1 x_2^2}2\\
0&1 & x_2& -x_3-x_1 x_2\\
0&0 & 1& -x_1\\
0&0 & 0& 1},\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1&=&a_1,\qquad x_2=a_2,\qquad x_3=a_3-\frac{a_1a_2}{2},\quad x_4=a_4+\frac{a_1^2a_2}{6}-\frac{a_1a_3}{2},\quad x_5=a_5+\frac{a_1a_2^2}{6}-\frac{a_2a_3}{2}.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
We now define the isomorphism $\Pi_5$ between $\mathfrak{G}_5$ and $\mathbb{R}_5$ given by $$\Pi_4\Pt{\Mat{cc}{\b{N_1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) & \b{0}_{4\times 4}\\
\b{0}_{4\times 4} & \b{N_2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5)}}=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5).$$
This isomorphism is a group isomorphism when $\mathbb{R}^5$ is endowed with the following product (see \cite[p. 331]{dixmier3}): \begin{eqnarray}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)\cdot(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5)&:=&\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pt{x_1 + y_1, x_2 + y_2, x_3+y_3-x_1 y_2,
x_4+y_4+\frac12 x_1^2 y_2 - x_1 y_3,
x_5+y_5+\frac12 x_1 y_2^2 - x_2 y_3+ x_1 x_2 y_2}.
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The isomorphism $\Pi_5$ induces an isomorphism of tangent spaces $T_g G \simeq T_{\Pi_5(g)} \mathbb{R}^5$, that is explicitly $g \l_i\simeq X_i$, with $X_i$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
X_1(x)&=&\der{x_1},\qquad
X_2(x)=\der{x_2} -x_1\der{x_3} + \frac{x_1^2}{2}\der{x_4}+x_1 x_2 \der{x_5},\label{e:Xi-G5}\\
X_3(x)&=&\der{x_3} -x_1\der{x_4} -x_2\der{x_5},\qquad
X_4(x)=\der{x_4},\qquad X_5(x)=\der{x_5},
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
where $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)$.
We endow $\mathfrak{G}_5$ with a left-invariant sub-Riemannian structure as presented in Section \ref{ss-leftmanifold}, where $\mathfrak{p}=\span{\l_1,\l_2}$ and $\g_g(g\l_i,g\l_j)=\delta_{ij}$ with $i,j=1$ or $2$
We thus want to find the fundamental solution for the following heat equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t \phi(t,x)=\Delta_H \phi(t,x),
\eqnl{e:hypo-G5}
with $\Delta_H=X_1^2+X_2^2$.
\subsubsection{Representations of $\mathfrak{G}_5$}
\renewcommand{\Repbase^\lam}{\mathfrak{X}^{\lambda,\mu,\nu}}
\renewcommand{\dRepbase^\lam}[1]{d\Repbase_{#1}^{\lambda,\mu,\nu}}
\renewcommand{\domRbase^\lam}{{\cal H}}
\renewcommand{\fzRbase^\lam_n}{\psi}
\renewcommand{\DHLbase^\lam}{\hat{\Delta}_H^{\lambda,\mu,\nu}}
We now recall the representations of the group $\mathfrak{G}_5$, as computed by Dixmier in \cite[p. 338]{dixmier3}. As stated before, we may consider only representations on the support of the Plancherel measure.
\begin{proposition}
The dual space of $\mathfrak{G}_5$ is $\hat{G}=\Pg{\Repbase^\lam\ |\ \lambda^2+\mu^2\neq 0,\nu\in\mathbb{R}}$, where
\mmfunz{\Repbase^\lam(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)}{\domRbase^\lam}{\domRbase^\lam}{\fzRbase^\lam_n(\th)}{\exp{i K^{\lambda,\mu,\nu}_{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5}(\th)}
\fzRbase^\lam_n\Pt{\th+\frac{\lambda x_1+\mu x_2}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}}}
with
\begin{eqnarray} K^{\lambda,\mu,\nu}_{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5}(\th)&=&
-\frac12 \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\Pt{\mu x_1 -\lambda x_2}
+\lambda x_4 +\mu x_5+\nonumber\\
&-&\frac16 \frac{\mu}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\Pt{\lambda^2 x_1^3+3 \lambda \mu x_1^2 x_2 + 3 \mu^2 x_1 x_2^2-\lambda \mu x_2^3}
+\mu^2 x_1 x_2 \th
+\lambda \mu (x_1^2-x_2^2)\th+\nonumber\\
&+&\frac12\Pt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\Pt{\mu x_1-\lambda x_2} \th^2.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The domain of $\Repbase^\lam(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)$ is $\domRbase^\lam=L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})$, endowed with the standard product $<\fzRbase^\lam_n_1,\fzRbase^\lam_n_2>:=\int_\mathbb{R} \fzRbase^\lam_n_1(\th)\overline{\fzRbase^\lam_n_2}(\th)\,d\th$ where $d\th$ is the Lebesgue measure.
The Plancherel measure on $\hat{G}$ is $dP(\lambda,\mu,\nu)=d\lambda d\mu d\nu$, i.e. the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\rm
Notice that in this case the domain $\domRbase^\lam$ of the representation $\Repbase^\lam$ does not depend on $\lambda,\mu,\nu$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{The kernel of the hypoelliptic heat equation}
Consider the representation $\Repbase^\lam$ of $\mathfrak{G}_5$ and let $\dRepbase^\lam{i}$ be the corresponding representations of the differential operators $L_{X_i}$ with $i=1,2$. Recall that $\dRepbase^\lam{i}$ are operators on $\domRbase^\lam$. Again from \cite[p. 338]{dixmier3}, or by explicit computation, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pq{\dRepbase^\lam{1} \psi}(\th)&=&
\Pt{-\frac{i}{2}\frac{\mu\eta}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}
+\frac{\lambda}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\frac{d}{d\th}
-\frac{i}2 \mu \Pt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\th^2}\psi(\th)\nonumber\\
\Pq{\dRepbase^\lam{2}\psi}(\th)&=&
\Pt{\frac{i}{2}\frac{\lambda\mu}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}
+\frac{\mu}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\frac{d}{d\th}
+\frac{i}2 \lambda \Pt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\th^2}\psi(\th),\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pq{\DHLbase^\lam\psi}(\th)=\frac1{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\frac{d^2 \psi(\th)}{d\th^2}
-\frac{\Pt{\nu + (\lambda^2 + \mu^2)^2 \th^2}^2}{4\Pt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
The GFT of the hypoelliptic heat equation is thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t\psi= \frac1{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\frac{d^2 \psi(\th)}{d\th^2}
-\frac{\Pt{\nu + (\lambda^2 + \mu^2)^2 \th^2}^2}{4\Pt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}}\psi(\th).\eqnl{e:GFT-G5}
We rewrite it as
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_\tau\psi= \Pt{\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-\Pt{\alpha\th^2+\beta}^2}\psi(\th),\eqnl{e:GFT-G5-trasf}
with $\tau=\frac{t}{\Pt{\lambda^2+\mu^2}}$, $\alpha=\frac{\lambda^2+\mu^2}2$, $\beta=-\frac{\nu}{2}$.
The operator $\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-(\alpha\th^2+\beta)^2$ is the Laplacian with quartic potential, see e.g. \cite{skala}. As already stated, no general explicit solutions are known for this equation. We call
\begin{eqnarray}\Psi_\tau \Pt{\th,\bar\th;\alpha,\beta}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
the solution of
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
\partial_\tau \psi(\tau,\th)=\Pt{\frac{d^2}{d\th^2}-\Pt{\alpha\th^2+\beta}^2}\psi(\tau,\th),\\
\psi(0,\th)=\delta_{\bar\th},
\end{cases}
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
i.e. the solution of \r{e:GFT-G5-trasf} evaluated in $\th$ at time $\tau$, with initial data $\delta_{\bar\th}$ and parameters $\alpha,\beta$.
Applying Corollary \ref{c-2} and after straightforward computations, one gets the kernel of the hypoelliptic heat equation on the group $\mathfrak{G}_5$:\\
$p_t(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)=$
\begin{eqnarray} =\int_{\lambda^2+\mu^2\neq 0} d\lambda d\mu d\nu \int_\mathbb{R} d \th\,
\exp{i K^{\lambda,\mu,\nu}_{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5}(\th)}
\Psi_\frac{t}{\lambda^2+\mu^2}\Pt{\th+\frac{\lambda x_1+\mu x_2}{\lambda^2+\mu^2},\th;\frac{\lambda^2+\mu^2}2,-\frac{\nu}2}.
\eqnl{eq-G5-heat-exp}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Quantum jumps \cite{QuantumCyclotron} have been observed between between the lowest cyclotron and spin states of an electron suspended in the magnetic field of a cylindrical Penning trap (Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}). These observations made possible the most precise measurements of the electron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant \cite{HarvardMagneticMoment2008}. The one-electron observations also triggered intriguing studies on using one-electron qubits as building blocks for quantum information processing \cite{Tombesi1999,Tombesi2001,TombesiThreeQubit,Tombesi2003,TombesiLinearPRA,Tombesi2005,TombesiPlanarDecoherence,PlanarPenningTrapMainz,ElectronsInPlanarPenningTrapMainz,ElectronFrequenciesInPlanarPenningTrapMainz,ElectronsInPlanarPenningTrapUlm,UlmFinalElectronReview}. The possibility of a very long coherence time is very attractive.
\QuantumJumpsFigure
A new trap design is needed to realize one-electron qubits for quantum information studies. Although a single electron in a single trap is the focus of this work, a scalable array of coupled one-electron qubits is the long term goal. Impressive progress has been made in the microfabrication of three-dimensional trap arrays \cite{SandaMicrofabricatedCylindricalTraps}, but it is still beyond these or more traditional methods to fabricate a large array of small cylindrical traps with the properties needed to observe one-quantum transitions with one electron. A scalable array of small traps seems more feasible with traps whose electrodes are entirely in a plane since these could be fabricated on a chip using variations on more standard microfabrication methods \cite{UlmFinalElectronReview}. The chip could include electrical couplings between the traps, and could even include some detection electronics. Secondary advantages of a planar trap would be an open structure that makes it easier to introduce microwaves (to modify or entangle electron spin states) and possibly to load electrons.
\PlanarTrapThreeDimensionsFigure
One possible planar Penning trap geometry (Fig.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrapThreeDimensions}) is a round center electrode with concentric rings \cite{PlanarPenningTrapMainz}.
Electrons were stored and observed in such a trap, first in Mainz \cite{ElectronsInPlanarPenningTrapMainz,ElectronFrequenciesInPlanarPenningTrapMainz} and then in Ulm \cite{ElectronsInPlanarPenningTrapUlm}. The objective of the latter experiment was to duplicate in a planar trap the observations of the one-quantum transitions of a single electron in a cylindrical Penning trap (Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}). The final experimental report \cite{ElectronsInPlanarPenningTrapUlm} is not encouraging. It concludes that the ``lack of mirror symmetry" makes it ``impossible to create a genuinely harmonic potential'' and that it is thus ``impossible'' to detect a single electron within a planar Penning trap. Whether the situation changes with much smaller planar traps is being considered \cite{UlmFinalElectronReview}.
We reach a more optimistic conclusion in this work, though the pessimism may be appropriate for the trap designs used so far.
The key to a successful planar trap for one electron is a design that minimizes amplitude-dependent frequency shifts of the observed oscillation frequency. This report focuses upon calculating the relationship of such shifts to the electrode geometry and applied potentials. (Appendix \ref{sec:EarlierCalculation} corrects an earlier calculation \cite{PlanarPenningTrapMainz} of the crucial amplitude-dependent frequency shifts needed to characterize and optimize planar traps.) We identify optimized planar Penning trap geometries and potentials that produce amplitude-dependent frequency shifts that are orders-of-magnitude smaller than for previous planar trap designs.
A high measurement precision with a single trapped particle is part of what will be required to observe a spin flip and realize a one-electron qubit. Several of the most accurate measurements in physics illustrate the feasibility of attaining the needed precision when a trap design
that is optimized for the particular high-precision application is used. The cylindrical Penning trap of Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}c \cite{CylindricalPenningTrap} was designed so that its electrodes form a microwave cavity that inhibits spontaneous emission. This trap design enabled the observation of one-quantum transitions, which made possible the most accurate measurements of the electron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant \cite{HarvardMagneticMoment2008}. An orthogonalized hyperbolic trap \cite{OrthogonalCompensate,Gabrielse84h} was designed to allow a trapping potential to be optimized without changing the trap depth. The most precise mass spectroscopy (e.g.,\ \cite{PritchardIonBalance}) was carried out in such a trap with a single ion (or two). An open-access Penning trap \cite{OpenTrap} was designed to allow antiprotons from an accelerator facility to enter the trap. The most accurate comparison of $q/m$ for an antiproton and proton \cite{FinalPbarMass} was carried out with a single antiproton and a single H$^-$ ion in such a trap, as were the most accurate one-ion measurements of bound electron $g$ values \cite{Quint2000b,Quint2004} and the most precise proton-to-electron mass ratio \cite{MainzSummary2006}. Inspired by these examples, this study of planar Penning traps for one-electron applications is carried out in the hope that a similar rigorous design approach will indicate the best route to observing one electron in a planar trap.
Optimized geometries and biasing schemes identified here for planar Penning traps promise to reduce the amplitude dependence of the observed frequency by many orders of magnitude. This reduction makes it much more likely that one electron can be observed in a planar Penning trap -- an important first step towards realizing a one-electron qubit. Two related trap configurations, a covered planar trap and a mirror-image trap, offer improved shielding, new detection options, and easier trap loading. It remains, of course, to demonstrate experimentally that the optimized planar trap designs proposed will approach the performance of the cylindrical Penning trap in which one-quantum transitions and spin flips of a single electron were observed.
\section{Outline}
Sec.~\ref{sec:PlanarPenningTraps} describes the potential and potential expansions for a planar Penning trap.
Sec.~\ref{sec:AxialOscillations} relates the amplitude dependence of the particle's axial oscillation frequency to the
potential expanded around the equilibrium location of the trapped particle. The axial oscillation of a trapped particle must
be detected to tell that a single particle is in the trap. Small shifts in this frequency will reveal spin flips and
one-quantum cyclotron transitions.
Two-gap traps (with two biased electrodes surrounded by a ground plane) are shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:TwoGapTraps} to be
inadequate for the observation and the manipulation of a single electron. The considerable promise of three-gap traps (with
three biased electrodes surrounded by a ground plane) is the subject of Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}. Optimized
planar trap configurations that make the particle's oscillation frequency essentially independent of oscillation amplitude
are identified and discussed, along with the detection and damping of the particle's motion.
Sec.~\ref{sec:LaboratoryPlanarTraps} estimates the size of the unavoidable deviations between ideal planar Penning traps
and the actual laboratory traps. Real traps have gaps between electrodes, finite boundary conditions, and imperfections in the trap dimensions, all of which must be compensated by modifying the voltages applied to the trap electrodes.
A covered planar trap (a two-gap planar trap covered by a parallel conducting plane) is proposed in Sec.~\ref{sec:CoveredPlanarTraps} as a scalable way to make planar chip traps less sensitive to nearby apparatus. An electron suspended midway between a mirror-image pair of planar electrodes is shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:MirrorImageTraps} to be in a potential with much the same properties as is experienced by an electron centered in a cylindrical Penning trap. For an electron initially loaded and observed in an ``orthogonalized'' mirror-image trap, we illustrate in Sec.~\ref{sec:Mirror-ImageToCoveredTrap} the possibility to adiabatically change the applied trapping potentials to move the electron into a covered planar Penning trap that is optimized.
The damping and detection of a particle in planar traps, covered planar traps and mirror image traps are considered in Sec.~\ref{sec:Damping}. The optimization of damping and detection is discussed, as are unique detection opportunities available with a covered planar trap.
A conclusion in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusion} is followed by three appendices. Appendix \ref{sec:EarlierCalculation} corrects an earlier calculation of amplitude-dependent
frequency shifts in a planar trap. Appendices \ref{sec:MainzTrap} and \ref{sec:UlmTrap} use the calculations of this work
to analyze the properties of planar traps built at Mainz and Ulm.
\section{Planar Penning Traps}
\label{sec:PlanarPenningTraps}
\subsection{The Ideal to be Approximated}
An ideal Penning trap, which we seek to approximate, starts with a spatially uniform magnetic field,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{B} = B \zhat. \label{eq:MagneticField}
\end{equation}
Superimposed is an electrostatic quadrupole potential, $V_2(\rho,z)$ in cylindrical coordinates, that is a harmonic
oscillator potential on the $\rho=0$ axis,
\begin{equation}
V_2(0,z) = \frac{1}{2} V_0 \left(\frac{z - z_0}{\rho_1}\right)^2,\label{eq:HarmonicPotential}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_1$ sets the size scale for the trap and $V_0$ sets the potential scale.
A particle of charge $q$ and mass $m$ on axis then oscillates at an axial angular
frequency
\begin{equation}
\omega_z =\sqrt{ \frac{q}{m} \frac{V_0}{ {\rho_1}^2}}\label{eq:AxialFrequency}
\end{equation}
about the potential minimum at $z_0$. The potential will trap a particle only if $q V_0 > 0$.
The axial oscillation frequency $\omega_z$ is the key observable for possible quantum information studies. The one-quantum
cyclotron and spin flip transitions that have been observed (e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}a-b) were detected using the
small shifts in $\omega_z$ caused by a quantum non-demolition (QND) coupling of the cyclotron and spin energies to
$\omega_z$.
For potentials that can be expressed on an axis of symmetry as a power series in $z-z_0$ (e.g.,
Eq.~\ref{eq:HarmonicPotential}), the general solution to Laplace's equation near the point $(0,z_0)$ is related to the
axial solution by the substitution,
\begin{equation}
(z-z_0)^k \rightarrow \left[{\rho^2 + (z-z_0)^2}\right]^{k/2} P_k\left[\cos (\theta)\right],\label{eq:Substitution}
\end{equation}
where $\cos (\theta ) = (z-z_0)/\sqrt{\rho^2+(z-z_0)^2}$ and $P_k$ is a Legendre polynomial. We will focus upon axial
potentials throughout this work, since this procedure can be used to obtain the general potential in the neighborhood of any
axial position when this is needed.
Applied to the harmonic axial potential of an ideal Penning trap,
\begin{equation}
V_2(\rho,z) = \frac{V_0}{2} \frac{\rho^2 + (z-z_0)^2}{{\rho_1}^2} P_2\left[\cos (\theta)\right].\label{eq:IdealQuadrupole}
\end{equation}
This quadrupole potential for an ideal Penning trap extends through all space.
\subsection{Electrodes in a Plane}
A planar Penning trap (Figs.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrapThreeDimensions}-\ref{fig:PlanarTrap}) starts with a spatially uniform
magnetic field as in Eq.~\ref{eq:MagneticField}. An electrostatic potential is produced by biasing $N$ ring electrodes in a
plane perpendicular to the symmetry axis of the electrodes, $\zhat$. An electrode with an outer radius $\rho_i$ is biased
to a potential $V_i$, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrap}. Without loss of generality, the potential
beyond the rings, $\rho > \rho_N$, is taken to be the zero of potential, $V_{N+1} = 0$. The $N$ gaps between biased
electrodes are taken initially to be infinitesimal, but this condition is relaxed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Gaps}.
\PlanarTrapFigure
Two remaining boundary conditions,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:BoundaryConditionsInfinity}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\rho, z\rightarrow\infty) = 0\\
V(\rho\rightarrow\infty,z) = 0
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
will be assumed to derive the potential for $z\ge0$. It is not always possible in real apparatus to keep all metal far
enough away from the trap electrodes so that these boundary conditions are accurately satisfied. We consider the case of
finite boundary conditions in Sec.~\ref{sec:FiniteBoundaries}.
Throughout this work we will illustrate the basic features and challenges of a planar Penning trap using a three-gap ($N =
3$) sample trap with dimensions
\begin{equation}
\{ \rho_i \} = \{1, 5.5, 7.5426\}\,\rho_1, \label{eq:SampleTrapDimensions}
\end{equation}
for reasons discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}. Fig.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrap} shows this relative geometry (to scale).
\subsection{Scaling Distances and Potentials}
It is natural and often useful to scale distances of the radius of the inner electrode, $\rho_1$. We will do so, using the
notation $\zt = z /\rho_1$ and $\rt = \rho /\rho_1$. The relative geometry of a planar Penning trap is then given by the
set of dimensions $\{\rt_i \} = \{1,\rt_2, \rt_3, \ldots \}$, for example.
It is natural and convenient to scale the trap potential $V$, along with the voltages $V_i$ applied to trap electrodes, in
terms of a voltage scale, $V_0$, to be determined. We will then use scaled applied potentials, $\wt{V}_i = V_i/V_0$, and a
scaled trap potential, $\wt{V} = V/V_0$.
\subsection{Exact Superposition}
The potential produced by a planar Penning trap is a superposition
\begin{equation}
V(\rt,\zt)= \sum_{i=1}^N V_i \, \phi_i(\wt{\rho},\wt{z})\label{eq:Superposition}
\end{equation}
that is linear in the relative voltages applied to trap electrodes. The functions $\phi_i$ are solutions to Laplace's
equation with boundary conditions such that $\phi_i=1$ on the electrode that extends to $\rho_i$ and is otherwise zero on
the boundary. More precisely,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:PhiBoundaryConditions}
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_i(\rt, 0) &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
0, & \rt < \rt_{i-1}\\
1, & \rt_{i-1}<\rt<\rt_i\\
0, & \rt>\rt_i
\end{array}
\right. , \\
\phi_i(\rt, \zt \rightarrow\infty) &=& 0\\
\phi_i(\rt \rightarrow\infty,\zt) &=& 0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
These potentials are independent of the voltages applied to the trap and depend only upon the relative geometry of the trap
electrodes.
Standard electrostatics methods \cite{Jackson3rdEd,Kusse} give the $\phi_i$ that satisfy Laplace's equation for $\zt \ge 0$ and the cylindrically
symmetric boundary conditions above,
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_i (\rt,\zt) &=& \rt_i \int_0^\infty dk e^{- k \zt} J_1(k\rt_i) J_0(k \rt )\nonumber\\
&-&\rt_{i-1} \int_0^\infty dk e^{- k \zt} J_1(k\rt_{i-1}) J_0(k \rt ),\label{eq:PotentialOffAxis}
\end{eqnarray}
with the convention that $\rt_0=0$. The integrals are over products of Bessel functions. On axis,
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(0,\zt) = \frac{\zt}{\sqrt{(\rt_{i-1})^2 + \zt^2}} - \frac{\zt}{\sqrt{(\rt_i)^2 + \zt^2}}.\label{eq:Exactphii}
\end{equation}
Most of the properties of a planar Penning trap can be deduced from just the potential on axis. Expressions equivalent to Eqs.~\ref{eq:PotentialOffAxis}-\ref{eq:Exactphii} are in Ref. \cite{PlanarPenningTrapMainz}.
To emphasize the role of the $N$ gaps of a planar trap we define the gap potential across gap $i$ as the difference, $\Delta V_i \equiv
V_{i+1}-V_i$. The axial potential is then given by
\begin{align}
V(0,\zt) &= \sum_{i=1}^N \Delta V_i \, \Phi_i(\zt) \label{eq:GapExpansion}\\
\Phi_i(\zt) &= \frac{\zt}{\sqrt{(\rt_i)^2 + \zt^2}} - 1,\label{eq:Phi}
\end{align}
a sum of contributions from the $N$ gap potentials.
The axial potential can be computed exactly using Eq.~\ref{eq:Superposition} and Eq.~\ref{eq:Exactphii}, or alternately
from Eq.~\ref{eq:GapExpansion}. Fig.~\ref{fig:AxialPotential} compares an ideal harmonic axial potential to examples of axial potentials for optimized planar Penning
trap configurations to be discussed. Fig.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrapThreeDimensions}b shows equipotentials spaced by $V_0$ for a planar Penning trap (configuration I in Table~\ref{table:SampleTrap}). The equipotentials are calculated for infinitesimal gaps, but the electrodes are represented with finite gaps to make them visible. The equipotentials terminate in the gaps between electrodes. The dashed equipotentials of an ideal quadrupole are superimposed near the trap center.
\AxialPotentialFigure
\subsection{Expansion of the Trap Potential}
To characterize the trap potential $V(\rt,\zt)$ for $\zt\ge 0$ it suffices to focus upon expansions of the potential on the
$\rt=0$ axis. The potential near any expansion point $\zt_0$ on this axis can be obtained using the substitution of
Eq.~\ref{eq:Substitution}. The axial potential due to one electrode (Eq.~\ref{eq:Exactphii}) can be expanded in a
Taylor series,
\begin{equation}
\phi_i (0,\zt ) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^\infty C_{ki} (\zt - \zt_0)^k.\label{eq:Phii}
\end{equation}
The expansion coefficients,
\begin{equation}
C_{ki} = \frac{2}{k!} \left[\frac{\partial^k \phi_i(0,\zt)}{\partial \zt^k} \right]_{\zt = \zt_0},\label{eq:Cki}
\end{equation}
are analytic functions of the relative trap geometry, $\{ \rt_i \}$, and the relative location of the expansion point,
$\zt_0$.
The full trap potential can be similarly expanded as
\begin{equation}
V(0,\zt) = \frac{1}{2} V_0 \sum_{k=0}^\infty \,C_k \,(\zt - \zt_0)^k. \label{eq:ExpandV}
\end{equation}
The one expansion coefficient needed for $k=2$ is so far written as $V_0 C_2$. With no loss of generality we are thus free
to choose $C_2=1$. This determines $V_0$ and the $C_k$,
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0 &=& \sum_{i=1}^N C_{2i} V_i\label{eq:V0}\\
C_k &=& \sum_{i=1}^N C_{ki} \Vt_i \label{eq:Ck}.
\end{eqnarray}
The latter equation, and the rest of this work, make frequent use of the scaled potentials $\Vt_i=V_i/V_0$. For the scaled
potentials, Eq.~\ref{eq:V0} can be regarded as a constraint,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^N C_{2i} \Vt_i = 1,\label{eq:C2Constraint}
\end{equation}
that an acceptable set of relative potentials must satisfy.
A trap is formed at $\zt=\zt_0$ only if there is a minimum in the potential energy $qV(0,\zt )$ for a particle with charge
$q$ and mass $m$. The linear gradient in the potential must thus vanish at this point, whereupon
\begin{equation}
C_1 = \sum_{i=1}^N C_{1i} \Vt_i = 0. \label{eq:C1Constraint}
\end{equation}
Near the minimum the potential energy will then have the form $m {\omega_z}^2 (z-z_0)^2/2$, where $\omega_z$ is the angular
oscillation frequency of the trapped particle in the limit of a vanishing oscillation amplitude. Comparing to the quadratic
term in Eq.~\ref{eq:ExpandV} gives
\begin{equation}
{\omega_z}^2 = \frac{q V_0}{m {\rho_1}^2}, \label{eq:AxialFrequency2}
\end{equation}
the same as for the ideal case considered earlier because of our choice of $V_0$. Forming a trap thus requires that $q$ and
$V_0$ have the same sign at $\zt_0$. The sign of $V_0$ can be flipped if it is wrong by simply flipping the sign of all of
the applied potentials.
\subsection{Two Viewpoints}
\label{sec:TwoViewpoints}
Two different viewpoints of the potential expansions and equations are useful. The first is needed to analyze the
performance of an $N$-gap trap. The second facilitates the calculation of optimized trap configurations.
The point of view that we take to analyze an $N$-gap trap starts with the $N$ radii $\{\rho_i\}$ and the $N$ applied
potentials $\{V_i\}$. These are the $2N$ parameters that fully characterize such a trap. No interrelations constrain the
values of these parameters, so the difference of the number of parameters and constraints is $2N$.
The axial potential is then a superposition (from Eq.~\ref{eq:Superposition}) of the $\phi_i(0,\zt)$ from
Eq.~\ref{eq:Exactphii} with scaled radii $\{ \rt_i \}=\{ \rho_i \}/\rho_1$. The extremum of $V(0,\zt)$ is the $\zt_0$
needed to evaluate the expansion coefficients $C_{ki}(\rt_i,\zt_0)$ using Eq.~\ref{eq:Cki}. All of the properties of a trap
at $\zt=\zt_0$ can then be determined. The potential scale $V_0(\rho_i,\zt_0,V_i)$ is determined using Eq.~\ref{eq:V0}, the
axial frequency from Eq.~\ref{eq:AxialFrequency}, and the expansion coefficients $C_k$ from Eq.~\ref{eq:Ck}. An example
analysis for two existing planar Penning traps is provided in the Appendices.
The point of view we take to identify optimized planar trap configurations instead uses $2N+2$ parameters to characterize a
planar trap. The effect of the two additional parameters is compensated by the addition of the two constraints $C_1=0$ and
$C_2=1$ (from Eq.~\ref{eq:C2Constraint} and Eq.~\ref{eq:C1Constraint}). The difference in the number of the parameters and
constraints is thus $2N$, just as for our analysis above.
We will first seek solutions for scaled trap configurations, for which there are $2N$ parameters and $2$ constraints. The
parameters are the $N$ scaled potentials $\{ \Vt_i \}$, the $N-1$ scaled radii $\{ \rt_i \}$, and the scaled distance $\zt_0
> 0$. The two constraints, $C_1=0$ and $C_2=1$, are from Eq.~\ref{eq:C2Constraint} and Eq.~\ref{eq:C1Constraint}. The
difference of the number of parameters and constraints for any scaled trap configuration is thus $2N-2$. We are thus free to
specify up to $2N-2$ additional constraints on the scaled radii and scaled potentials, though not all constraints will have
a set of parameters that satisfies them.
Once the $2N-2$ scaled potentials and radii are chosen, we are then free to choose two additional parameters to bring the
difference of the parameters and constraints back up to $2N$. A convenient distance scale $\rho_1$ and a convenient
potential scale $V_0$ can be chosen to get a desired axial frequency (using Eq.~\ref{eq:AxialFrequency2}). The radii are
then $\{ \rho_i \} = \rho_1 \{ \rt_i \}$, and the applied potentials are $\{ V_i \} = V_0 \,\{ \Vt_i \}$.
Before applying these general considerations to two- and three-gap traps, we discuss amplitude-dependent frequency shifts
since these will determine the additional constraint equations that we need to design optimized planar traps.
\section{Axial Oscillations}
\label{sec:AxialOscillations}
In this section we investigate the axial oscillation of a trapped particle near the potential energy minimum of a planar
Penning trap. In the following sections, Sec.~\ref{sec:TwoGapTraps} and Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}, we investigate optimized planar Penning traps,
realized by imposing additional requirements on the design of planar traps (in addition to the two above) to make the axial
oscillation of a trapped particle more harmonic.
The crucial observable for realizing a one-electron qubit is the frequency of the axial oscillation of a trapped electron.
One trapped particle will be observed in the planar Penning trap only if the oscillation frequency is well enough defined to
allow narrow-band radiofrequency detection methods to be used. Small changes in the particle's oscillation frequency will
signal one-quantum transitions of the qubit, as has been mentioned.
For a perfect quadrupole potential, the motion of a trapped particle on the symmetry axis of the trap is perfect harmonic
motion at a single oscillation frequency, $\omega_z$, independent of the amplitude of the oscillation. For a charged
particle trapped near a minimum of the non-harmonic potential expanded in Eq.~\ref{eq:ExpandV}, near $\zt = \zt_0$, the
oscillation frequency depends upon the oscillation amplitude.
\subsection{Amplitude-Dependent Frequency}
The oscillation frequency for a particle trapped near a potential minimum within a planar Penning trap depends upon the
oscillation amplitude. A derivation of this amplitude-dependence starts with applying Newton's second law to get the
equation of motion. For a particle of charge $q$ and mass $m$ on the symmetry axis $\zhat$ of the trap,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2} u + (\omega_z)^2 u + \lambda \, (\omega_z )^2 \, \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{k C_k}{2} u^{k-1} = 0,\label{eq:EquationOfMotion}
\end{equation}
where $u=\zt-\zt_0$. The harmonic restoring force is presumed to be larger than the additional (unwanted) terms. The latter are labeled with a
dimensionless smallness parameter, $\lambda$, that is taken to be unity at the end of the calculation.
Solutions are sought in the form of series expansions of the amplitude and the oscillation frequency in powers of the
smallness parameter,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
u &= u_0 + \lambda u_1 + \lambda^2 u_2 + \cdots \\
\omega &= \omega_z + \lambda \omega_1 + \lambda^2 \omega_2 + \cdots .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The lowest-order solution is a harmonic oscillation, with oscillation amplitude $\At \, \rho_1$, for which we chose the phase
$u_0 = \At \cos (\omega t)$ with $\At>0$.
By assumption, the lowest-frequency fourier component of the particle's axial motion is predominant. Fourier components at harmonics of $\omega_z(\At)$, not shown explicitly in the formula, have smaller amplitudes. The frequency contributions are determined by the requirement that no artificial driving terms resonant at angular
frequency $\omega$ are introduced. This well-known method \cite{LandauMechanics,Mickens} is sometimes called the
Linstedt-Poincar\'e method. The result is that the oscillation frequency $\omega = \omega_z(\At)$ is a function of
oscillation amplitude $\At$ for the harmonic fourier component, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_z(\At) &=& \omega_z \left[1 + \sum_{k=2}^\infty a_k \At^k \right].\label{eq:AmplitudeDependentFrequency}
\end{eqnarray}
At zero amplitude the oscillation frequency $\omega_z(\At) \rightarrow \omega_z$, of course. There is no term linear in the
oscillation amplitude (contrary to Ref.~\cite{PlanarPenningTrapMainz}, see Appendix \ref{sec:EarlierCalculation}.)
The amplitude coefficients $a_k$ are functions of the potential expansion coefficients $C_k$, each of which in turn is a
function of the trap dimensions $\rho_i$ and the potentials $V_i$ applied to the trap electrodes.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:ak}
\begin{eqnarray}
a_2 &=& -\frac{15 (C_3)^2}{16}+\frac{3 C_4}{4}.\label{eq:a2}\\
a_3 &=& -\frac{15 (C_3)^3}{16}+\frac{3 C_3 C_4}{4}\label{eq:a3one}\\
&=& C_3 a_2.\label{eq:a3}\\
a_4 &=& -\frac{2565 (C_3)^4}{1024}+\frac{645 (C_3)^2 C_4}{128}-\frac{21 (C_4)^2}{64} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{105 C_3 C_5}{32}+\frac{15 C_6}{16}.\label{eq:a4}\\
a_5 &=& -\frac{2565 (C_3)^5}{512}+\frac{765 (C_3)^3 C_4}{64}-\frac{69 C_3 (C_4)^2}{32} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{15 (C_3)^2 C_5}{2} +\frac{3 C_4 C_5}{4}+\frac{15 C_3 C_6}{8}\\
&=& (C_5-2C_3C_4) a_2 + 2C_3 a_4.\label{eq:a5}\\
a_6 &=& -\frac{205845 (C_3)^6}{16384}+\frac{159795 (C_3)^4 C_4}{4096}\nonumber\\
&& -\frac{21039 (C_3)^2 (C_4)^2}{1024} +\frac{81 (C_4)^3}{256}-\frac{13545 (C_3)^3 C_5}{512}\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1995 C_3 C_4 C_5}{128} -\frac{315 (C_5)^2}{128}+\frac{3015 (C_3)^2 C_6}{256}\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{57 C_4 C_6}{64} -\frac{315 C_3 C_7}{64}+\frac{35 C_8}{32}.\\
a_7 &=& 3 {C_3} a_6 + \left[-3 (C_3)^3-4 {C_3} {C_4}+2 {C_5}\right]a_4\nonumber\\
&+& \left[3 {C_3}^3 {C_4} + 4{C_3} (C_4)^2 - 2 {C_4} {C_5} - 3 {C_3} {C_6}+{C_7}\right] a_2.\nonumber\\ \label{eq:a7}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The exact expressions derived for $a_8$ and $a_9$ take too much space to display, and are not normally needed. A convention
other than $C_2=1$ would require that each $C_k$ in the previous equations be replaced by $C_k/C_2$.
Several properties of the relationships between the $C_k$ and $a_k$ will be exploited for designing planar traps. Two
combinations of potential expansion coefficients make $a_2=0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_3=C_4=0 ~~~&\Rightarrow&~~~ a_2=0\label{eq:a2VanishHarmonic}\\
C_4=\frac{5}{4}(C_3)^2 ~~~&\Rightarrow&~~~ a_2=0.\label{eq:a2VanishNonharmonic}
\end{eqnarray}
Relationships between the $a_k$ in Eqs.~\ref{eq:ak}a-f imply
\begin{eqnarray}
a_2=0 ~~~&\Rightarrow&~~~ a_3=0\label{eq:a3Froma2}\\
a_2=a_4=0 ~~~&\Rightarrow&~~~ a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0.\label{eq:a5Froma4}
\end{eqnarray}
One set of potential coefficients that produce this remarkable suppression of the low-order $a_k$ is
\begin{align}
C_3&=C_4=C_6=0\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow~~~ a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0.\label{eq:OptimizedTrap1}
\end{align}
Another is
\begin{align}
C_4&=\frac{5}{4}(C_3)^2 ~~\rm{and}~~
C_6 = -\frac{7}{2}C_3((C_3)^3-C_5)\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow~~~ a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0.\label{eq:OptimizedTrap2}
\end{align}
It remains to investigate whether and how any or all of these attractive combinations of $C_k$ values can be produced by
biasing a planar Penning trap.
\subsection{Tunabilities}
A change in the potential $V_i$ applied to each electrode will change the axial frequency $\omega_z$ and will also change
the amplitude dependence of the axial frequency by changing $a_2$. The orthogonalized hyperbolic, cylindrical, and
open-access traps were designed so that the potential applied to one pair of electrodes changed the axial frequency very
little while changing $a_2$. The potential on such compensation electrodes could then be changed to tune $a_2$ to zero
without shifting the axial frequency out of resonance with the detectors that were needed to monitor the improvement.
We define a tunability for each electrode,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_i =
\frac{1}{\displaystyle \omega_z} \frac{\displaystyle \partial \omega_z}{\displaystyle \partial V_i}
/
\frac{\displaystyle \partial a_2}{\displaystyle \partial V_i}
. \label{eq:gammai}
\end{equation}
to quantify how useful the electrodes will be for tuning $a_2$. The tunabilities are defined as generalizations of the
single tunability $\gamma$ used to optimize the design of the orthogonalized traps.
Ideally, and this ideal was closely approximated in the orthogonalized traps, there are compensation electrodes for which
$\gamma_i \approx 0$, and other electrodes for which $\gamma_i$ is very large in magnitude. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:CylindricalTrap} we will review the tunabilities that were calculated and realized for the cylindrical trap.
In sections that follow we will compare these to what can be realized with a planar Penning trap.
\subsection{Harmonics of the Axial Oscillation}
The largest fourier components for the small-amplitude motion of the trapped particle are given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{z} = \tilde{z}_0 + \At_0 + \At_1 \cos(\omega t) + \At_2 \cos(2 \omega t) + \At_3 \cos(3 \omega t) + \ldots\\
\end{equation}
By assumption, the harmonic fourier component at frequency $\omega$ has the larger amplitude $\At_1\approx\At$, with the harmonics then
given by
\begin{align}
\At_1 &= \At + \frac{C_3}{2}\At^2 + \left[\frac{29 (C_3)^2}{64} - \frac{C_4}{16}\right] \At^3 + \ldots\label{eq:A1}\\
\At_2 &= \frac{C_3}{4}\At^2 + \frac{(C_3)^2}{4}\At^3 + \ldots \label{eq:A2}\\
\At_3 &= \left[\frac{3 (C_3)^2}{64}+\frac{C_4}{16}\right] \At^3 + \ldots . \label{eq:A3}
\end{align}
Insofar as $\At \ll 1$, these higher-order oscillation amplitudes are smaller, but they depend critically upon the low-order
potential expansion coefficients as well.
\subsection{Thermal Spread in Axial Frequencies}
\label{sec:ThermalBroadening}
The image current induced in nearby trap electrodes by a particle's axial motion is sent through the input resistance of a detection amplifier circuit. The oscillating voltage across the resistor is detected with a very sensitive cryogenic amplifier. Energy dissipated in the resistor damps the axial motion, with some damping time $(\gamma_z)^{-1}$. Sec.~\ref{sec:Damping} shows how the damping rate $\gamma_z$ is related to the resistance for a three-gap trap.
The damping brings the axial motion of a trapped particle into thermal equilibrium at the effective temperature of the amplifier. It is quite challenging to achieve a low axial temperature with an amplifier turned on. For example, the electrodes of the cylindrical Penning trap were cooled to 0.1 K with a dilution refrigerator. Even with very careful heat sinking of a MESFET amplifier that was run at an extremely low bias current, however, the axial temperature with the amplifier operating was still $T_z = 5.2$ K \cite{FeedbackCoolingPRL}. We then used feedback cooling to bring the axial temperature as low as 0.85 K \cite{FeedbackCoolingPRL}. A lower axial temperature was obtained, but only by switching the amplifier off during critical stages of the measurement of the electron magnetic moment. For the estimates that follow we will assume an axial temperature of 5 K, but stress that much higher axial temperatures are very hard to avoid.
What has prevented the observation of one electron in a planar trap so far is the large amplitude dependence of the axial frequency in such traps. Thermal fluctuations of the particle's axial energy make the particle oscillate at a range of fourier components, $\Delta \omega_z$. In the cylindrical trap of Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}c this spread in frequencies is less than the damping width, $\Delta \omega_z < \gamma_z$. For planar traps so far the thermal spread of axial oscillation frequencies is much broader than the damping width, $\Delta \omega_z \gg \gamma_z$.
As a measure of the thermal damping width we will consider only the lowest-order contribution
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta \omega_z}{\omega_z} \approx |a_2| \frac{k_B T_z}{\frac12 m {\omega_z}^2{\rho_1}^2}.\label{eq:ThermalBroadeninga2}
\end{equation}
It should be possible to calculate neglected higher-order contributions if correlations are considered carefully, but this lowest expression suffices for our purposes.
The tables that follow report the lowest order thermal widths $\Delta f_z = \Delta \omega_z/(2\pi)$ and the damping widths $\gamma_z/(2\pi )$ in Hz. Vanishing values of $\Delta f_z$ thus mean that $a_2=0$, whereupon there is typically not much thermal broadening of the damping width. However, higher-order contributions ensure that there is always a nonvanishing thermal width.
\section{Two-Gap Traps}
\label{sec:TwoGapTraps}
A minimal requirement for a useful trap is that it be possible to bias its electrodes to make the leading contribution to
the amplitude dependence of the axial frequency vanish, $a_2=0$. We show here that this is not possible with a two-gap
($N=2$) planar trap.
A scaled two-gap planar trap is characterized by $2N=4$ parameters: $\rt_2$, $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, and $\zt_0$. These
parameters must satisfy the two constraints $C_1=0$ and $C_2=1$ (of Eqs.~\ref{eq:C2Constraint} and \ref{eq:C1Constraint}).
The difference of the number of parameters and constraints is thus $2N-2=2$. Consistent with this we can solve for any two
of the parameters in terms of the other two.
Unfortunately, if the additional constraint $a_2=0$ is added then there are no sets of parameters that are solutions. An
explicit demonstration that $a_2$ cannot be made to vanish comes from solving for $\Vt_1$ and $\Vt_2$ in terms of $\zt_0$
and $\rt_2$ using the two constraint equations. These solutions determine
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
C_3 &=& \frac{-9 (\zt_0)^4+(\rt_2)^2-4 (\zt_0)^2 \left[1+(\rt_2)^2\right]}{3 \left[\zt_0+(\zt_0)^3\right] \left[(\zt_0)^2+(\rt_2)^2\right]}\label{eq:TwoGapC3}\\
C_4 &=& \frac{5 \left[15 (\zt_0)^6+12 (\zt_0)^4 \left[1+(\rt_2)^2\right]-3 \left[(\rt_2)^2+(\rt_2)^4\right]+(\zt_0)^2 \left[4-5(\rt_2)^2+4 (\rt_2)^4\right]\right]}
{12 \left[1+(\zt_0)^2\right]^2 \left[(\zt_0)^2+(\rt_2)^2\right]^2}\\
a_2 &=& -\frac{5 \left[36 (\zt_0)^8+(\rt_2)^4+36 (\zt_0)^6 \left[1+(\rt_2)^2\right]+(\zt_0)^2
\left((\rt_2)^2+(\rt_2)^4\right)+{\zt_0}^4 \left[4+29 (\rt_2)^2+4 (\rt_2)^4\right]\right]}
{48 (\zt_0)^2
\left[1+(\zt_0)^2\right]^2 \left[(\zt_0)^2+(\rt_2)^2\right]^2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
The amplitude coefficient $a_2$ is explicitly negative for all values of $\zt_0$ and $\rt_2$, and it only approaches zero in
the not-so-useful limit that $\zt_0 \rightarrow 0$.
The best that can be done with a two-gap trap is to use $C_3=0$ as a third constraint on the four parameters, $\Vt_1$,
$\Vt_2$, $\zt_0$ and $\rt_2$. Only the analytic solution for $\zt_0$ is simple enough to display here,
\begin{equation}
\zt_0 = \frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\sqrt{4 (\rt_2)^4+17 (\rt_2)^2+4} -2 (\rt_2)^2 -2 }.\label{eq:TwoGapzt0}
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:TwoGap} shows how the parameters of two-gap traps depend upon $\rt_2$.
\TwoGapFigure
Two-gap traps are not so useful given that it is not possible to do better than make $C_3=0$. It is not possible to make
$a_2=0$. For the remainder of our discussion of planar traps we concentrate on three-gap traps since these have much better properties.
\section{Optimized Three-Gap Traps}
\label{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}
\subsection{Overview}
The goal of our optimization of a planar trap is to reduce the amplitude dependence of the axial oscillation frequency of a
trapped particle to a manageable level so that the trapped particle's oscillation energy is in a narrow range of fourier
components. Otherwise, the oscillation energy will be broadened by noise-driven amplitude fluctuations to a broader range
of fourier components. The signal induced by the more harmonic axial oscillation can then be filtered with a narrow-band
detector that rejects nearby noise components, making possible the good signal-to-noise ratio needed to detect the small
frequency shifts that signal one-quantum transitions.
The dependence of the axial frequency $\omega_z(\At)$ on the oscillation amplitude $\At=A/\rho_1$ is given by
\begin{align}
\frac{\omega_z(\At) - \omega_z}{\omega_z} =& \nonumber \\
1 + a_2 \At^2 + a_3 &\At^3 + a_4 \At^4 + a_5 \At^5 + a_6 \At^6 + \ldots ,
\end{align}
the low-order terms from Eq.~\ref{eq:AmplitudeDependentFrequency}. Since $\At \ll1$, the lowest-order amplitude
coefficient $a_2$ is the most important, followed by $a_3$, etc. Each of the coefficients $a_k$ is a function (given in
Eq.~\ref{eq:ak}) of the potential expansion coefficients. Each of these is determined by the geometry and the applied
trapping potentials, which must then be determined.
As discussed more generally in Sec.~\ref{sec:TwoViewpoints}, a scaled three-gap planar Penning trap configuration is
specified by $2N=6$ parameters: $\rt_2$, $\rt_3$, $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, $\Vt_3$, and $\zt_0$. These can be chosen to realize
desired properties of a trap. These parameters must satisfy the two constraint equations $C_1=0$ and $C_2=1$
(Eqs.~\ref{eq:C2Constraint} and \ref{eq:C1Constraint}). The difference of the number of parameters and the number of
constraints is thus $2N-2=4$. The challenge is to identify up to 4 useful sets of constraint equations for which solutions
exist.
\subsection{What is Needed?}
\label{sec:CylindricalTrap}
To estimate what is needed to observe a single trapped electron it is natural to look to the demonstrated properties of the cylindrical trap used to observe the one-quantum transitions we seek to emulate. The electrodes of a cylindrical trap are invariant under reflections $z \rightarrow -z$ about the position of the trapped particle. This symmetry is never true for a planar Penning trap.
The first consequence of the reflection symmetry is that the odd-$k$ expansion coefficients $C_k$ vanish. The second is that the low-order, odd-$k$ $a_k$ vanish as well, since these are proportional to the $C_k$ with odd $k$. For a cylindrical trap the frequency expansion coefficients $a_k$ of Eq.~\ref{eq:ak} thus simplify to
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:CylindricalTrap}
\begin{align}
a_2 &= \frac{3}{4}C_4\\
a_3 &= 0\\
a_4 &= \frac{15}{16}C_6 - \frac{21}{64} (C_4)^2\\
a_5 &= 0.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The odd-order $a_k$ thus vanish naturally for an ideal cylindrical Penning trap.
Care must be taken in making quantitative comparisons between the planar traps and the cylindrical trap. Amplitudes and distances in the cylindrical trap were naturally scaled by the larger value of $d = 3.54$ mm \cite{CylindricalPenningTrap,CylindricalPenningTrapDemonstrated} rather than by $\rho_1 = 1.09$ mm as in the sample trap considered here, for trap configurations that produce the same axial frequency. The conversion between the $C_k^{(cyl)}$ for the cylindrical trap \cite{Review,CylindricalPenningTrapDemonstrated} and the $C_k$ for the planar trap is given by
\begin{equation}
C_k = \left(\frac{\rho_1}{d}\right)^{k-2} \frac{C_k^{(cyl)}}{C_2^{(cyl)}}.
\end{equation}
We apply this conversion to reported values for the cylindrical trap for the rest of this section.
The amplitude dependence of the axial frequency is reduced for the cylindrical Penning trap by adjusting a single compensation potential applied to a pair of compensation electrodes. The adjustment changes primarily $C_4$, but also $C_6$ to a lesser amount. The adjustment continues until $C_4 \approx 0$, whereupon $C_6 \approx -0.0008$. The frequency coefficients are then found using the appropriately converted $C_k$ in
Eq.~\ref{eq:ak}. This gives $a_2=a_3=a_5=0$ and $a_4 = -0.0007$.
The resulting frequency-versus-amplitude curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedTrapFrequencyShift} for $\omega_z/(2\pi) = 64$ MHz, and the corresponding thermal spread of axial frequencies is $\Delta f_z = 0$ Hz since $a_2=0$. The compensation potential is typically then adjusted slightly away from $C_4 = 0$ to make the axial frequency insensitive to small fluctuations about a particular oscillation amplitude \cite{SelfExcitedOscillator}.
In practice, $C_4 = 0$ is not realized exactly, but $|C_4| < 10^{-5}$ is typically achieved. If $C_4 = -10^{-5}$, and $C_6 = -0.0008$ as before, then the amplitude coefficients are $a_2 = -8\!\times\!10^{-6},\ a_4 = -0.0007,\ a_3=a_5 = 0$, the thermal spread of axial frequencies is 0.5 Hz, and the frequency-versus-amplitude curve is as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedTrapFrequencyShift}.
\OptimizedTrapFrequencyShiftFigure
The cylindrical trap is designed so that the axial frequency is much more insensitive to the tuning compensation potential than to the potential applied to make the main trapping potential. If we define the endcap electrode potential to be our zero of potential, the $\gamma_i$ factors are $\gamma_{ring} = -141$ and $\gamma_{comps} = 0.032$. The latter would have the value $\gamma_{comps}=0$ for the ``orthogonalized'' design for the cylindrical trap except for the unavoidable imperfections of a real laboratory trap.
\subsection{Previous Three-Gap Traps}
In marked contrast to the cylindrical trap within which the one-quantum transitions of a single electron were observed, the
planar traps attempted so far were not designed to make $a_2=0$ and were not biased to make even $C_3=0$. It is thus not
so surprising that attempts to observe one electron in a planar Penning trap have not succeeded.
\PossibleThreeRingGeometriesFigure
In fact, Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries} shows that the three-gap trap geometries tried so far (crosses) are
outside of all of the shaded regions that we use to identify optimized trap geometries. The best that could have been done
for the earlier planar traps would have been to make $C_3=0$. In fact, any trap geometry represented in the upper
triangular region of Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries} can be tuned to make $C_3$ vanish. Appendices \ref{sec:MainzTrap} and \ref{sec:UlmTrap} look more
closely at the design of earlier planar Penning traps, and suggests that these were not biased to make $C_3=0$.
\subsection{Optimize to $a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0$}
For a scaled three-gap trap we must choose six parameters ($\rt_2$, $\rt_3$, $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, $\Vt_3$, and $\zt_0$) that
solve the constraints of Eqs.~\ref{eq:C2Constraint}-\ref{eq:C1Constraint}. Our preferred path to optimization starts from
adding the constraints
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:Constraintsa2}
\begin{align}
C_1=0&\\
C_2=1&\\
a_2=a_3=0&.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
What appear here to be four constraints are actually three constraints because $a_3=0$ follows from $a_2=0$ via
Eq.~\ref{eq:a3}.
The difference of the number of parameters and constraints is three. Where solutions exist, we might thus expect them
to be functions of the two parameters that specify the relative geometry, and that a range of $\zt_0$ might be possible. The
shaded area in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries} represents the relative geometries for which there are
solutions. Solutions also do exist for a range of $\zt_0$ values, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishing}
for our sample trap geometry. The solutions are double-valued because the third constraint equation is quadratic in the scaled
potentials $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, and $\Vt_3$. The solid and dashed curves distinguish the two branches.
\ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishingFigure
The left and right points in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishing}, with detailed properties in columns I and II of
Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap}-\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}, are trap configurations that satisfy the more stringent set
of constraints
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:Constraintsa2a4}
\begin{align}
C_1=0&\\
C_2=1&\\
a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0&.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
What appear to be six constraints on the six parameters are actually four constraints in light of Eq.~\ref{eq:a5Froma4}. The
difference of the number of parameters and constraints is thus two. Where solutions exist we will thus regard them as
functions of the relative geometry, $\rt_2$ and $\rt_3$, which will then determine a particular value of $\zt_0$. The
darkly shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries} shows the relative geometries for which solutions can be
found.
\SamplePlanarTrapTable
\SamplePlanarTrapTableAbsolute
For the solution that is the right point in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishing} none of the potential coefficients
$C_3$, $C_4$, $C_5$ and $C_6$ vanish. The axial potential in Fig.~\ref{fig:AxialPotential} is thus clearly different from a
harmonic oscillator potential. Since $C_3 \ne 0$ the amplitude of the second harmonic of the axial oscillation is the
lowest-order term from Eq.~\ref{eq:A2},
\begin{equation}
\frac{\At_2}{\At_1} = \frac{C_3}{4} \At + \ldots\label{eq:A2I}
\end{equation}
The amplitude of this second harmonic should still be relatively small insofar as $\At=A/\rho_1$ is small.
We discuss the solution that is the left point in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishing} and column II in
Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap}-\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute} in Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedHarmonic}.
\subsection{Optimize to $C_3=C_4=a_2=a_3=0$}
A second path to optimizing the six parameters for a scaled trap configuration starts with adding the constraint $C_3=0$ to the two
requirements for a trap, $C_1=0$ and $C_2=1$ (Eqs.~\ref{eq:C2Constraint}-\ref{eq:C1Constraint}). All three constraint
equations are then linear in the scaled potentials $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, and $\Vt_3$, yielding single-valued solutions for a
given $\zt_0$, $\rt_2$, and $\rt_3$. There are three more parameters than constraints. Solutions that give $C_3=0$ are
possible for any relative geometry. The traps can be biased to make a range of $\zt_0$ values. For our sample trap
geometry, the scaled potentials are plotted as a function of $\zt_0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapCThreeCFourVanishing}. The
resulting $C_k$ and $a_k$ are shown as well.
\ThreeGapCThreeCFourVanishingFigure
The axial potential is more harmonic at the two points in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapCThreeCFourVanishing}, both of which satisfy
the more stringent set of constraints,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:OptimizationC3C4}
\begin{align}
C_1=C_3=C_4=0&\\
C_2=1&\\
a_2=a_3=0&.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
What appear to be six constraints on the six parameters for the scaled trap are actually four (since
Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationC3C4}c follows from Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationC3C4}a-b via Eq.~\ref{eq:ak}a-c). There are
thus only two more parameters than constraints. Various relative trap geometries can thus be biased to satisfy this set of
constraints, as represented by the solid boundary and arrows labeled $C_3=C_4=a_2=a_3=0$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries}, and $\zt_0$ is thus determined for each relative geometry. Note that although
this region lies within the shaded area for which $a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0$ can be realized, in general it is not possible to
satisfy both sets of constraints simultaneously.
For the sample trap geometry, two of the applied potentials are nearly the same, making this nearly a two-gap trap, but the
slight potential difference is needed. More details about these solutions are in columns III
and IV of Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap} and \ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}. Compared to the optimized configuration in
Eq.~\ref{eq:Constraintsa2a4}, the optimization of Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationC3C4} has a more harmonic potential
(Fig.~\ref{fig:AxialPotential}) but a less good suppression of the amplitude dependence of the axial frequency as long as
$a_4\ne0$ and $a_5\ne 0$.
Any solution with $C_3=C_4=0$ (including the two points in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapCThreeCFourVanishing} and columns III-IV in
Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap} and \ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}, as well as the left solution point in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishing} column II in
Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap} and \ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute} described below) has a suppressed harmonic content compared to Eq.~\ref{eq:A2I}, with
\begin{equation}
\frac{\At_2}{\At_1} = \frac{5 C_5}{12} \At^3 + \ldots\label{eq:Harmonics2}
\end{equation}
from Eqs.~\ref{eq:A1}-\ref{eq:A2}. The amplitude of higher harmonics is suppressed by additional powers of $\At$.
We discuss the solution that is the right point in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapCThreeCFourVanishing} and column III in
Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap} and \ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute} in the following section.
\subsection{Harmonic Optimization}
\label{sec:OptimizedHarmonic}
The highest level of optimization is for traps that are harmonic in that $C_3=C_4=0$, as well as having the remarkable
suppression of the amplitude dependence of the axial frequency that comes by adding $C_6=0$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizedTrap1}).
For this optimized harmonic configuration
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:OptimizationHarmonic}
\begin{align}
C_1=C_3=C_4=C_6=0&\\
C_2=1&\\
a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0&.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
What appear to be nine constraints are actually five (because Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic}c follows from
Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic}a-b via Eq.~\ref{eq:ak}). There is thus one more parameter to
chose ($\rt_2$, $\rt_3$, $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, $\Vt_3$, and $\zt_0$) than there are constraints. The free parameter leads to a range of possible
relative geometries (the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries}). Missing from
Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic} is $C_5=0$ since there are no solutions when this constraint is added.
Our sample trap (filled circle in the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries}) is one example. For it, the
left solution point in Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapaTwoAndaFourVanishing} and the right solution point in
Fig.~\ref{fig:ThreeGapCThreeCFourVanishing} are actually the same configuration, as is obvious from columns II and III
of Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap} and \ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}. This convergence of two solutions happens only for
traps with relative geometries on the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries}. For other traps in the shaded region where $a_2=a_4=0$ can be satisfied, these two solutions remain distinct, and the highly optimized constraints of
Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic} cannot be satisfied for any choice of the trap potentials.
The optimized harmonic trap configurations (Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedHarmonic}) involve only a very narrow range of scaled
distances $\zt_0$ from the electrode plane to the axial potential minimum. The scaled potentials needed are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedHarmonic}b. The leading departure from a harmonic potential is described by $C_5=-0.011$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedHarmonic}b). As mentioned, we find no solutions to the constraint equations if a vanishing $C_5$ is
required.
\OptimizedHarmonicFigure
The highly optimized properties of Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic} are an optimized harmonic configuration in that the leading departures from a harmonic axial potential vanish because $C_3=C_4=0$ at the same time that the amplitude dependence of the axial frequency is strongly suppressed. A particle's axial oscillation will thus have a very small amplitude at the overtones of the fundamental harmonic, as given by Eq.~\ref{eq:Harmonics2}, with the amplitude of higher harmonics suppressed by additional powers of $\At$.
\subsection{Comparing Amplitude-Dependent Frequency Shifts}
The optimized trap configurations greatly reduce the amplitude dependence of the axial oscillation frequency. Avoiding
frequency fluctuations caused by noise-driven amplitude fluctuations is critical to resolving the small frequency shifts
that signal one-quantum cyclotron and spin transitions.
One way to compare the optimized configurations is in Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedTrapFrequencyShift}. The axial frequency shift
is shown as a function of oscillation amplitude for the three optimized configurations of the sample trap. For one electron
in the cylindrical trap an oscillation amplitude of 0.1 mm was large and easily detectable.
Another figure of merit is the frequency broadening for the thermally driven axial motion of a trapped particle, which was
discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:ThermalBroadening}. We use the 5 K axial temperature realized and measured for a cylindrical
Penning trap cooled by a dilution refrigerator \cite{FeedbackCoolingPRL}, though it should be noted that realizing such a
low detector temperature is a challenging undertaking. Each trap configuration can thus be characterized by the thermal
broadening of the axial resonance frequency, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:FrequencyWidthComparison}. Imperfections in real
planar traps and instabilities in applied potentials will likely make it difficult to get thermal widths much less than 1
Hz for an axial frequency of 64 MHz.
\FrequencyWidthComparisonFigure
\section{Laboratory Planar Traps}
\label{sec:LaboratoryPlanarTraps}
Planar Penning traps put into service in the laboratory will not have the ideal properties described in the previous sections of this work. A real trap does not have gaps of negligible width, does not have an electrode plane that extends to infinity, does not have conducting boundaries at an infinite distance above the electrode plane and at an infinite radius, and will not have exactly the ideal dimensions and the perfect cylindrical symmetry that are being approximated. None of these have large effects. However, the result is that the potentials applied to the electrodes of a real laboratory trap will need to be adjusted a bit from the ideal planar trap values to compensate for the unavoidable deviations and imperfections.
The effect of non-negligible gaps is calculated in Sec.~\ref{sec:Gaps}. The effect of a finite electrode plane and a finite conducting radial enclosure is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:FiniteBoundaries}. Imperfections in the trap dimensions and symmetry are dealt with in Sec.~\ref{sec:RadiusImprecision} using simple estimates that proved adequate for the design of earlier traps. These estimates are used to discuss the tunning of the trap potentials required to compensate for imperfections of this order (Sec.~\ref{sec:Tuning}).
\subsection{Gaps Between Electrodes}
\label{sec:Gaps}
Small gaps of some width $w$ between electrodes are unavoidable, of course. As long as $w \ll z_0$, the potential variation caused by the gaps at the position of the trapped particle should be small since it should diminish exponentially with an argument that goes as $w/z_0$. We assume that the gaps between electrodes are deeper than they are wide since this is needed to screen the effect of any stray charges on the insulators that keep the electrodes apart.
Solving exactly for the trapping potential using boundary conditions that include deep gaps between the electrodes is a challenging undertaking. Instead we use a simple and approximate boundary condition that was used to demonstrate the small effect of the gaps in a cylindrical trap \cite{CylindricalPenningTrap}. We take the potential in the electrode plane across each gap to vary linearly between the potentials of the two electrodes. The potential is thus determined everywhere in the electrode plane by the potentials on the electrodes.
The basis of this approximation is illustrated by the equipotentials shown for a planar trap in Fig.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrapThreeDimensions}b (and later in Figs.~\ref{fig:FinitePlanarTrapThreeDimensions}b, \ref{fig:CoveredPlanarTrap}b, and \ref{fig:MirrorImagePlanarTrapThreeDimensions}b)).
All the equipotentials from the trapping volume must connect to equipotentials within the gaps. Deep within a small but deep gap the equipotentials will locally be similar to the equipotentials between parallel plates, the plates being the vertical electrode walls within the gap. The equipotentials will remain roughly parallel until they rise above the electrode plane, whereupon they will spread. We make the approximation that in the electrode plane the potential in the gap varies linearly with radius between the voltages applied to the two electrodes that are separated by the gap. Since the effect of the gaps is already small a better approximation should not be needed.
The completely specified electrode plane boundary is thus given by the electrode boundaries and the linear change of potential between them at the gaps of width $w_i$ (with $\gt_i=w_i/\rho_1$) centered at radius $\rho_i$. The solution to Laplace's equation on axis then becomes \begin{align}
V^{gap}(0, z) &= \sum_{i=1}^N \, \Delta V_i \, \Phi_i(\zt)\label{eq:PotentialWithGaps}\\
\Phi_i(\zt) &= \frac{\zt}{\gt_i} \sinh^{-1}\left(\frac{\rt_i + \gt_i/2}{\zt}\right)\nonumber\\
&- \frac{\zt}{\gt_i} \sinh^{-1}\left(\frac{\rt_i - \gt_i/2}{\zt}\right)-1\label{eq:PhiWithGaps}.
\end{align}
In the limit of vanishing gap widths this potential becomes the potential of an ideal planar trap in Eqs.~\ref{eq:GapExpansion}-\ref{eq:Phi}.
Following the procedure outlined earlier (Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}), this potential is expanded about $\zt=\zt_0$. Sets of parameters that satisfy reasonable constraint equations identify the optimized trap configurations that greatly reduce the amplitude dependence of the axial frequency and make the trap potential more harmonic. We get four optimized configurations, as before, but with applied potentials that are slightly shifted.
Biasing a trap with a finite gap width as if it was an ideal planar trap with no gap width is one approach. Table~\ref{table:SampleTrapWithGapsBiasedForNoGaps} shows the $C_k$ and $a_k$ when ideal trap biases (from Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap}-\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}) are applied to the sample trap with $w=50~\mu \rm{m}$ gap widths. The broadening of the axial frequency $\Delta f_z$ for a thermal distribution of axial frequencies is still small enough that it should not prevent observing one electron in a trap with such gaps.
\SamplePlanarTrapWithGapsBiasedForNoGapsTable
Shifting the potentials applied to the electrodes improves the $C_k$ and $a_k$, as indicated in Table~\ref{table:SampleTrapWithGaps}. However, the predicted thermal widths then become smaller than what imperfections (discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:RadiusImprecision}) will likely allow us to attain, so this adjustment is not really needed.
\SamplePlanarTrapWithGapsTable
The small size of these coefficients illustrates that realistic gaps
between the electrodes of a trap as large as our sample trap pose no
threat to realizing a planar Penning trap. Simply biasing the trap
as if it were a trap with vanishing gap widths suffices. However, as planar
traps get smaller the gaps will likely be relatively larger with
respect to the trap dimensions. The use of
Eqs.~\ref{eq:PotentialWithGaps}-\ref{eq:PhiWithGaps} will then be required.
\subsection{Practical Limitations on Gaps}
\label{sec:PracticalLimitationsOnGaps}
Two practical considerations are associated with gaps between
electrodes. Both can make the difference between a trap that works
and one that does not. Both are difficult to calculate.
The first is that charges that accumulate on the insulators in the
gaps between the electrodes can substantially modify the trapping
potential. When the trap is cooled to 4 K or below, these charges
can remain for days. Such charges have made some traps in our lab
completely unusable, but no systematic study has been
undertaken.
There are only two solutions that we know of. Careful loading and
operation procedures can minimize the number of charges that build
up on the insulators. Also, thick metal electrodes with narrow gaps
make it more difficult for charges to reach the insulating substrate
at the bottom of the slits between electrodes. Any charges that do
collect on the insulator will be screened by metal surfaces to
either side of the gaps.
As mentioned in the Appendices, both the Mainz and Ulm traps had
exposed insulators in gaps that were not screened because the gaps were wider than they were deep.
Charges on the insulating substrates that are exposed in the gaps of
these traps may well have contributed to the broad frequency spreads
that were observed. Improved traps with much better screening of the insulator at the bottom of the gaps seem possible but have yet to be used with trapped particles.
The second practical consideration involving gaps between electrodes
becomes more serious with decreasing gap width. We have observed currents between polished gold-plated trap electrodes separated by small gaps. These field emission currents \cite{FieldEmissionReview,FieldEmissionCleanCopperSurfaces,FieldEmissionVariousMaterials,SandiaFieldEmission} grow exponentially with the difference in
potential across the gap.
Trap designs that limit the size of the gap potentials are one solution.
For three-gap traps, $\Delta V_3=0-V_3$ is generally the largest
of the gap potentials. It can generally be reduced by decreasing the
radial width of the second electrode, $\rho_2-\rho_1$, and increasing
the radial width of the third electrode, $\rho_3-\rho_2$. We will see
in Sec.~\ref{sec:CoveredPlanarTraps} that a planar trap with a
conducting plane above it will permit an optimized trap with lower
gap potentials. Other solutions are to increase the gap width and
to make the metal surfaces within the gap as smooth as
possible. As planar traps and planar trap arrays get smaller it
will be necessary to investigate these solutions further.
\subsection{Finite Boundaries}
\label{sec:FiniteBoundaries}
For laboratory traps it is difficult to approximate an infinite electrode plane and to keep all parts of the apparatus many trap diameters away from the trapping volume. The effects of realistic finite boundary conditions are thus extremely important. For smaller planar Penning traps the finite boundaries may be less important.
\FinitePlanarTrapThreeDimensionsFigure
One choice of finite boundary conditions come from locating a planar trap within a grounded conducting cylinder closed
with a flat plate (Fig.~\ref{fig:FinitePlanarTrapThreeDimensions}). The boundary conditions in the electrode plane are still
given in Fig.~\ref{fig:PlanarTrap} for $\rho < \rho_c$. The boundary conditions at infinity in Eq.~\ref{eq:BoundaryConditionsInfinity} are replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\rho_c,z) &= 0\\
V(\rho,z_c) &= 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Particles can be loaded into the trap through a hole through the conducting plate above that is small enough to negligibly affect the potential near the particle.
The solution to Laplace's equation for $z>0$ that satisfies these boundary conditions can be written as
\begin{align}
V(0,\zt) &= \sum_{i=1}^N \Delta V_i \, \Phi_i(\zt; \rt_c,\zt_c).\label{eq:Vgap}
\end{align}
Standard electrostatics methods \cite{Jackson3rdEd,Kusse} give dimensionless potentials,
\begin{align}
\Phi_i(\zt; \rt_c,\zt_c) &= \frac{\rt_i}{\rt_c} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{2J_1(\alpha_{0n}\frac{\rt_i}{\rt_c})}{\alpha_{0n}J_1\,\!^2(\alpha_{0n})} \frac{\sinh\left(\alpha_{0n} \frac{\zt-\zt_c}{\rt_c}\right)}{\sinh\left(\alpha_{0n} \frac{\zt_c}{\rt_c}\right)},
\label{eq:PhiiGrounded}
\end{align}
that are functions of zeros of the lowest-order Bessel function, with $J_{\,0}(\alpha_{0n})=0$. The potential off the axis is given by substituting $V(\rt,\zt)$ for $V(0,\zt)$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:Vgap}, and inserting $J_{\,0}(\alpha_{0n}\rt/\rt_c)$ to the far right in Eq.~\ref{eq:PhiiGrounded}. The planar trap described in Eq.~\ref{eq:GapExpansion} is recovered in the limit of large $\rt_c$ and $\zt_c$ insofar as the $\Phi_i(\zt; \rt_c,\zt_c)$ reduce to the $\Phi_i(\zt)$ of Eq.~\ref{eq:Phi}.
The simplest approach is to bias the electrodes of the enclosed trap as if it was an ideal planar trap with no enclosure, using the potentials tabulated in Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap}-\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}. The size of the resulting $C_k$ and $a_k$ coefficients are then displayed in Table~\ref{table:SamplePlanarTrapWithEnclosureBiasedForNoEnclosure} for the conducting enclosure shown to scale in Fig.~\ref{fig:FinitePlanarTrapThreeDimensions} with dimensions $\rho_c = 19.05$ mm and $z_c = 45.72$ mm, both substantially larger than $\rho_3 = 8$~mm. The resulting thermal frequency shifts for a 5 K axial motion are large enough that this broadening will make it hard to observe one electron and realize a one-electron qubit.
\SamplePlanarTrapWithEnclosureBiasedForNoEnclosureTable
It is possible to do much better by shifting the potentials applied to the trap electrodes, without changing the relative geometry of the electrodes. Table~\ref{table:SamplePlanarTrapWithEnclosure} shows the required potential shifts and the calculated $C_k$ and $a_k$ that result for each of the four optimized planar trap configurations for an ideal planar trap (summarized in Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap}-\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}). The frequency broadening is small enough that it should be possible to observe one electron within such a trap.
\SamplePlanarTrapWithEnclosureTable
The configurations in columns II and III of Table~\ref{table:SamplePlanarTrapWithEnclosure} no longer coincide exactly, however, even though both trap configurations still have very attractive properties. The finite boundary conditions effectively shift the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries} that represents the possible geometries for which an optimized three-gap trap can be realized, so that the relative geometry of the sample trap no longer allows this highest level of optimization. What could be done is to slightly change one of the trap radii to compensate for the calculated effect of the finite boundary conditions. However, the shift of geometry is often less than the size of the typical imprecision with which the electrode radii of a real trap can be fabricated (discussed in the next section) so in practice this makes little sense.
\subsection{Imprecision in Trap Dimensions and Symmetry}
\label{sec:RadiusImprecision}
A fabricated laboratory trap will not have exactly the intended dimensions and symmetry because of unavoidable fabrication imprecision. Such effects can only be estimated. The simple estimation method used here has proved itself to be adequate for the design of cylindrical traps \cite{CylindricalPenningTrap} and open access traps \cite{OpenTrap}.
We start with an achievable fabrication tolerance of $0.001~\rm{in}=25~\mu \rm{m}$ that is realistic for existing traps of the size of our sample trap. (Whether smaller traps can be constructed with better fractional tolerances is being investigated \cite{UlmPixelTrap}.) Adding and subtracting the achievable tolerance to the radii $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$ of a three-gap planar trap makes variations (Table~\ref{table:OptimizedHarmonicTrapWithChangeRadii}) from the design ideal (Tables~\ref{table:SampleTrap}-\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute}).
These variations do not have the exact ratios of the trap radii needed to make an optimized harmonic trap configuration (Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic}) that is specified by the dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleThreeRingGeometries} and in Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimizedHarmonic}a). The variations have better properties than what has been observed to date with a laboratory planar trap. However, the imprecision in the radii still makes the predicted broadening of an electron's axial resonance for a 5 K thermal distribution of axial energies to be too large to observe one trapped electron very well. It would be virtually impossible to realize a one-electron qubit.
The solution must be to slightly adjust the potentials on the electrodes to recover properties closer to the ideal, if this is possible. In the cases of the gaps and the conducting enclosure we saw that this could be done, at least in principle, by calculating what the improved set of potentials should be. For imprecision in the trap radii, however, the effective radii for the electrodes will be unknown and hence no such calculation is possible. What is required is a procedure for tuning the potentials of the trap to narrow the thermal broadening. For trap design we must make sure that the trap potentials can be tuned to compensate for imperfections of this order. The tuning procedure and range is the subject of the next section.
\OptimizedHarmonicTrapWithChangeRadiiTable
Imperfections that are not cylindrically symmetric are no doubt present. While it is possible with some effort to make calculations of potential configurations that are not cylindrically symmetric \cite{UlmPixelTrap}, the input from imperfections that should be used in such a calculation is difficult to estimate. Fortunately, the experience with earlier traps suggests that this is not necessary for trap design.
\subsection{Tuning a Laboratory Trap}
\label{sec:Tuning}
The point of carefully designing the optimized traps for which the lowest order $a_k$ vanish, preferably along with $C_3$ and $C_4$, is not that we actually expect to realize this performance in a real laboratory trap. The previous section illustrates that radius imprecision alone will keep this from happening. The reason for the careful optimized designs is to make sure that imprecision alone will make these crucial coefficients differ from zero. Notice in Table~\ref{table:OptimizedHarmonicTrapWithChangeRadii} that the imperfections considered do not make either $a_3$ or $a_5$ deviate much from zero, and $a_4$ stays at an acceptably low value.
To make a useful trap we need a way to tune the trap {\it in situ} to make $a_2=0$. The other important coefficients will remain small enough because of the optimized design. To tune out the effect of radius imperfections in our sample trap, for example, the trap must be tuned to change the size of $a_2$ by about $\pm 0.003$. After each adjustment the width of the axial resonance line can be measured to see if the thermal broadening has been reduced or increased.
For the cylindrical Penning trap used to observe one-quantum transitions of one electron, tuning of the trap was essential to the observations that were made. In that trap, like every trap within which precise frequency measurements are made, the effect of imperfections could never be calculated well enough to be useful. {\it In situ} tuning of a compensation potential was always needed.
For a cylindrical trap, tuning is a straightforward (if a bit tedious) matter. To a good approximation, the potential applied to the compensation electrodes (Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}c) changes $a_2$, while the potential applied between the endcap and ring electrodes changes $V_0$ and $\omega_z$. The axial resonance line is measured after every adjustment of the compensation potential to see if the thermal broadening increased or decreased. The ``orthogonalized design'' of this trap kept the change in the compensation potential from changing the axial frequency very much at all. The axial resonance line was thus easy to keep track of during trap tuning, and the axial oscillation never comes close to going out of resonance with the detection circuit.
The tunability defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:gammai} quantifies how much the axial frequency changes for a given change in $a_2$ when the potential on a particular electrode is changed. For the compensation electrodes of the cylindrical trap the tunability was 0 for a perfect trap, and $\gamma_{comps}=0.03$ was realized for a laboratory trap (Sec.~\ref{sec:CylindricalTrap}). The much larger $\gamma_{ring}=-141$ indicates that this electrode is for changing the axial frequency of the trap rather than for tuning $a_2$.
For a planar Penning trap such an orthogonalization is unfortunately not possible. Changing the potential on each electrode will change both $a_2$ and $\omega_z$, as indicated by tunabilities in Table~\ref{table:SampleTrap} that are not small and which do not vary much from electrode to electrode in most cases (e.g.,~$|\gamma_i| \!\approx\! 3$ in one example). The result is that it is necessary to adjust two or three of the potentials applied to the electrodes of a 3-gap trap for each step involved in tuning the trap. Adjustments of the applied potentials must be chosen to vary $a_2$ by a reasonable amount while keeping $V_0$ and $\omega_z$ fixed.
Fig.~\ref{fig:TuningWithImperfections} identifies the potentials for which $a_2=0$ and $a_4=0$ for our sample trap with and without the radius imperfections of Table~\ref{table:OptimizedHarmonicTrapWithChangeRadii}. For each point on this plot $V_1$ has been adjusted so that $V_0$ and hence the axial frequency $\omega_z$ remain fixed. In this example it would be necessary to change $V_2$ or $V_3$ (along with $V_1$ to keep $V_0$ fixed) to achieve $a_2=0$. However, by changing both $V_2$ and $V_3$ (along with $V_1$) it would be possible to make $a_2=0$ while at the same time making $a_4$ much smaller in magnitude.
\TuningWithImperfectionsFigure
\section{Covers and Mirrors}
\subsection{Covered Planar Trap}
\label{sec:CoveredPlanarTraps}
\CoveredPlanarTrapFigure
A covered planar Penning trap (Fig.~\ref{fig:CoveredPlanarTrap}) is a planar trap that is electrically shielded by a nearby conducting plane. The covered planar trap has some very attractive features.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The electrodes are in a single plane that can be fabricated as part of a single chip.
\item The conducting plane provides an easily controlled boundary condition above the electrode plane that needs no special fabrication, nor any alignment beyond making the planes parallel.
\item A trap that is radially infinite is well-approximated if the radial extent of the two planes beyond the electrodes is large compared to their spacing.
\item A covered planar trap is naturally scalable to an array of traps.
\item The axial motion of electrons in more than one trap could be simultaneously detected with a common detection circuit attached to the cover.
\item The axial motions of electrons in more than one trap could be coupled and uncoupled as they induce currents across a common detection resistor by tuning the axial motions of particular electrons into and out of resonance with each other.
\end{enumerate}
Three possible additional advantages emerge when the properties of the trapping potential in a covered planar trap are considered.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A two-gap covered planar trap can be optimized in much the same way as a three-gap infinite planar trap.
\item Smaller gap potentials can sometimes be used to achieve optimized configurations, permitting smaller gap widths and better screening of the exposed insulator between electrodes.
\item In some cases a smaller $a_6$ can be realized for trap configurations with $a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0$
\end{enumerate}
These possibilities are illustrated using an example.
The secondary advantages for planar Penning traps (mentioned in the introduction) may be diminished when a cover is used. Microwaves of small wavelength can be introduced between the electrode plane and the cover. However, the added complication of small striplines \cite{QuantumDotESR} is likely required for longer wavelengths. It should not be significantly more difficult to load electrons with typical methods via small holes in the electrodes, but if other loading mechanisms are used then the electron trajectories may be obstructed by the cover.
The potential between the electrode plane and the cover plane is a superposition of terms proportional to the potentials applied to the electrodes, $V_i$, and the potential applied to the cover plane, $V_c$,
\begin{align}
V(0,\zt) = \sum_{i=1}^N \Delta V_i \, &\Phi_i(\zt;\zt_c)\nonumber\\
+ V_c \, &\Phi_c(\zt;\zt_c).
\end{align}
The grounded cover plane makes the $\Phi_i(\zt)$ of Eq.~\ref{eq:Phi} dependent upon $\zt_c$,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_i(\zt;\zt_c) = \rt_i \int_0^\infty\!\!\! dk \, \frac{\sinh\!\left[k (\zt-\zt_c)\right]}{\sinh(k \zt_c)}\, J_1(k\rt_i),\label{eq:Phiip}
\end{equation}
which approaches $\Phi_i(\zt)$ for large $\zt_c$. Biasing the cover plane at a nonvanishing $V_c$ superimposes a uniform electric field, described by
\begin{equation}
\Phi_c(\zt;\zt_c) = \zt / \zt_c,\label{eq:UniformFieldLimit}
\end{equation}
between the large electrode and cover planes.
The scaled geometry and potentials of a two-gap covered Planar traps are characterized by six parameters ($\rt_2$, $\zt_c$, $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, $\Vt_c$ and $\zt_o$). This is the same number of parameters that characterize a three-gap planar trap with no cover electrode, the optimization of which was discussed in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}.
The trap geometries that can be optimized are represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleCoveredTrapGeometries}.
The six parameters can be chosen to satisfy the same sets of four constraints considered in Sec.~\ref{sec:OptimizedThreeGapTraps}, giving the various shaded regions in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleCoveredTrapGeometries}.
The six parameters can be chosen to satisfy the five constraints of Eq.~\ref{eq:OptimizationHarmonic} on the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleCoveredTrapGeometries} for which $C_3=C_4=C_6=a_2=a_3=a_4=a_5=0$.
The optimized harmonic configuration represented by the dot in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleCoveredTrapGeometries} has its scaled parameters listed in Table~\ref{table:SampleCoveredTrap}. One set of possible absolute parameters is listed in Table \ref{table:SampleCoveredTrapAbsolute}. In the following section we discuss other attractive features of this particular configuration.
\PossibleCoveredTrapGeometriesFigure
Fig.~\ref{fig:CoveredPlanarTrap}b shows
equipotentials spaced by $V_0$ for a covered planar Penning trap (configuration I in Table~\ref{table:SampleCoveredTrap}). The equipotentials are calculated for infinitesimal gaps, but the electrodes are represented with finite gaps to make them visible. The equipotentials terminate in the gaps between electrodes or at infinity. The dashed equipotentials of an ideal quadrupole are superimposed near the trap center.
Covered planar traps are scalable in that an array of traps can share the same covering plane at potential $V_c$, with the axial frequency and the harmonic properties of each trap being tuned by the potentials applied to the other electrodes. This is analogous to Fig.~\ref{fig:TuningWithImperfections} in which $a_2$ can be tuned at constant frequency by changing only $V_1$ and $V_2$ while leaving $V_3$ fixed.
\SampleCoveredTrapTable
\SampleCoveredTrapTableAbsolute
The effect of a grounded radial boundary at $\rt_c$ (rather than at infinity) can also be calculated.
The superposition
\begin{align}
V(0,\zt) = \sum_{i=1}^N \Delta V_i \, &\Phi_i(\zt;\rt_c,\zt_c)\nonumber\\
+ V_c \, &\Phi_c(\zt;\rt_c,\zt_c)
\end{align}
has dimensionless potentials that depend the distance to the radial boundary, $\rt_c$, as well as upon $\zt_c$. The first of these,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_i(\zt; \rt_c,\zt_c) = \frac{\rt_i}{\rt_c} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{2J_1(\alpha_{0n}\frac{\rt_i}{\rt_c})}{\alpha_{0n}J_1\,\!^2(\alpha_{0n})} \frac{\sinh\left(\alpha_{0n} \frac{\zt-\zt_c}{\rt_c}\right)}{\sinh\left(\alpha_{0n} \frac{\zt_c}{\rt_c}\right)},\tag{\ref{eq:PhiiGrounded}}
\end{equation}
was used earlier in Eq.~\ref{eq:PhiiGrounded} to describe a grounded enclosure around a planar trap. The second,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_c(\zt;\rt_c,\zt_c) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{2}{\alpha_{0n}J_1(\alpha_{0n})} \frac{\sinh\left(\alpha_{0n} \frac{\zt}{\rt_c}\right)}{\sinh\left(\alpha_{0n} \frac{\zt_c}{\rt_c}\right)},
\end{equation}
goes to the uniform field limit of Eq.~\ref{eq:UniformFieldLimit} in the limit of large $\rt_c$.
These potentials can be used to investigate radial boundary effects as needed, though we will not give examples here.
\subsection{Mirror-Image Trap}
\label{sec:MirrorImageTraps}
\MirrorImagePlanarTrapThreeDimensionsFigure
A mirror-image planar trap (Fig.~\ref{fig:MirrorImagePlanarTrapThreeDimensions}) is a set of two planar electrodes that are biased identically and face each other. The axial potential,
\begin{align}
V(0, \zt) = \sum_{i=1}^N &\Delta V_i \left[ \Phi_i(\zt; \zt_c) + \Phi_i(\zt_c-\zt; \zt_c)\right],\label{eq:MirrorImageTrapPotential}
\end{align}
is a function of the dimensionless potentials defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:PhiiGrounded}.
For a two-gap mirror-image trap there are only four scaled parameters to be chosen ($\rt_2$, $\zt_c$, $\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$). The mirror-image symmetry of the electrodes ensures that the potential minimum is midway between the electrode planes and that all odd-order $C_k$ vanish. The constraints are $C_2=1$, $C_4=0$ and $C_{22}=0$, the latter giving the orthogonality property discussed below. With one more parameter than constraints, the possible geometries for a two-gap mirror-image trap are given by the dotted curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleCoveredTrapGeometries}. The filled circle on this curve represents the trap geometry that is used to illustrate the properties of a mirror-image trap in Fig.~\ref{fig:MirrorImagePlanarTrapThreeDimensions} and in Tables \ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrap}-\ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrapAbsolute}.
The properties of a mirror-image trap are similar to those of the cylindrical Penning trap (Fig.~\ref{fig:QuantumJumps}c) used to suspend one electron and to observe its one-quantum cyclotron transitions and spin flips. A charged particle suspended midway between the two electrode planes sees a potential that is symmetric under reflections across this midplane, in which case all odd-order potential coefficients ($C_3$, $C_5$, etc.) vanish, as for the cylindrical trap (Sec.~\ref{sec:CylindricalTrap}). Also, as for a cylindrical trap, we can choose the potentials applied to the trap electrodes to make a trap with a very small $C_4$, whereupon $a_2$ and $a_3$ are very small.
\SampleMirrorImageTrapTable
\SampleMirrorImageTrapTableAbsolute
A useful property of mirror-image traps and cylindrical traps is that both of these can be ``orthogonalized'' in a way that a planar trap cannot. A single potential (applied to two electrodes with mirror-image symmetry) is tuned to minimize the amplitude-dependence of the axial frequency. The trap is orthogonalized in that this tuning does not change the axial frequency, which in general would take it out of resonance with the detection circuit.
Fig.~\ref{fig:MirrorImagePlanarTrapThreeDimensions}b shows equipotentials spaced by $V_0$ for the mirror image Penning trap of Table~\ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrap}. The equipotentials are calculated for infinitesimal gaps, but the electrodes are represented with finite gaps to make them visible. The equipotentials terminate in the gaps between electrodes. The dashed equipotentials of an ideal quadrupole are superimposed near the trap center.
\bigskip
\subsection{Mirror-Image Trap Transformed\\ to a Covered Trap}
\label{sec:Mirror-ImageToCoveredTrap}
At least for initial studies it may be useful first to load an electron into the center of an orthogonalized mirror-image trap. The presence of a single electron can be established with established methods used with cylindrical Penning traps. The challenge is then to adiabatically change the potentials applied to the electrodes to turn the mirror-image trap into a covered planar trap. It is crucial that the electron not be lost. If a high quality trapping well can be maintained throughout the transfer, then it may even be possible to monitor the electron at intermediate points between the two configurations.
We investigate the feasibility of transferring from the mirror-image trap discussed above (Tables \ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrap}-\ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrapAbsolute}) to the optimized, covered planar trap discussed in the last section (Tables \ref{table:SampleCoveredTrap}-\ref{table:SampleCoveredTrapAbsolute}). The electrode geometry chosen for our example is the lone point in Fig.~\ref{fig:PossibleCoveredTrapGeometries} for which it is possible to make an orthogonalized mirror-image trap and also to make a the most highly optimized covered planar Penning trap. The potentials applied to achieve the mirror-image trap are those to the far right in Fig.~\ref{fig:MirrorImagePotentials}. The potentials applied to realize the covered planar trap are those to the far left in Fig.~\ref{fig:MirrorImagePotentials}.
\MirrorImagePotentialsFigure
For these traps there are six parameters to choose: five relative trap potentials ($\Vt_1$, $\Vt_2$, $\Vt^{top}_1$, $\Vt^{top}_2$, $\Vt^{top}_3$) and $\zt_0$. During the transfer we can choose a particular $\zt_0$ as a constraint, along with four others that we have discussed earlier, $C_1=C_3=C_4=0$ and $C_2=1$. Since there are more parameters than constraints there is some freedom in the choice of potentials during the transfer, provided that solutions exist. Our choice of intermediate potentials in Fig.~\ref{fig:MirrorImagePotentials}
was made to avoid large potential differences between electrodes (discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:PracticalLimitationsOnGaps}). The axial oscillation frequency does not change during the transfer. Also, the trap remains optimized during every point in the transfer, with $a_2=a_3=C_3=C_4=0$. It may thus be possible to detect the electron's axial oscillation at every step of the transfer.
\section{Damping and Detecting an Axial Oscillation}
\label{sec:Damping}
\subsection{Damping and Detection in a Planar Trap}
The damping rate $\gamma_z$ for the axial motion of a trapped particle is the observed resonance linewidth for the axial motion in the limit of a vanishing oscillation amplitude. A thermal distribution of axial oscillation amplitudes broadens the observed resonance linewidth when the axial frequency is amplitude dependent. When the oscillation energy has fourier components that extend well beyond the damping linewidth, it is difficult to detect the oscillation with the narrow-band detection methods needed to observe the small signal from a single particle. For the cylindrical Penning trap used to observe one-quantum transitions of a single trapped electron \cite{QuantumCyclotron} this was not a problem. The thermal anharmonicity contribution to the linewidth was less than the damping linewidth. For the Ulm planar trap the situation was very different. The thermal width was $10^5$ times larger than the damping linewidth, making it impossible to observe a single electron at all \cite{ElectronsInPlanarPenningTrapUlm}.
In preceding sections we focused upon minimizing the amplitude-dependence of the axial frequency so that the thermal broadening could be reduced. Just as important is increasing the axial damping linewidth. Here we discuss what is needed to maximize the electron's damping rate. Maximizing the damping maximizes the detected signal as well.
The usual method to probe the axial oscillation of a single trapped particle is to detect the current that its axial motion induces in a resistor $R$ connected to its electrodes \cite{FirstSingleElectron1973,Review}. This resistance also damps the motion. The energy dissipated in the resistor comes from the axial motion of the trapped particle, which is thereby damped to the bottom of the axial potential well. In practice the resistor is a tuned circuit that is resonant at the axial oscillation frequency, at which frequency it acts as a pure resistance.
\DetectingAndDampingCircuitFigure
For a planar Penning trap, Fig.~\ref{fig:DetectingAndDampingCircuit} illustrates how the AC connections between the circuit and the electrodes can be made to the same electrodes that are DC biased to form the trapping potential. Alternatively, an extra gap (e.g.,\ the dashed circle labeled $\rho_d$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:DetectingAndDampingCircuit}) can be added to one of the trap's electrodes to maximize the damping and detection, as will be discussed. This damping-detection gap can coincide with one of the gaps already chosen to minimize the amplitude-dependence of the axial frequency. When the extra gap does not coincide with one of the others, the extra gap will not change the electrostatic trapping potential insofar as the same DC bias voltage is applied to either side of the additional gap.
The circuit in Fig.~\ref{fig:DetectingAndDampingCircuit} represents one way to connect the detection and damping resistance, $R$, to the electrodes of a three-gap planar trap. The current induced by the particle's axial oscillation makes an instantaneous voltage $V_I$ across the resistance. This induced voltage exerts a reaction force on the trapped particle. The thermal Johnson noise from random electron motions within the resistor induces an additional instantaneous noise voltage $V_n$ across the resistor and electrodes. The oscillatory voltage $V_I + V_n$ on the effective damping electrode for which $\rho < \rho_d$ both drives the particle's axial motion and is detected.
The particle is in the near field of the potential
\begin{equation}
V_{osc}=(V_I + V_n)\phi_d
\end{equation}
produced by this oscillatory voltage, where the electrostatic potential
\begin{equation}
\phi_d(\zt) = 1-\frac{\zt}{\sqrt{(\rt_d)^2+\zt^2}}
\end{equation}
follows from Eq.~\ref{eq:Exactphii}.
For a potential $V_i$ applied to electrode $i$, the instantaneous electric field on a particle oscillating near its equilibrium position at $\zt = \zt_0$ is
\begin{equation}
E_i(\zt_0) \approx -\frac{D_1}{2\rho_1} V_i.
\end{equation}
The factor $D_1$ depends upon electrodes to which a voltage is applied to make the field. For a voltage applied just to the damping and detection electrode,
\begin{equation}
D_1 = C_{1d} = \frac{-2(\rt_d)^2}{\left[(\zt_0)^2+(\rt_d)^2\right]^{3/2}},
\end{equation}
where the potential expansion coefficient $C_{1i}$ is defined in Eqs.~\ref{eq:Phii}-\ref{eq:Cki}.
There is a maximum coupling of the circuit and a trapped particle insofar as $C_{1d}$ has a maximum magnitude at
\begin{equation}
\rho_d = \sqrt{2}\,\zt_0.\label{eq:MaximumDamping}
\end{equation}
The coupling coefficient is then given by
\begin{equation}
C_{1d}^{(opt)} = \frac{-4 \times 3^{-3/2}}{\zt_0} \approx \frac{-0.77}{\zt_0}.
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:MaximizedDamping}a illustrates the maximum for all values of $\zt_0$.
\MaximizedDampingFigure
If instead the electrodes of the optimized planar trap are attached to the resistance, without adding an extra gap at $\rho_d$, then $D_1$ is the sum of the $C_{1i}$ for the electrodes attached to the resistor. If the central two electrodes are attached to the detection circuit, for example, then $D_1=C_{11}+C_{12}$. The coefficients $C_{1i}$ for the optimized configurations of our sample trap are listed in Table \ref{table:SampleTrap}, as is $C_{1d}^{(opt)}$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:MaximizedDamping}b shows how the various possibilities for these coefficients and sums depend upon $\zt_0$.
The induced signal,
\begin{equation}
V_I =\frac{q D_1}{2\rho_1} R \dot{z}, \label{eq:InducedSignal}
\end{equation}
is proportional to the axial velocity of the oscillating particle, as well as to $D_1$ and $R$ \cite{Review}.
The damping force that arises from this induced potential produces the damping rate for a particle of charge $q$ and mass $m$,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_z = \left(\frac{q D_1}{2\rho_1}\right)^2 \frac{R}{m},\label{eq:DampingRate}
\end{equation}
that goes as the square of $D_1$ \cite{Review}. One power of $D_1$ arises because the induced current is proportional to $D_1$. The second power arises
because a potential on the electrodes induces a damping force that is also proportional to $D_1$. The damping rates for a
resistor connected between a single electrode and ground are listed in Table~\ref{table:SampleTrapAbsolute} for $R=100
~\rm{k}\Omega$. The maximum damping rate $\gamma_z^{(opt)}$ that pertains for Eq.~\ref{eq:MaximumDamping} is also tabulated for comparison. As noted above, if the resistor is connected to more than one electrode then the appropriate coefficients $C_{1i}$ for the connected
electrodes must be summed to make $D_1$ before squaring.
The thermal Johnson noise in the resistor drives a particle that is near to its equilibrium location with a driving force
\begin{equation}
F_n \approx \frac{q D_1}{2\rho_1} V_n. \label{eq:NoiseForce}
\end{equation}
For the circuit shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DetectingAndDampingCircuit} we have $D_1=C_{1d}$.
An external driving force may be added to drive the axial motion of a trapped particle.
Such a driving force has the advantage that a larger oscillation amplitude and hence a larger induced signal is produced at just the frequency of the drive in the steady state. A larger oscillation amplitude, of course, makes it more important to minimize the amplitude-dependence of the axial frequency.
One choice is to apply an oscillatory driving voltage $V_D$ to the third electrode, between $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:DetectingAndDampingCircuit}. The applied driving potential, $V_D$, produces a driving force on a particle near its equilibrium location that is given by
\begin{equation}
F_D \approx \frac{q D_1}{2\rho_1} V_D. \label{eq:DrivingForce}
\end{equation}
For $V_D$ applied to the third electrode we have $D_1=C_{13}$.
\subsection{Damping and Detection in a Covered Trap}
For a covered planar trap, the damping and the detected signal is maximized by introducing an extra gap at radius $\rho_d$ and connecting the damping resistor to each of the electrodes with radius $\rho \le \rho_d$. The choice $\rho_d^{(opt)}$ that gives the maximum damping and detection signal, along with the corresponding $C_{1d}^{(opt)}$ and $\gamma_z^{(opt)}$, are displayed in Tables~\ref{table:SampleCoveredTrap} and \ref{table:SampleCoveredTrapAbsolute}. This detection configuration offers an appreciable detection efficiency. For some achievable values of $z_0$ the detection efficiency is nearly maximized without the need to make an extra gap in the electrode plane.
As mentioned earlier, covered planar traps are scalable in that an array of traps can share the same covering plane, with the axial frequency and the harmonic properties of each trap being tuned separately by the potentials applied to the other electrodes. Multiple traps can also share the same detection circuit if the detection resistor is attached to the covering plane -- a great simplification in practice. Many trapped electrons could be simultaneously detected with one circuit if their axial frequencies are tuned to be slightly different but within the detector's bandwidth. A coupling between two electrons takes place during the time that their two traps are tuned to make their axial frequencies the same.
\subsection{Damping and Detection in a Mirror-Image Trap}
For a mirror-image trap, the damping and hence the signal is maximized by connecting all of the electrodes in one plane to the damping resistor (i.e., $\rho_d^{(opt)} \rightarrow \infty$). Choosing $\rho_d = z_c/2$ gives $\gamma_z$ that is 64\% of the total possible damping. Choosing $\rho_d = z_c$ gives $\gamma_z$ that is 98\% of the total possible damping. For the sample mirror-image planar trap (Tables~\ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrap} and \ref{table:SampleMirrorImageTrapAbsolute}), connecting the damping resistor to the first two electrodes of one of the planes (i.e., choosing $\rt_d = \rt_2$) results in $\gamma_z = 2\pi\,13.23$ s$^{-1}$, which is 92\% of the damping that would result from detecting the signal induced on the entire electrode plane.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
A cylindrical Penning trap has been used to observe one-quantum spin flip and cyclotron transitions of a single trapped electron. Attempts to make similar observations in a planar Penning trap did not succeed, generating some pessimism about whether this is possible. In this report we show how to optimize the properties of a planar Penning trap to reduce the deadly amplitude dependence of the monitored axial frequency by orders of magnitude, and how to optimize the damping and detection. We introduce a covered planar trap that is well-isolated from its environment, readily scalable to an array of one-electron traps, with one detector promising to suffice for the efficient simultaneous detection of multiple particles. We also introduce mirror-image planar traps that are an attractive option because of their reflection symmetry. Mirror-image traps can be electrically transformed into a covered planar trap while a particle is stored within. The optimized planar trap designs that are proposed offer new routes toward observing a single electron in a planar trap, realizing a one-electron qubit, and using a scalable array of such qubits for quantum information studies.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are grateful for the support of the NSF and AFOSR. Part of this work was completed while G.G.\ was supported by a Alexander von Humboldt Research Award. Some computations were carried out using the Odyssey cluster of the Harvard FAS Research Computing Group. We are grateful to P.\ Bushev, F.\ Galve, F.\ Schmidt-Kaler, and G.\ Werth for helpful comments on this report.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bigskip
\centerline{--------------------------------------}
|
\section{GMSB Models}
In GMSB models Supersymmetry is communicated from the secluded sector
to the visible sector through a flavor-blind SM gauge interaction via
messenger fields at a scale $M_m$ small compared to the Planck mass.
Squarks, sleptons and gauginos obtain their masses radiatively from
the gauge interactions with the massive messenger fields. The minimal
GMSB model ist characterised by six fundamental parameters: the
effective SUSY breaking scale $\Lambda$, the mass of the messengers
$M_m$, the number of messenger SU(5) supermultiplets $N_5$, the ratio
of the Higgs vacuum expectation values tan$\beta$, the sign of the
Higgsino mass term sgn$\mu$ and the scale factor of the gravitino
coupling \ensuremath{C_{\rm grav}} which determines the NLSP lifetime. If R-parity is
assumed to be conserved the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP),
the gravitino $\widetilde{G}$, is stable. In large parts of the
parameter space the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) is
the $\tilde{\tau}$. An example is the scenario called GMSB6 with
$\Lambda$=40\,TeV, $M_m$=250\,TeV, $N_5$=3, $\tan\beta$=30, $\rm
sgn\mu$=+ and \ensuremath{C_{\rm grav}}=1, where $\rm m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$=102.8\,GeV.
GMSB models with $\tilde{\tau}_1$ NLSP have been searched for at
LEP~\cite{bib:LEPexl}. For prompt decays, $\tilde{\tau}_1$ NLSPs with
masses below 87\,GeV have been excluded.
\section{Study of the Discovery Potential in the GMSB Parameter Space}
In regions of the GMSB parameter space where the NLSP is the
$\tilde{\tau}_1$, long cascade decays of the initial squarks and
gluinos lead to many highly energetic jets, many $\tau$ leptons, and a
significant amount of missing transverse energy ($E_T^{\rm miss}$) due
to the escaping $\widetilde{G}$. For this reason the following
preselection is applied: events must pass the trigger selection
containing at least one jet with $p_T >$ 70\,GeV and $E_T^{\rm miss}
>$ 30\,GeV, two or more reconstructed jets have to be found (leading
jet $p_T >$ 100\,GeV, second-leading jet $p_T >$ 50\,GeV), at least
one hadronically decaying $\tau$ lepton has to be found (leading $\tau\,
p_T >$ 20\,GeV), $E_T^{\rm miss}$ has to exceed 60\,GeV and the
azimuthal angle between the leading jet and the direction of $E_T^{\rm
miss}$ needs to exceed 0.2. This selection yields a signal
efficiency of 43\% for the GMSB6 scenario. The remaining SM background
mainly consists of $t\bar{t}$ and $W$ events. For further suppression
of this SM background a two-dimensional optimisation of
$S=N_S/\sqrt{N_B}$, where $N_S$ $(N_B)$ is the number of signal
(background) events, has been performed. The maximum significance $S$
can be achieved for $E_T^{\rm miss} >$ 280\,GeV and $N_{\tau}\ge 2$
yielding $20.4\pm0.7$ signal events for the GMSB6 scenario and
$2.5\pm1.5$ expected background events for $\rm {\cal
L}=200\,pb^{-1}$~\cite{bib:GMSBpubnote}.
The discovery potential in the GMSB parameter space is studied in the
($\Lambda$-$\tan\beta$)-plane for $M_m=250$\,TeV, $N_5=3$, \mbox{$\rm
sgn\mu=+$} and $\ensuremath{C_{\rm grav}}=1$. These parameter values restrict the
analysis to specific, promptly decaying NLSPs. The number of selected
signal events in the ($\Lambda-\tan\beta$)-plane for $\rm
200\,pb^{-1}$ and the expected number of background events can be
translated into a signal significance as a function of the integrated
luminosity $\cal L$. The corresponding results are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:scan1}. However, this simple definition neglects the
influence of systematic uncertainties on the background expectation.
These relative uncertainties have been estimated to be 50\% for a
centre-of-mass energy of 10\,TeV. A more appropriate calculation of
the significance $Z_n$ including these systematic
uncertainties~\cite{bib:CSCBook} (p.1590) provides a more conservative
estimate of the signal significance as displayed in
Fig.~\ref{fig:scan2}. This significance definition reduces the
parameter region for a 5$\sigma$ discovery with $\rm {\cal
L}=200\,pb^{-1}$ ($\rm 1\,fb^{-1}$) from $\Lambda\sim$ 50\,TeV
(60\,TeV) to $\Lambda\sim$ 40\,TeV (45\,TeV). The discovery reach is
limited by the systematic uncertainty of the background.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[]{%
\label{fig:scan1}%
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{GMSBScan_Scan}}
\subfigure[]{%
\label{fig:scan2}%
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{GMSBScan_Scan2}}
\caption{Integrated luminosity needed for a signal significance of
$S=5$ or $Z_n=5$, respectively, in the ($\Lambda$-$\tan\beta$)-plane
for $M_m=250\,TeV$, $N_5=3$, $\rm sgn\mu=+$ and $\ensuremath{C_{\rm grav}}=1$ using (a)
the simple calculation of the significance $S$ and (b) $Z_n$
properly including the systematic uncertainties.}
\label{fig:ScanGMSB}
\end{figure}
\section{Study of the Invariant Di-Tau Mass Distribution}
After a possible SUSY discovery the determination of the masses of
SUSY particles is vital. In the presence of two undetected LSP only
kinematic end points of invariant mass distibutions can be measured,
mostly sensitive to differences of SUSY masses. For the study of the
kinematic end-point of the invariant mass of two $\tau$ leptons larger
datasets ($\rm 8\,fb^{-1}$) are considered. The selection is slightly
loosened compared to the one mentioned in the previous section to
allow for sufficient statistics~\cite{bib:GMSBpubnote}. Due to the
unmeasured neutrinos in $\tau$ decays the characteristic triangular
shape and therefore the kinematic end-point of the di-tau invariant
mass distribution is lost impeding its direct extraction. For this
reason the combined OS-SS distribution of the GMSB signal and the SM
background is fitted to extract the inflection point $m^{\rm
IP}_{\tau\tau} $ of the distribution which is translated into the
end-point $m_{\tau\tau}^{\rm max}$ using a linear calibration curve
following the method proposed in~\cite{bib:CSCBook}~(p.~1617). The
determination of the end-point is subject to several sources of
systematic uncertainty. Combining all systematic unceratinties the
following kinematic endpoint is obtained:
\begin{equation}
m_{\tau\tau}^{\rm max} = \left(\,135\pm 4 \,({\rm stat.})\,^{+13}_{-\,9}\,({\rm sys.})\,\pm13\,({\rm SUSY\,model})\,\right) \rm \,GeV\,.
\end{equation}
This result demonstrates that a measurement of the end-point of the
invariant di-tau mass spectrum might be possible in the GMSB6 scenario
with a small bias from additional SUSY background.
|
\section{Introduction}
Tunnelling in a double well lattice is a coherent phenomenon. This
occurs due to quantum interference between the states of the atoms
in the lattice. Grossman {\it et al.\/} \cite{grossman} has shown
that by driving a double-well potential by strong coherent field,
one can slow down the tunnelling of the wave packet in one of the
wells (left or right) and essentially can have coherent
suppression of tunnelling. This has been implied as dynamical
localization of wave packet. Once the field is switched off, the
tunnelling is resumed, reflecting the preservation of coherence in
the wave packet. Such coherent control can also be done in
molecular systems by using frequent sequence of short pulses
\cite{batista}.
It is a natural question how any incoherent event would affect a
double-well system. Caldeira and Leggett in their seminal paper
\cite{caldeira} had modelled the decoherence as a phenomenological
"frictional force" and showed that the tunnelling of the wave
function is slowed down by the decoherence process. Dynamical
localization of two-level atoms in presence of spontaneous
emission has been studied in \cite{graham}, which is an effect of
loss of coherence in the atoms.
In this paper, we focus on how to preserve the atomic coherence in
the optical lattice in presence of decoherence. We present a
technique that relies on a quantum interference approach as
originally proposed by Shapiro and Brumer \cite{book}. A suitable
choice of initial superposition of the atomic states in the
lattice creates different pathways of evolution of the states. The
quantum interference of these pathways leads to control in the
evolution of the initial state. Note that such a method has been
successful in controlling various molecular processes, including
photodissociation, scattering cross section etc. \cite{book}.
We demonstrate this technique in context of a double-well optical
lattice, prepared by a set of four counter-propagating laser
fields \cite{2well}. Specific choices of field intensity and the
polarizations of the participating fields create this lattice.
Within the pair, the barrier height and the relative depths of the
two potential minima sites are externally controllable. Such
lattice has been studied to implement two-qubit phase gate
\cite{clark} and to demonstrate controlled exchange interaction
between atoms \cite{porto}. Note that in \cite{braun}, the
spontaneous emission from a two-level atom in double-well lattice
has been studied. In the present paper, we propose a coherent
control technique to combat the spontaneous emission of atoms, the
states of which are allowed to be expanded over all bound energy
eigenstates.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we describe the
double-well optical lattice. We discuss how different external initial states of
the atoms trapped in the lattice evolve with time. In Sec. III, we investigate the effect of
the decoherence.
We discuss the control mechanism by choice of initial states.
We conclude the paper in Sec. IV.
\section{Tunnelling in double-well optical lattice}
We start with a double-well optical lattice as described in
\cite{2well}. A single laser beam initially propagating in the
$x$-direction intersects with itself at the position of the cold atom four
times through reflection in suitably positioned mirrors. This
prepares two pairs of counter-propagating beams in $x$ and $y$
direction. One can have 2-dimensional square lattice if the
polarization of the beams are in $x-y$ plane ("in-plane lattice")
or in perpendicular plane (parallel to $z$-axis; "out-of-plane"
lattice). The double-well lattice in $x-y$ plane can be generated
by combining the "in-plane" and "out-of-plane" polarizations. The
two-dimensional lattice potential thus constructed can be written
as
\begin{equation}
V(x,y)=-\frac{V_{xy}}{4}[(1-Z_f)V_1(x,y)+Z_fV_2(x,y)]\;,
\end{equation}
where $V_{xy}$ is the potential depth, $Z_f$ is the ratio of the intensities of
the "in-plane" and "out-of-plane" lattices, and
\begin{eqnarray}
V_1(x,y) &= & 4+2\cos(2kx-2\theta_{xy}-2\phi_{xy})\nonumber\\
&&+2\cos(2ky+2\phi_{xy})\;,\nonumber\\
V_2(x,y) &=& 4+4\cos(kx+ky-\theta_z)\nonumber\\
&&+4\cos(kx-ky-\theta_z-2\phi_z)\\
&&+2\cos(2kx-2\theta_z-2\phi_z)+2\cos(2ky+2\phi_z)\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $k=2\pi/\lambda$,
$\theta_{xy}$ ($\theta_z$) and $\phi_{xy}$ ($\phi_z$) are the phases of the
in-plane (out-of-plane) lattice.
We focus on the dynamics of the atomic states in one dimension, e.g., in $x$ direction. The
potential in this direction resembles a double well potential and is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
V(x,y=0) &=& -\frac{V_{xy}}{4}[6+2(1-Z_f)\cos(2kx-2\theta_{xy})\nonumber\\
&&+2\cos(2kx-2\theta_z)+8\cos(kx-\theta_z)]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
A typical form of $V(x)$ is shown in Fig. 1. The width of each double well is $\lambda$.
The phase-differences $\delta\theta=\theta_z-\theta_{xy}$ and
$\delta\phi=\phi_z-\phi_{xy}$ control the tilt of the optical lattice and
$Z_f$ controls the barrier height of the double-well.
\begin{figure}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}} \caption{Structure of
the double-well $V(x)$ in coordinate space for $Z_f=0.05$ (solid
line) and $Z_f=0.1$ (dashed line). The other parameters are
$V_{xy}=36E_R$, $\delta\theta=\pi/2$, $\delta\phi=0$, and
$E_R=3.5$ kHz. Clearly, $Z_f=0.05$ represents higher barrier.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}} \caption{Temporal
variation of the probability that a superposition state
$|L\rangle$ remains in the initial left wells. The parameters are
$Z_f=0.05$ (solid line) and $Z_f=0.1$ (dotted line). The other
parameters are $V_{xy}=36E_R$, $\delta\theta=\pi/2$,
$\delta\phi=0$, and $E_R=3.5$ kHz.}
\end{figure}
The eigenfunctions
of the lattice can be calculated using Fourier expansion method, which involves expansion of the eigenfunction
in terms of its Fourier components as follows:
\begin{equation}
\phi(x)=\sum_{n}d_ne^{2\pi inkx}\;.
\end{equation}
The normalization assures that $\sum_{n}|d_n|^2=1$. We here
consider only the states with zero quasi-momentum $q=0$. To solve
for the eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian $H=(p_x^2/2m)+V(x)$,
where $p_x$ is the momentum of the atom of mass $m$ in the
lattice, we use the above expression of $\phi(x)$ in the
eigenvalue equation $H\phi(x)=E\phi(x)$, to obtain a set of linear
algebraic equations of $d_n$'s. The eigenvalues of the
corresponding matrices are the same as those of $H$. We found that
the Hamiltonian $H$ has two near-degenerate lowest energy
wave functions $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$.
We next study the propagation of the wave functions using the
Schrodinger equation $i\dot{\psi}=H\psi$. This equation can be
solved quite efficiently using split-operator-Fourier transform
method. In our numerical simulations, we consider 20 double wells
ranging from $x=-9.75\lambda$ to $x=10.25\lambda$ and a grid size
of 512.
In the following, we will consider two different initial
conditions: (i) Superposition of the eigenstates $|0\rangle$ and
$|1\rangle$ as $|L\rangle=(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. (ii)
Superposition of a few eigenstates including $|0\rangle$ and
$|1\rangle$, that can be written as
$|\psi_G(x)\rangle=\sum_lc_l|l\rangle$, where $|l\rangle$
represents the energy eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $H$. We
will investigate the evolution of these two initial states.
Various eigenstates lead to a quantum interference of the
corresponding time-independent amplitudes. We investigate the
effect of this interference in the decay rate of the initial
coherence of the state.
We consider the initial states in such a way that the wavefunction
resides in the left wells. We calculate the time-evolution of the
probability that the wave function remains in the initial left
wells which is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{pl}P_L(t)=\sum_i\int_{x_\textrm{min,i}}^{x_\textrm{max,i}} dx \rho(x,x;t),
\end{equation}
where $x_\textrm{min,i}$ and $x_\textrm{max,i}$ are the lower and
upper limits of the $i$th left well and $\rho(x,x;t)$ represents
the diagonal elements of the density matrix of the atom. We show
in Fig. 2 the evolution of $P_L(t)$ for the state $|L\rangle$.
Clearly, the wave function tunnels through the barrier back and
forth between the left and the right well. The characteristic
time-scale of this tunnelling is found to be $\sim 2/\delta$ where
$\delta$ is the energy splitting of the of the states $|0\rangle$
and $|1\rangle$. Note that the tunnelling occurs because of the
coherence between the wave function at left and right well.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}}&\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fig4.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Variation of the probability that the single wave packet remains in the
initial left well (solid line) at $x=0$ and in the right well (dotted line) with time for (a) $Z_f=0.05$ and (b) $Z_f=0.1$.
The parameters are $\sigma=0.1\lambda$, $V_{xy}=36E_R$, $\delta\theta=\pi/2$, $\delta\phi=0$, and $E_R=3.5$ kHz.}
\end{figure*}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
Next, for the state $|\psi_G(x)\rangle$, we choose the amplitude
coefficients $c_l$ for the zero-quasi-momentum eigenstate
$|l\rangle$ as $c_0=-0.6785$, $c_1=-0.677i$, $c_2=0.0924$,
$c_3=0.10107i$, $c_4=0.15$, $c_5=-0.1602i$, $c_6=0.0976$,
$c_7=0.05777i$, $c_8=0.0305$, and $c_9=-0.02056i$. The overlap
with the other eigenstates is negligible. This state is equivalent
to a Gaussian wave packet $\psi_G(x)\equiv \exp(-x^2/2\sigma^2)$
which is peaked at the left well with center at $x=0$. The width
$\sigma$ of this wave packet is much less than that of the left
well. For the above set of values of $\{c_l\}$, $\sigma=0.1\lambda$. We show in Fig. 3, the temporal behavior of the probability
$P_L$. Clearly, the wave packet tunnels, but never returns back to
the initial left well completely. It slowly disperses over both
the wells in the lattice. The figure for the probability in the
initial left well is complemented using the figure for the
probability in the corresponding right well.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig4a_small.eps}}&\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{ProbLst01_small.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Temporal variation of the probability that the wave
function $|L\rangle$ remains in the initial left well for (a) kick
strength $m=10$: kick rates 10 Hz (thick solid line), 100 Hz (dashed line), and $10^4$ Hz
(thin solid line), (b) kick strength $m=100$: kick rates 1 Hz (thick solid line), 100 Hz (dashed line), and $10^4$ Hz (thin solid line). We chose $Z_f=0.1$.
The other parameters are the same as in Fig. 2.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig5a_small.eps}}&\scalebox{0.3}{\includegraphics{fidLst01_small.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{temporal variation of the survival probability of the
wave function $|L\rangle$ for (a) kick strength $m=10$: kick rates 10 Hz (thick solid line), 100 Hz (dashed line), and
$10^4$ Hz (thin solid line), (b) kick strength $m=100$: kick rates 1 Hz (thick solid line), 100 Hz (dashed line), and $10^4$ Hz (thin solid line). The other
parameters are the same as in Fig. 4.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig6a_small.eps}}&\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig6b_small.eps}}\\
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig6c_small.eps}}&\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig6d_small.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Temporal variation of the probability that the single
Gaussian wave packet $\psi(x)$ remains in the initial left well
[Figs. (a) and (b)] and the corresponding right well [Figs.(c) and
(d)] for kick rates 10 Hz (thick solid line), 100 Hz (dashed line), and $10^4$ Hz (thin solid
line)-- (a), (c) : $m=10$ ; (b), (d) : $m=100$. The other
parameters are as in Fig. 3(b).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig7a_small.eps}}&\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{fig7b_small.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Variation of the survival probability of the single
Gaussian wave packet with time for kick rates 10 Hz (thick solid
line), 100 Hz (dashed line), and $10^4$ Hz (thin solid line): (a)
$m=10$, (b) $m=100$. The other parameters are the same as in Fig.
3(b).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figNEW9a.eps}}&\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figNEW8.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Variation of the purity of the initial states $|L\rangle$
(dashed line) and the Gaussian state $|\psi_G(x)\rangle$ (solid
line) for the kick rates $100$ Hz and (a) $m=10$, (b) $m=100$. The
other parameters are the same as Fig. 2.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figNEW9b.eps}}&\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figNEW8b.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Variation of the purity of the initial states $|L\rangle$
(dashed line) and the Gaussian state $|\psi_G(x)\rangle$ (solid
line) for the kick rates $10^4$ Hz and (a) $m=10$, (b) $m=100$.
The other parameters are the same as Fig. 2.}
\end{figure}
\section{Effect of decoherence}
We next consider the effect of decoherence on the evolution of
these initial atomic states in the double-well. The decoherence
can occur due to spontaneous emission and the fluctuation of the
intensity of the laser fields. In this paper, we focus on the case
of spontaneous emission. The atom emits a photon of certain
wavelength $\lambda'$ while in the excited electronic states. This
imparts a recoil momentum $p'=\hbar c/\lambda'$ on the lattice
\cite{ball}, leading to an extra phase of the instantaneous wave
function as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{phase}\psi(x,t)\rightarrow \psi(x,t)e^{-i\vec{p'}.\vec{r}/\hbar}\;.
\end{equation}
Due to the randomness of the spontaneous emission, the atom emits
a photon at any random direction. Thus, $\vec{p'}$ can be random
and the time at which the phase kick occurs can also be random.
Further, because we consider an one-dimensional optical lattice in
$x$ direction, we consider the components of the recoil momentum
only at $x$ direction. Thus in spherical coordinate, the random
phase can be written as $\exp[-ik'x\sin(\theta)\cos(\phi)]$, where
$k'=2\pi/\lambda'$, and $\theta$ and $\phi$ represent the random
direction of the outgoing photon. We write $\lambda'=\lambda/m$,
where $m$ defines the strength of the phase kick. Because, the
wavelength of the standing wave in an optical lattice has to be
much larger than the atomic wavelength and the detuning of the laser from the trapped atom,
it is reasonable to consider a large value of $m$. Further, note
that we are considering the decoherence in the external states of
the atom (due to its trapping in a lattice), that occurs due to the
decoherence in the internal states (electronic states) of the
atom. We here focus on how to reduce the effect of this
decoherence in the external state of the atom.
We here analyze the time-evolution of the initial wave function from
the first principle using the Schrodinger equation, not in the
framework of master equation. In case of master equation, one
takes average over the bath degrees of freedom and thus loses the
essence of the physics that deals with random phase kick. Our
numerical procedure comprises of the following steps: We calculate
the wavefunction at each $dt$ time-interval. (i) We evolve the
wave function for a time $\delta t$ ($\le dt$) if there occurs a
phase kick at random time $\delta t$. (ii) Next we incorporate a
random phase on the instantaneous wave function at the time
$\delta t$, according to Eq.(\ref{phase}). (iii) The wave function
again evolves for the time-interval $dt-\delta t$. If multiple
phase kicks occur in a given interval $dt$, we evolve the wave
function under the action of the Hamiltonian $H$ during the
time-intervals between two random kicks. (iv) We find the
wavefunction at $dt$ time-interval. We use a Monte Carlo method over $N=50$ iterations. Thus at any time
$t$, the density matrix of the atoms can be written as
$\rho(x,x';t)=(1/N)\sum_{k=1}^N \rho_k(x,x';t)$, where
$\rho_k(x,x';t)=\psi_k(x,t)\psi_k^*(x',t)$ and $\psi_k(x,t)$ is
the instantaneous wave function of the atom for the $k$th
iteration. The expression for the probability $P_L(t)$ in the
initial left well can then be written as Eq. (\ref{pl}). In the
following, we also investigate the variation of the survival
probability as given by
\begin{equation}
F(t)=\int dx \int dx' \psi(x,t=0)\rho(x,x';t)\psi^*(x',t=0)\;,
\end{equation}
and the variation of the purity of the wave function as given by
\begin{equation}
M(t)=\int dx \int dx' \rho(x,x';t)\rho(x',x;t)\;.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Case of the state $|L\rangle$}
We first investigate the evolution of the state $|L\rangle$ which
is a superposition of the two lowest-eigenenergy
zero-quasi-momentum states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$. For a
small rate of random phase kicks (= 1 Hz or 10 Hz), the atoms tunnel back
forth between the left and the right well. This means that the state
remains almost coherent. This is true for both strong ($m=100$) and weak
kicks ($m=10$). However for a larger kick rate ($\sim 100$ Hz),
the larger the kick strength $m$, the more the wavefunction gets
diffused throughout the double-well. One can see from Fig. 4 that
the probability $P_L$ that the wavefunction remains in the initial
left well becomes $\sim 0.5$ at longer times. This is a signature
of the decoherence. We have also plotted the survival probability
$F(t)$ of the initial wave function to see the nature of
decoherence. In Fig. 5, we show how $F(t)$ decays very rapidly
with times if one increases the kick strength as well as the kick
rate. The similar nature of the variation of probability being in
the initial wells and the survival probability reflects the fact
the decoherence occurs more due to population redistribution among
the wells, rather than any dephasing.
\subsection{Case of the Gaussian wave packet}
We next consider a Gaussian wave packet with a width
$\sigma=0.1\lambda$, such that the wave packet exactly fits into
the left well located at $x=0$. At the boundaries of the
double-well, the wave packet almost vanishes. This wave packet is
a superposition of several eigenfunctions of the lattice, as mentioned before.
We show in Fig. 6 the temporal variation of the probability that
the wave packet remains in the initial left well. Clearly, for
larger kick strength and larger kick rate, the wave packet gets
diffused throughout the lattice. The much larger kick rate leads
to faster diffusion without any oscillation. However, for weak
kick strength [see Figs. 6(a), 6(c)], the wave packet starts
oscillating back and forth between the initial left well and the
right well. This result is complemented by the plot of the
survival probability in Fig. 7, which shows that the state is
preserved for the corresponding parameters.
A comparison of the Figs. 5(a) and 7(a) reveals that for an
initial Gaussian wave packet, a moderate kick strength preserves
the survival probability for longer times, whereas for an initial
state $|L\rangle$, this vanishes rapidly. This observation leads
us to the main result of our paper: A suitable superposition of
several wave functions provides longer preservation of the state
of the system than a superposition of a fewer wave functions. Note
that the Gaussian wave packet is made up of several eigenfunctions
of the system, where the state $|L\rangle$ is a superposition of
only two eigenfunctions.
As the survival probability does not refer coherence, we further
choose to study the temporal behavior of the purity $M(t)$.
$M(t)=1$ refers to a pure state. In Figs. 8 and 9, we have shown
that the purity in the Gaussian wave packet decays in a slower
rate than that in the state $|L\rangle$ for different sets of
values of kick rate and kick strength. For a moderate kick rate
(100 Hz) and a moderate kick strength ($m=10$), the Gaussian wave
packet exhibits a purity $\sim 0.8$, which is much larger than
that ($\sim 0.3$) of the state $|L\rangle$ at a time $t\sim
40/E_R$ [see Fig. 8(a)]. This further verifies the fact that a
suitable superposition of the energy eigenfunctions exhibits a
better preservation of coherence in the external states of the
atoms.
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusions, we show how the atomic coherence in an optical double-well
lattice can be preserved by a suitable control technique. We
choose an extended lattice in one dimension and model the
decoherence as a sequence of random phase kicks during spontaneous
emission. We show that upon suitable choice of particular initial
superposition of the lattice eigenfunctions, one can preserve the
coherence in atomic external state even in the presence of decoherence in its internal states. This
control relies upon the quantum interference between the several
pathways that are led due to initial choice of the superposition
states.
\section{Acknowledgements}
I gratefully thank Prof. Paul Brumer for his useful advice and
suggestions during this work. I also thank Prof. Aephraim
Steinberg, Dr. Michael Spanner, and Dr. Carlos Arango for their
useful comments on this work.
|
Subsets and Splits